A headline-making lawsuit between Saks and one of its former executives is heating up, as the parties spar over whether a federal court in Texas is the proper place for the luxury industry’s latest non-compete case. In response to the lawsuit filed against her by Saks Global Enterprises and Neiman Marcus Group, Yumi Shin argues that the Texas court lacks jurisdiction over her and that the employment agreement Saks relies on is no longer valid. Saks and NMG are accusing the ex-Bergdorf Goodman Chief Merchandising Officer of breaching her contracts and misappropriating confidential company information in connection with her jump to join rival Nordstrom.
The Background in Brief: The lawsuit that Saks and NMG filed in the Northern District of Texas in November stems from Shin’s October 2025 departure from Saks -owned Bergdorf Goodman to join Nordstrom, a direct competitor. Saks, which acquired NMG in December 2024, alleges that Shin violated a series of restrictive covenants across multiple agreements by accepting the new role and engaged in misappropriation by “downloading large quantities of confidential information and trade secrets” from the broader Saks and NMG organization before she left.
A Fight Over Forum
In response to Saks and NMG’s complaint, Shin filed a motion to dismiss on December 2, raising a central question: can a Texas court hear a case against a New York-based executive who has never lived or worked in Texas? She argues that she has worked exclusively for Bergdorf Goodman in New York since 2018, with no material ties to Texas. Saks, she contends, relies solely on a forum selection clause in a 2022 Restrictive Covenant Agreement (“RCA”), a contract she says was replaced by later agreements that omitted any reference to Texas.
Between 2022 and 2024, Shin signed multiple agreements, many governed by Delaware law and either silent on venue or designating Delaware as the exclusive forum. She argues that the 2022 RCA was expressly superseded by a 2023 contract that included its own restrictive terms and an integration clause nullifying prior agreements on the same subject.
Even if jurisdiction were proper, Shin maintains that Saks’ claims for unjust enrichment and conversion should still be dismissed. The crux of her argument: under well-established state law, such quasi-contract claims cannot proceed when a valid contract governs the dispute. She notes that Saks ties these claims to her 2023 and 2024 agreements, which she argues are governed by contract and cannot support separate tort claims.
And finally, in a brief response to Saks’ misappropriation allegations, Shin states that the retailer’s complaint “does not allege that [she] actually misappropriated any trade secrets, let alone that she did so in or affecting Texas.”
>> In the latest back-and-forth, Saks opposed Shin’s bid for dismissal, arguing in a December 12 brief that the 2022 RCA remains valid and establishes Texas as the proper forum. It contends that subsequent agreements either reaffirm the 2022 RCA or do not override it, and that Shin’s claims of supersession lack support. Saks also defends its unjust enrichment and conversion claims as properly pleaded alternatives that should not be dismissed at this stage.
A Luxury Power Play in the Courts
The jurisdictional dispute comes as Saks navigates the post-acquisition integration of Neiman Marcus, a process marked by significant debt and senior leadership changes. At the same time, it also highlights a broader issue that often arises in executive contracting during corporate transitions, particularly in the luxury sector, where M&A activity and leadership turnover can result in overlapping or conflicting agreements.
Shin, once a key figure at Bergdorf Goodman, now finds herself in the legal crosshairs of her former employer turned rival. Her motion characterizes the lawsuit as a strategic attempt to litigate in a forum with no meaningful connection to her or the dispute, suggesting that Saks is leveraging Texas courts to gain a procedural advantage in enforcing restrictive covenants.
The case is Saks Global Enterprises LLC et al v. Shin, 3:25-cv-03260 (N.D. Tx.).
Share
