Saks Global Enterprises and the Neiman Marcus Group have filed a high-profile lawsuit against a former executive who left her post for a key competitor. In a complaint filed in federal court in Dallas on November 25, the retailers allege that Yumi Shin – Bergdorf Goodman’s former Chief Merchandising Officer and a longtime fixture in luxury retail – breached a non-compete agreement and misappropriated trade secrets by accepting a similar role at Nordstrom, a company expressly listed as a prohibited “Competitor” in her employment agreement, and allegedly taking confidential Bergdorf information with her.
According to the complaint, Shin engaged in “concerning and suspicious conduct” in the days leading up to her resignation in October, including “downloading large quantities of confidential information and trade secrets” from the broader Saks and NMG organization, well beyond the scope of her role. The materials allegedly included a “seven-year view” of sales and financial performance for Bergdorf’s top 200 brands, along with detailed financials for Saks and NMG’s leading brand partners – described by the companies as “essentially ‘open books’ on the [Bergdorf] brand.”
Saks and NMG claim Shin – who joined Saks in 2007 and became CMO of Bergdorf Goodman in 2019 – took deliberate steps to evade detection, including deleting all data from her work-issued iPhone prior to turning it in.
This conduct was part of a calculated attempt to retain proprietary data “incalculably valuable to competitors in the luxury goods retail space,” Saks and NMG claim, arguing that such info could enable Nordstrom to “undermine” their brand relationships and merchandising strategies. Shin built key brand relationships using Bergdorf’s “channels and resources,” which Saks and NMG claim are inseparable from her insider knowledge. They argue that her move to Nordstrom will “necessarily result in [her] utilizing resources, knowledge, relationships, and goodwill developed at [Bergdorf] for the advantage of its competitor.”
In addition to the alleged misappropriation of confidential info, Saks and NMG point to a series of restrictive covenant agreements that Shin signed during her tenure. In exchange for equity grants and bonus compensation, Shin allegedly agreed to refrain from working for a direct competitor for one year following her departure, a provision she is allegedly breaching by joining Nordstrom.
Against this background, the retailers lodge claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of the duty of loyalty, and are seeking monetary damages – including over $48,000 in compensation tied to forfeited equity – as well as injunctive relief to prevent Shin from joining Nordstrom and to bar any further use or disclosure of their proprietary information.
Restrictive Covenants Under Scrutiny
The Saks and NMG case lands at a pivotal moment for companies that rely on non-compete provisions. Following years of debate, the Federal Trade Commission finalized a sweeping ban on most non-compete agreements in 2024, characterizing them as an “unfair method of competition” under the FTC Act. However, after federal courts blocked the rule earlier this year, the FTC voluntarily dropped its appeals, signaling a strategic pivot.
With the broad ban on hold, the FTC has pivoted to case-by-case enforcement. In its earliest action, the agency announced a proposed consent order against Gateway Services in September for allegedly imposing sweeping one-year non-competes on more than 1,700 employees, including hourly staff. Under the proposed settlement, Gateway must void the agreements, notify affected workers, and limit future use to senior employees with access to sensitive information.
For employers, including those in sectors like fashion, where top talent frequently moves between rivals, the regulatory environment is increasingly hostile to blanket restrictions. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has publicly warned companies in industries “plagued by thickets of noncompete agreements” to expect scrutiny, noting that improperly tailored restrictions – especially those imposed on non-executive employees – may now be challenged under existing law.
While the FTC has stepped back from its sweeping ban, its recent actions show that scrutiny of non-competes is far from over. For companies like Saks Global, operating in a high-stakes, talent-driven sector, the legal calculus is shifting. Regulatory pressure, shifting courts, and rising public attention are forcing companies to rethink when and how they enforce these provisions.
>> It is worth noting that Shin’s non-compete may be in line with the FTC’s standard given that she was a senior executive at Bergdorf with access to sensitive commercial strategy, potentially subjecting her to the narrow exception the FTC had carved out for high-level personnel in its former non-compete framework.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Against this backdrop, Saks and NMG are taking a calculated step. Their case carries added weight amid mounting pressure on Saks Global, the entity formed by the $2.7 billion merger of Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus in 2024. Touted as a transformative move to reshape luxury retail, the merger has, instead, coincided with operational headwinds, falling revenues, and intensifying competition from rivals like Bloomingdale’s and Nordstrom.
Their aggressive pursuit of Shin not only signals Saks and NMG’s desire to enforce contractual rights, but also a broader effort to safeguard sensitive information amid rising market volatility for multi-brand retailers. In an increasingly competitive labor market for executives and creatives, alike, the case may serve as a warning shot to other senior leaders eyeing moves to competing firms, especially as the legal foundation for non-competes continues to shift.
The case is Saks Global Enterprises LLC et al v. Shin, 3:25-cv-03260 (N.D. Tx.).
Share
