Long before shopping was governed by algorithms, tracking pixels, and personalized digital feeds, it had Saks Fifth Avenue.
For several generations of discerning luxury buyers, the name Saks served as the ultimate arbiter of elegance, glamour, and impeccably good taste. “Saks is New York,” fashion icon Donatella Versace once famously declared inside its landmark Midtown flagship. Yet, its cultural and commercial influence extended far beyond Manhattan. Its sumptuous, meticulously designed stores across the United States became premier retail destinations in their own right, shaping American style for nearly a century.
From Armani to Zegna, Saks carried rack upon rack of enticing indulgences that defined high-end consumerism. Shoppers could browse Oscar de la Renta evening gowns and snakeskin Gucci loafers, select Montblanc fountain pens and Dior eaux de toilettes, or invest in precisely tailored Ralph Lauren suits and matching Burberry trench coats for both adults and children. The floors sparkled with Chanel 2.55 handbags, Louis Vuitton briefcases, and, under the store’s own private label, beautifully crafted pearl necklaces, buttery calfskin gloves, and extra-soft cashmere pullovers and cardigans.
“Saks was the reliable destination where you knew you could find whatever you wanted,” says Julia Stedman, a New York-based brand-strategy consultant who works with fashion and technology and shopped at the department store for decades. “Every luxury brand was there.”
Footwear was a particular strongpoint, especially from covetable labels like Manolo Blahnik, Roger Vivier, Jimmy Choo, and Christian Louboutin. At the imposing Manhattan flagship—a Midtown magnet for locals and tourists alike since it first opened its doors in 1924—the massive eighth-floor designer-shoe department earned a unique distinction that no other retail location in the United States could claim. In August 2007, the United States Postal Service granted the floor its very own zip code: 10022-SHOE.
“It was a great shoe department to begin with,” Stedman recalls. “And then they expanded it. Literally, you could find anything and everything you could ever imagine and ever want. And it was always packed and bustling.” In the 2008 film The Women, Annette Bening’s character offered a simpler, widely accepted verdict: “Nobody. Hates. Saks.” At the time, it would have been hard to disagree with the sentiment.
Over the past few years, however, the company’s prestige and financial standing have taken a severe beating. A cascading series of managerial problems and mounting financial pressures, many directly tied to the 2024 acquisition of luxury rival Neiman Marcus, ultimately culminated in Saks Global filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January with a staggering $3.4 billion in debt. Following a court-supervised restructuring, the firm announced in June that it had successfully emerged from bankruptcy proceedings. Operating with a significantly trimmed roster of stores, the restructured company now goes by the name Exemplar Luxury Group. Whether Saks can truly recover its former stature—and regain the affection of fickle luxury shoppers—remains an open and heavily debated question within the retail industry.
In the wake of the corporate deal, the daily shopping experience had already deteriorated significantly. Customers increasingly found their once-beloved store stocked with sporadic, often sparse assortments across their favorite designer categories.
“People just felt that it wasn’t the same Saks that they used to shop at,” says Anita Berger, a former senior salesperson at the Saks Fifth Avenue location in St. Louis, Missouri, which had maintained a fiercely loyal local clientele for more than half a century.
To be fair, traditional department stores have been under immense pressure for years. Modern consumers now frequently shop online directly through brand websites, multi-brand e-commerce platforms, major tech marketplaces like Amazon, and resale destinations like The RealReal. Instead of spending leisurely afternoons browsing physical racks of clothing and receiving personalized styling advice from trusted, long-tenured sales associates, modern shoppers often find their style inspiration through social media algorithms and digital influencers. Furthermore, formal suits and men’s ties no longer anchor everyday wardrobes the way they once did, a shift that accelerated permanently in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The classic grand-department-store model—characterized by floor after cavernous floor packed to the brim with inventory—may well be outdated.
“What you have is literally this transition and shift in the paradigm,” says Marshal Cohen, chief retail adviser at Circana, a premier consumer-behavior tracking firm. “The model needs to adjust.”
As Bain & Company noted in a comprehensive 2024 report examining the state of American department stores, many U.S. shoppers have grown indifferent or outright averse to the traditional multi-story retail format.
Even before Saks Fifth Avenue’s fateful purchase of Neiman Marcus in December 2024, warning signs were visible to industry insiders as familiar buyers and veteran salespeople began turning over at an unsettling rate.
“You could kind of smell that something was going on, just because everything was getting a little difficult,” says Daniel Wingate, founder and creative director of Wingate, a collection of sophisticated designer women’s apparel previously sold via trunk shows at various Saks Fifth Avenue locations. “The people in the stores were in and out and changing, unhappy. Then, the rumor started that they were trying to buy Neimans.”
That rumor proved entirely accurate, and the massive acquisition helped saddle Saks Global with enough crushing debt that the retailer eventually fell severely behind on payments for inventory. Many prominent fashion and beauty brands ultimately felt they had no choice left but to halt shipments entirely.
“Every one of my clients was saying, ‘God, the stores look so bad—there’s no inventory,’” explains Gary Wassner, CEO of Hilldun, a specialized financing firm that guarantees payments for roughly 180 fashion and beauty brands carried across Saks Global’s stores, including prominent names like Rick Owens, Golden Goose, Ulla Johnson, Isabel Marant, and Victoria Beckham.
“The consumer was well aware walking into any Saks Fifth Avenue that the inventory was depleted,” he adds. “It was quite noticeable, particularly as the days wore on.”
“My floor looked so bad,” Berger echoes. “Customers would come in and say, ‘Are you closing? This looks like Saks Off 5th.’ There was nothing new and exciting because they couldn’t get anything—they owed money to everybody.”
The operational strain trickled down directly to the sales associates on the ground. “We never had a full size run of dresses,” recalls Babatunde Fakuade, who worked for nearly a year as a sales associate at Neiman Marcus Lenox Square in Atlanta. “We would get a size 2, a 12, an 8. It’s like, ‘Where are the other sizes?’ We didn’t get a delivery of full size runs of dresses for months at a time.”
The St. Louis store where Berger spent nearly a decade ultimately closed its doors in May, though she had already departed the company the previous September.
“How they were treating us, how they were not paying, how the store looked—I just started to feel like, ‘I need to get out,’” she says.
“It made more financial sense, literally, to leave the organization without a job secured,” Fakuade says of his own exit. He left Neiman Marcus months ago to pivot toward a full-time career as a retail business consultant.
The cash-flow complications predated the Neiman Marcus transaction by many years. Saks Global was formed by combining Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus stores, Bergdorf Goodman, Horchow, and the discount divisions Saks Off 5th and Last Call. However, Saks entered the consolidation carrying substantial legacy debt, much of it directly linked to its 2013 purchase by Hudson’s Bay Company, a historic Canadian retailer with roots stretching all the way back to 1670.
Certain early corporate maneuvers raised eyebrows among financial analysts. The iconic Fifth Avenue flagship building was mortgaged in 2014 for approximately $1.2 billion, saddling the business with hefty monthly debt-service obligations. In 2016, the company acquired off-price retailer Gilt Groupe for $250 million, ostensibly to bolster Saks Off 5th, only to sell it again a couple of years later for an undisclosed sum widely rumored to be far lower than the purchase price. Additional corporate investments added still more recurring financial liabilities to a cash-strapped enterprise.
“There were a lot of prior Hudson’s Bay issues—leases and bonds—that Saks, through succession, became obligated on,” explains Lorenzo Marinuzzi, a partner at the law firm Morrison Foerster, which represents Saks Global’s unsecured creditors, including luxury powerhouses like Chanel and LVMH.
Hudson’s Bay’s extensive financial baggage did little to soothe jittery vendors who were waiting patiently to be paid for delivered goods. As Marinuzzi succinctly puts it, “When you’re telling your vendors that you don’t have money to pay them for goods they’ve sold or shipped or consigned or delivered to your stores, yet you’re paying off this Hudson’s Bay debt, it rubs people the wrong way.”
Hudson’s Bay Company subsequently filed for bankruptcy and ultimately shuttered all of its remaining retail operations.
As the Saks Global empire began to unravel, numerous industry observers pointed critical fingers at Richard Baker, who previously served as Hudson’s Bay Company’s governor, executive chairman, and CEO, and who later transitioned to become executive chairman of Saks Global. Baker’s professional background is deeply rooted in real estate development, and critics frequently argued that his approach to managing historic department stores tended to prioritize property values and high-stakes corporate dealmaking over the delicate craftsmanship of a finely tailored suit or an avant-garde evening dress. Notably, Baker acquired Lord & Taylor in 2006 using extensive financing, later sold its flagship building to WeWork in 2017, and unloaded its retail operations to Le Tote in 2019 before the brick-and-mortar stores were permanently closed in 2020.
This real estate-centric philosophy was clearly reflected in Saks Global’s own corporate communications. A July 2024 press release announcing the planned Neiman Marcus purchase described the newly formed entity as “a combination of world-class luxury retail and real-estate assets.” When the transaction was formally finalized, Baker stated that the overarching strategic plan was “to redefine the luxury shopping experience” through, among other things, “a portfolio of prime real estate.”
“There’s a lot of head-scratching about the way Richard Baker handled himself and ran the company, his background—maybe it wasn’t the right background for this kind of retailer,” Marinuzzi notes. “When people thought about the decisions that were being made and how the company was being operated, they didn’t really trust management, and they didn’t trust Richard Baker.”
When the merger transaction was first announced, Baker told The New York Times that “when selling luxury products, you need beautiful stores and salespeople customers trust.” Yet, by the time Saks Global filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, many of its retail locations featured thinly stocked sales floors and demoralized, disgruntled employees.
Baker officially departed Saks Global in January. These days, his public focus appears to be directed back toward real estate ventures, highlighted by regular posts on his personal Instagram account, where his bio proudly describes him as being “Behind $Billions in Real Estate.” When reached for comment regarding this story, Baker issued a brief statement: “No comment on Saks at this time.” Representatives for Exemplar Luxury Group also declined repeated interview requests.
When Saks Global formally filed for bankruptcy protection, the total sums owed to some of the world’s most prominent luxury conglomerates were staggering. According to court filings submitted in January 2026, the retailer owed more than $136 million to Chanel; roughly $60 million to Kering, the parent company of Gucci, Saint Laurent, and Bottega Veneta; about $30 million to Richemont, which oversees Cartier, Montblanc, and Chloé; and nearly $16 million to the Estée Lauder Companies, whose extensive portfolio includes La Mer, Jo Malone London, Le Labo, and Tom Ford.
While those financial losses are undeniably massive, global luxury giants possess substantial cushions: they operate their own extensive network of standalone boutiques, maintain lucrative counters in competing department stores, and enjoy immense international reach. For smaller, independent brands, however, delayed or entirely missing payments can prove far more crippling to daily survival.
“As a small business, you have limited bandwidth,” says a senior executive at a small, critically acclaimed beauty brand previously carried at Neiman Marcus. “Finances are not just endless.”
Her company still has not received the “six figures” it is owed for inventory shipped to the retailer, despite having filed formal legal paperwork seeking to recover at least a fraction of the balance. Deprived of that expected cash flow, the brand’s compact management team was forced to halt contracts with several independent freelancers upon whom they heavily relied. One key manager subsequently left for alternative employment. The company is now actively attempting to rebuild its retail network and customer base through other commercial partnerships.
She is one of several industry sources who agreed to speak only under strict conditions of anonymity in a close-knit luxury sector where professional reputations are paramount. Many former Saks Global staffers approached for comment explained that they had signed binding nondisclosure agreements or were currently involved in active litigation regarding unpaid compensation and severance, forcing them to decline interviews.
The independent beauty brand was far from alone in making painful operational sacrifices to stay afloat without expected receivables.
“You have to keep going,” explains an executive at another independent beauty label owed more than a quarter of a million dollars by Saks Global. “So you’re looking at your people, you’re looking at your programs. You might be cutting advertising or awareness programs. You may be cutting marketing plans, launches, photo shoots, company parties. It’s going to be rolled all the way across, because for small businesses to lose money like that is very serious. It seriously affects your bottom line.”
For a celebrity-adored women’s fashion label carried extensively at Saks, the fallout included canceling an upcoming runway show—thereby forfeiting the non-refundable deposit paid on the event space—according to a marketing executive familiar with the situation.
A senior executive at another lauded independent fashion label reports that missing payments severely damaged the company’s fundamental capacity to pay for raw materials like fabric and buttons, ongoing production costs, internal staff salaries, and essential external contractors such as public relations agencies and business consultants. The company ultimately had to resort to laying off 20 percent of its workforce to survive what he describes as “this cash vacuum.”
The harrowing experience, he adds, “will probably stall our business five years in terms of its growth trajectory.”
His brand is currently owed several hundred thousand dollars and has received just one full payment for collections delivered across 2024 and 2025, he notes. On select invoices, he claims, the business was paid mere pennies on the dollar, and he realistically expects the company will ultimately recover only about 20 percent of its total rightful claims.
The underlying operational crisis began with increasingly delayed payment cycles, which gradually snowballed into a total breakdown in corporate communication.
“We continuously started reaching out for payment and updates, and they went ghost mode on us,” he says. “They didn’t respond to us for months.”
To compound matters, his persistent appeals for payment status were frequently routed to administrative representatives located in Bengaluru, India, where Saks Global had centralized various corporate functions, including finance, human resources, merchandising, analytics, and marketing.
“It felt like people who really were not connected to who we were,” he says. “I’m like, ‘Who are we talking to?’ ” In one email exchange, he adds, the brand’s own name was not even spelled correctly.
“You’re trying to explain to India how you work,” echoes Daniel Wingate, the designer who previously sold his collections at Saks trunk shows. “In the end, it felt like that was a stunt to just delay your payments.”
Wingate ultimately utilized a collection agency to recover a portion of the money he is owed, but confirms he still carries “six figures of open invoices that haven’t been paid.”
Perhaps inevitably, independent designers and smaller labels faced vastly greater difficulties securing payouts compared to marquee industry names. According to a source familiar with Saks Global’s vendor payment distributions, many of the world-renowned luxury houses carried across Saks, Neiman Marcus, and Bergdorf Goodman successfully recovered at least half of the total debt owed to them.
Some prominent designer brands have been paid in full, or very close to it, according to the source, though these individual financial terms remain heavily guarded secrets largely because competing brands would immediately demand comparable arrangements. Furthermore, brands operating strictly on a concession or consignment inventory model have managed to recover close to their full outstanding balances.
Representatives for Chanel, Kering, LVMH, and the Estée Lauder Companies declined or failed to reply to requests for comment regarding the specific recovery status of their respective Saks debts.
Meanwhile, the independent designers represented by Hilldun were collectively owed more than $66 million by Saks Global, though just under half of that specific exposure consisted of shipments that Hilldun had not formally guaranteed. Wassner reports that his firm has paid its client brands virtually all of the approved debt, with the exception of a handful of lingering vendor invoices that are still undergoing financial reconciliation.
Certain independent brands had already weathered severe payment turbulence leading up to Neiman Marcus’s previous 2020 bankruptcy filing before encountering Saks Global’s more recent round of financial distress.
“We gave up,” says an executive who runs a tastemaker-approved unisex grooming brand that distributed products through Neimans and Saks during both eras. “They promised to pay you if you would ship to them again, but I wasn’t taking that risk.”
His company is still owed upwards of $100,000 by the retailer, he notes.
Following its Chapter 11 filing earlier this year, Saks Global initiated an aggressive corporate restructuring program. The company permanently shuttered 21 physical stores—comprising 18 Saks Fifth Avenue locations and three Neiman Marcus stores. Notable closures included long-standing outposts in Chicago, where Saks had continuously operated since 1929, as well as doors in Costa Mesa, Las Vegas, St. Louis, San Antonio, and McLean, Virginia. Additionally, the company pulled the plug on more than 60 Saks Off 5th and Last Call discount outlets. (The lone overseas Saks franchise, located in Kazakhstan, remains operational.)
As store inventories were cleared out and merchandise heavily marked down during liquidation sales, shoppers once again encountered Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus locations stripped of the sophisticated upscale allure that had historically defined them. Social media platforms like TikTok were rapidly flooded with viral video tours depicting grim, nearly empty sales floors that looked distinctly post-apocalyptic rather than luxurious.
“Bad news travels faster than good news,” observes Cohen, the Circana retail adviser. “People love to share their war stories of shopping.” And, equipped with modern smartphones, those negative consumer accounts now travel faster and wider than ever before.
As Saks Global restructured its balance sheet to successfully emerge from bankruptcy protection, an initial influx of $1.75 billion in fresh capital enabled the company to clear outstanding vendor accounts and allow new merchandise to begin flowing back into stores. In March, Exemplar Luxury Group announced that nearly 600 brands had formally agreed to resume shipping products. During a recent walk through the historic Saks Fifth Avenue flagship situated directly across from Rockefeller Center, the store appeared visibly replenished and amply stocked across multiple trading floors.
According to figures provided by Exemplar, sales associates operating within Bergdorf Goodman, Neiman Marcus, and Saks Fifth Avenue are currently generating higher overall sales totals this year compared to the exact same period in 2025, though the company declined to disclose the specific percentage growth.
Nevertheless, rebuilding fundamental trust with both skeptical brand partners and everyday consumers remains an uphill battle without guaranteed success.
“It’s hard to come out of that with both your brand partners and with your consumers,” notes Aaron Cheris, a partner at Bain & Company and head of its global retail practice.
For everyday consumers in particular, lingering disappointments regarding customer service levels and depleted product selections “creates a bit of a doom loop that you really have to get out of,” he explains.
The core strategic challenge, Cheris adds, is straightforward: “Can you convince both suppliers and customers that there’s a new day one?”
For independent designers and brands who remain deeply skeptical of department store conglomerates, Exemplar’s recent trials may ultimately become its competitors’ gain.
“Now more than ever, every brand I know wants to be in Bloomingdale’s,” says one prominent industry insider. “It’s almost like Bloomingdale’s and Nordstrom will become what Barneys was in the ’80s.”
In the meantime, many former loyal shoppers are maintaining a cautious distance.
“It’s going to take a while to rebuild my trust,” admits Stedman, the longtime Saks customer. “Going there during that funky period, there was no stock, everything was on sale—it was madness. During that time, what made Saks special was not there anymore.”
“I’m going to take a wait-and-see approach and see what happens with them,” she concludes.
