A striking new lawsuit filed by Natalie Massenet consists of a slew of tawdry allegations, in which the Net-a-Porter founder accuses her former partner, Frame co-founder Erik Torstensson, of everything from adultery to illegal drug use. Yet beyond the scandalous allegations in the newly-filed complaint lies a business case that cuts to the heart of equity, investment, and value creation in some of the most prominent consumer brands of the past decade.
Setting the stage in the complaint that was filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on August 20, Massenet states that she is known for founding luxury e-commerce powerhouse Net-a-Porter, which is how she met Torstensson back in 2009. After her exit from Net-a-Porter in 2015, Massenet co-founded Imaginary Ventures, a fund has grown to over $1.5 billion in assets under management and has invested in start-up companies at the intersection of fashion and technology, including Glossier, Reformation, Everlane, and Westman Atelier.
Against this background, Massenet argues that she amassed resources, credibility, and connections that were not merely background to Torstensson’s own rise in the industry but were instrumental in shaping his career as an entrepreneur. From the launch of Frame in 2012 to Torstensson’s subsequent entry into a series of big-name consumer brands, the complaint portrays Massenet as more than a partner: She was a source of capital and credibility for Torstensson. And by casting herself in this role, Massenet situates her contributions as those of an early investor whose support carried both financial and strategic weight, complete with legal significance.
The $95 Million Question
At the center of the case is Massenet’s assertion that she spent more than $95 million over the course of their relationship, covering real estate, lifestyle, and business expenses in reliance on Torstensson’s repeated assurances that she would be repaid when his ventures delivered liquidity. The filing characterizes these expenditures not as personal indulgences but as early-stage backing akin to seed investment, support that allegedly enabled Torstensson to redirect his own cash into business opportunities now worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
The complaint points to several of those holdings: Torstensson allegedly maintains an interest in Frame worth about $100 million, and as of 2024, drew a $1.5 million annual base salary from the company. His stake in SKIMS, Kim Kardashian’s shapewear brand, allegedly exceeds $300 million. Additional equity in Good American, Safely, Brady, and other brands is also cited, with the filing contending that Massenet’s introductions and Imaginary’s backing provided privileged access to these deals.
Collectively, Massenet claims that these positions are worth several hundreds of millions of dollars. By forcing such numbers into the public record, the case provides a rare look at private valuations that are typically disclosed only in fundraising rounds or confidential investor reports.
The Business Side of the Equation
In furtherance of her case, Massenet accuses Torstensson of breach of contract, fraud and intentional deceit, promissory estoppel, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The last count reflects the personal dimension of the case, but the first three are firmly rooted in the business dealings at play and they raise questions about the extent to which informal assurances, financial support, and strategic access should be enforced as binding commitments.
The breach of contract claim stems from Torstensson’s alleged promises that Massenet would be repaid from liquidity events, assurances she says she relied upon when funding expenses that allowed him to maintain and grow his equity positions. The fraud count alleges that he made those promises without any intent to perform, while continuing to benefit from the capital and credibility she supplied. Promissory estoppel is pled as an alternative, asserting that even without a formal contract her reliance on repeated assurances to her detriment gives rise to an equitable right of recovery.
Taken together, the business claims position Massenet as an investor who provided both money and market leverage for Torstensson. And the relief she is seeming is not limited to damages for the more than $95 million she says she spent, it seeks a fair return tied to the profits and equity value she alleges were generated through her support. By framing the case this way, the complaint pulls into focus governance and financing arrangements in some of the most closely-watched consumer brands of the past decade, exposing how informal promises and personal networks may have functioned alongside or in place of formal investment structures.
The broader implications of the case extend well beyond Massenet and Torstensson. Litigation of this kind can place rarely-disclosed valuation data into the public record, offering insight into the private stakes in companies like SKIMS and Frame. It also calls attention to governance: how were these equity stakes allocated, and what obligations exist to early backers whose contributions may not resemble conventional venture capital investments?
Finally, it raises the possibility that the court will examine some of the critical of early support at play here – including capital advanced through personal relationships, introductions to influential networks and the credibility that comes with association – and weigh them alongside the more traditional financial aspects that go into how stakes are build in growing companies.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Beyond its salacious details, the lawsuit is, at its core, a dispute over returns: whether Massenet is entitled to recover more than $95 million and to share in the value of the equity stakes she contends she helped create. But it also does more. It starts to strip away some of the secrecy surrounding private valuations, subjects governance structures to new scrutiny, and asks whether the definition of an early investor should extend to those whose contributions are as much reputational and relational as they are financial.
For the founder who once disrupted luxury retail with Net-a-Porter, the California courtroom may now serve as the stage for another disruption: a case that draws back the veneer of redefine what it looks like be an early investor in fashion’s new guard.
The case is Massenet v. Torstensson, et al., 25STCV24516 (Cal. Sup.).
Share
