Saks’ reportedly impending bankruptcy filing is not the only legal challenge confronting the luxury retailer. Months before recent reports emerged that it is preparing for Chapter 11, Saks Global Enterprises lodged a strongly-worded suit against Puck publisher Heat Media Inc. and reporter William Cohan, accusing them of engaging in a “sustained campaign of false and sensationalist reporting.” Saks’ lawsuit – which alleges that Puck’s reporting strategically portrayed it as “mismanaged and on the brink of collapse” – now collides with subsequent reporting that the retailer is on the brink of seeking bankruptcy protection.
In a complaint filed on October 7 in Delaware Superior Court, Saks claims that Puck and Cohan published “false, misleading, and defamatory statements” about it “under the guise of journalism.” According to Saks, those statements were delivered “with a false imprimatur of certainty,” thereby, “shap[ing] public perception” and having “measurable effects in the marketplace.”
The company stated in its filing this fall that it is not bankrupt and that it did not conceal a precarious financial position from lenders, investors, or other stakeholders, despite Puck’s reporting to the contrary.
Bias, Conflicts of Interest & Actual Malice
Currently in early stages, Saks’ case centers on its allegation that in the wake of its $2.7 billion acquisition of Neiman Marcus Group in December 2024, Puck and Cohan published a series of “hit pieces” that “prioritiz[ed] sensationalism over accuracy.” Saks states that the reporting was “not good-faith journalism” nor was it the result of “confusion or misunderstanding.” Instead, Saks says that Puck’s coverage amounts to “knowing falsity or, at minimum, reckless disregard for the truth,” with Cohan publishing inaccurate statements about Saks’ operations and “blatant distortions” of core financing concepts at Saks’ expense.
In its bid to successfully wage defamation causes of action, Saks contends that Puck’s alleged wrongdoing goes beyond factual disputes to a broader reporting process that demonstrates “actual malice.” To prevail, Saks must plead that Puck’s statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, a demanding defamation standard that applies because Saks is a public-facing corporate actor engaged in matters of public concern.
Among the allegations aimed at demonstrating actual malice, Saks accuses Puck of “cherry-pick[ing] numbers, strip[ping] statements of their context, and ignor[ing] explanations that contradict its storyline.” This is compounded, per Saks, by Puck publishing stories without incorporating corrections and ignoring context provided by the company, and continuing to publish “recycled” reporting even after Saks alerted Puck that the reporting was false.
Saks further alleges that Cohan had undisclosed professional relationships connected to Saks Global’s investors – conflicts that, according to the complaint, undermine claims of independent reporting and support an inference of reckless disregard for the truth. Saks argues that Puck’s failure to disclose or manage Cohan’s conflicts departs not only from journalistic norms, but from the care required when reporting market-sensitive financial information.
Still yet, Saks takes issue with Puck’s subscription-based business model, arguing that its reliance on “click-driven readership and subscriber engagement” incentivizes sensational coverage of financial distress. Stories forecasting “imminent collapse or crisis” generate greater readership than more measured reporting, per Saks, a dynamic it claims contributed to the allegedly defamatory framing at play.
In short: Puck’s coverage is “not the product of fair reporting or protected opinion,” Saks argues, asserting that Puck crossed the line from commentary into knowingly false assertions of fact. The company claims the coverage damaged its reputation, rattled vendors and investors, and even affected bond trading by injecting misinformation into the market.
With the foregoing in mind, Saks is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, reimbursement for lost profits and costs incurred responding to the reporting.
In a statement this fall, a Puck spokesperson said, “Puck stands by its reporting and looks forward to defending against this meritless suit.”
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Almost three months after Saks filed suit, both the Wall Street Journal and Reuters reported that it was preparing for bankruptcy. After missing an interest payment exceeding $100 million on debt incurred in connection with its acquisition of Neiman Marcus last year, the Wall Street Journal reported on December 31 that the retailer is “financially strained by this debt burden,” while Reuters reports that Saks was preparing for a potential Chapter 11 filing and is in talks with creditors over bankruptcy financing.
The litigation now unfolds against a markedly altered factual backdrop, including reporting that, while separate from Puck’s coverage, could, complicate Saks’ insistence that earlier narratives of financial distress were fabricated.
The case is Saks Global Enterprises v. Heat Media Inc., N25C-10-070 (Del. Super. Ct.).
Share
