The non-compete and trade secrets lawsuit that Saks Global waged against a former senior executive is now playing out against the background of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. In newly-filed statements lodged with a federal court in Texas, Saks argues that its bankruptcy petition does not halt the case while defendant Yumi Shin maintains that although the case can proceed, the court must determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over her and should not allow Saks to press forward in Texas while a substantially similar, first-filed Delaware action remains stayed.
The Background in Brief: Saks Global filed suit in November 2025, accusing Shin of violating a series of restrictive covenant agreements and engaging in what it describes as a calculated effort to download and retain sensitive commercial data before departing Bergdorf Goodman in October 2025. The companies allege that Shin accepted a role at Nordstrom – expressly identified as a prohibited competitor in her agreements – and took with her confidential information, including long-range financial projections and detailed brand performance data.
Shin moved to dismiss the action in early December, challenging both the sufficiency of the retailer group’s claims and the court’s authority to hear them at all. Her core argument is jurisdictional: as a New York-based executive who worked exclusively for Bergdorf Goodman in New York, she maintains that she lacks meaningful ties to Texas and that Saks is relying on a 2022 Restrictive Covenant Agreement that was later superseded by subsequent contracts.
The bankruptcy prompted the district court to seek briefing on whether the automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code would halt the case.
Bankruptcy Stay Does Not Stop the Case
In its February 10 filing, Saks contends that the automatic stay triggered by its Chapter 11 petition has no bearing on the case at hand. The stay, the company argues, applies only to proceedings brought against a debtor – not to lawsuits initiated by the debtor itself. Because Saks (and Neiman Marcus Group) are the plaintiffs in this case, they maintain that the court remains free to move forward and rule on both their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and Shin’s pending motion to dismiss.
Shin agrees with that narrow proposition. In her own filing, she acknowledges that the bankruptcy does not automatically prevent the Texas court from addressing the two pending motions – namely, Saks’ bid for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and her own motion to dismiss. Still, she uses the opportunity to press two strategic points.
Primarily, she reiterates that the court must resolve the threshold issue of personal jurisdiction before entertaining any request for injunctive relief. In practical terms, that means Saks cannot secure a restraining order unless the court first determines that Texas is a proper forum.
Beyond that, Shin raises what she characterizes as a fundamental inequity. A substantially similar, first-filed lawsuit between the same parties is currently pending in Delaware, she notes – but that action is stayed under the Bankruptcy Code. Allowing Saks to press forward in Texas while the Delaware case remains frozen risks permitting the retailer to deploy bankruptcy protections selectively: shielding itself in one forum while pursuing claims aggressively in another. Shin has reserved the right to seek relief from the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in Delaware.
A Luxury Power Play Amid Restructuring
The procedural maneuvering comes at a delicate moment for Saks Global, the entity formed by the $2.7 billion merger of Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus in 2024. Touted as a transformative consolidation in luxury retail, the merger has coincided with mounting operational pressures, intensifying competition, and now, restructuring proceedings. Against that backdrop, the company’s pursuit of injunctive relief against a former senior executive sheds light on the value it places on protecting proprietary information and enforcing restrictive covenants – particularly in a talent-driven sector where senior leadership mobility can shift competitive dynamics.
At the same time, the case highlights the increasingly complex terrain surrounding executive non-competes. Although the Federal Trade Commission’s sweeping 2024 ban on most non-compete agreements was ultimately blocked in court, the regulatory climate remains unsettled. For senior executives with access to sensitive commercial strategy – like Shin, who served as Bergdorf Goodman’s Chief Merchandising Officer – restrictive covenants may still fall within the narrow band of enforceable agreements contemplated by regulators. Even so, enforcement now unfolds against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny.
With both sides aligned on the limited effect of the bankruptcy stay but sharply divided on jurisdiction and forum fairness, the next ruling from the Texas court could determine not only whether Saks can pursue immediate injunctive relief, but also where this luxury industry dispute will ultimately be litigated.
The case is Saks Global Enterprises LLC et al v. Shin, 3:25-cv-03260 (N.D. Tex.).
Updated
March 20, 2026
In a joint notice of settlement in principle, the parties alerted the court that they “have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims in this action’ and that they ‘expect to execute a final written settlement agreement on or before April 6, 2026.”
Share
