{{ 'now' | timezone: 'America/New_York' | date: '%b %d, %Y' }} |
|
|
Hi, and welcome back to Line Sheet. In today’s issue, for Inner Circle members only (trade up
here), I share what’s been happening behind the scenes since
Natalie Massenet, the Net-a-Porter founder and Imaginary Ventures co-founder, sued Erik Torstensson, her former boyfriend, accusing him of breach of contract, fraud, emotional distress, and plenty more. This is a personal story, but their life and work were one and the same. Massenet is positing that she invested in Torstensson’s potential as a human, and deserves a return. I run through the business implications and consider where it
may all net out. Plus, up top, quick notes on the catastrophe at Ssense, which filed for bankruptcy protection today; the aftermath of the Saks layoffs; and a lukewarm take on the new WWD editor-in-chief (by popular demand).
Mentioned in this issue: Natalie Massenet, Net-a-Porter, Erik Torstensson, Jens Grede, Alex Weingarten, Britney Spears, Skims, Kim Kardashian,
Frame, Ssense, Saks, Marc Metrick, WWD, Michael Atmore, Jay Penske, and many, many more… |
|
|
Fall celebrates the bold yet mysterious balance that embodies the DVF woman of today - seductive, unapologetic, and
impossible to ignore. A variety of silks across organza, crepe de chine, and chiffon lend movement to silhouettes, and prints including leopard and gingko fan make a return from the archive.
Welcome to the new DVF, explore the Fall collection now at
dvf.com
|
|
|
Three Things You
Should Know…
|
- Pour
one out for the Ssense private sale: Today, Ssense announced that it was filing for bankruptcy protection in Canada after its lenders applied with a court to put the company under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) protection. This could initiate a sale process and allow others to bid on Ssense. The news was first reported by Business of Fashion. In response, Ssense said that it would file its own CCAA application within the next 24 hours to “keep control of our assets
and operations and fight for the future of the company.”
What happens next? Well, the court could rule in favor of Ssense, but they could also participate in the credit bidding process with their own cash if the court rules in favor of the lender. (Expect the ABGs of the world, but also Coupang & Co., to sniff around.) Whatever happens, there’s going to be a restructuring, and it’s likely a lot of brands are not going to get paid what they are owed.
It’s worth underscoring just how
precarious the Ssense model is, and how outside forces—like the elimination of the U.S. de minimis exemption—can tip things over into the red. Ssense has always been a peculiar company—based in Montreal, conducting private sales of things that were seemingly not discounted anywhere else—but it was also run lean. (Labor, at least, is significantly more affordable there than in New York.) They also were smart about what brands and products they bought into, and recruited top
talent.
I’ll keep you updated, but if you are frustrated right now because Ssense (and probably a lot of other retailers) owe you money, remember that its absence would be a shame. Ssense, as I’ve written before, exposed a lot of people to a lot of brands, and as with the end of Barneys New York, Matches, Opening Ceremony, Colette, etcetera, etcetera, something is lost. And there’s not an easy fix. - Let’s talk about Saks (again): Last week,
Sarah Shapiro reported that there were about 90 jobs cut in the Saks layoffs. According to insiders, the company eliminated redundancies in the buying teams at Saks and Neiman Marcus. (So no more duplicate planners and assistant buyers.) If it felt like a bloodbath, that’s probably because the roles were concentrated in bulky departments.
Meanwhile, like many companies, Saks is requiring New York–based employees to return to work four days a week starting
September 2. (The same policy will apply to Dallas-based employees later this year.) I support in-office requirements, but I also understand that this might not feel good given the morale challenges. Saks Global C.E.O. Marc Metrick also sent an email regarding their media policy, noting that some media outlets have been “relentless.”
Speaking of: I hope you read my partner Bill Cohan’s
note about Joel Bines’s op-ed in Fortune that called the Saks–Neiman Marcus Group merger “luxury’s last best hope.” Bill was not impressed, but Gary Wassner of factoring firm Hilldun was more optimistic, either by volition or necessity. (As you know, factoring
firms essentially offer financial bridges to smaller brands by buying out their invoices for a fee, and then collect the check from the retailer at a later date.)
On Friday, Wassner sent a note to his clients with a link to the Fortune article. “Since all we have been reading in the press until now about Saks Global has been negative, I thought it would be useful for you to read a positive article that echoes many of my own sentiments I have expressed in the press over the last
year,” he wrote. Of course, Wassner and other factoring firms want Saks Global to succeed; Hilldun does millions of dollars of business with the group, and a default would be very consequential. However, it’s also true that Bergdorf Goodman, which is part of the group, was on “hold” with Hilldun—meaning that if brands ship to BG, Hilldun would not participate.
When I reached out to Wassner, he told me he had “never been on hold with BG or Saks stores or Saks.com for any extended
period of time.” Sometimes, he added, “I cannot approve orders at the exact time a brand might ask for an approval. But they eventually get approved. I may tell a client to check back next week or later in the current week.” I asked if he was currently on hold with BG. “No,” he responded. “They just reported the payments so I’m approving orders now. Not all clients and all orders get approved. We have well over 100 brands selling to Saks Global.” I asked again if he was on hold with BG in
particular, though. “They are all the same company now,” he said. (Saks had no comment.) - About that new WWD editor-in-chief: A close reader of Line Sheet asked me when I was going to offer my assessment of Michael Atmore, the new editor-in-chief of WWD—a leading question, of course. Honestly, the news was so depressing that I hadn’t even thought about commenting. Given the extensive search that Penske conducted,
it speaks volumes that the company hired the Footwear News guy to reimagine the fashion industry’s paper of record. What’s left to say? I did meet Atmore once when I interviewed at Footwear News in 2007 or 2008, and had zero opinion of him, other than he looked like the kind of person who sat front row in a grey suit at the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show at the Plaza Hotel in 1997. I liked the editor who was running the operation, Katie Abel, and wish her
well.
Anyway, Jay Penske doesn’t care about WWD. If he did, he would remove “chief content officer” Jim Fallon, bring in someone smart to reorganize the brand, and meaningfully compete once again against Vogue, BoF, etcetera. But he won’t, so if you really want to get to know Atmore, I suggest you check out his Instagram,
which features an alarming number of photos of the late Iris Apfel.
|
|
|
News, notes, and the inside story on a brutal and rapidly unfolding scandal. |
|
|
Late one night last week, or perhaps very early into the morning, Natalie Massenet placed a
phone call to her longtime business associate Jens Grede that neither of them could have ever fathomed, but that nevertheless captured the essence of her position in the fashion firmament. Massenet, the serial entrepreneur behind Net-a-Porter and co-founder of the venture capital firm Imaginary Ventures, had built a sprawling business portfolio and social network that had become increasingly intertwined. And now she was telling Grede, himself a serial entrepreneur and the C.E.O.
of Skims, Imaginary’s most consequential portfolio company, that she was suing his longtime business partner, Erik Torstensson—himself yet another serial entrepreneur, who also happened to be her business partner and, until May 2025, her life partner as well.
Of course, things were only about to get messier. On August 20, Massenet filed
suit in the state of California, accusing Torstensson of breach of contract, fraud and intentional deceit, promissory estoppel, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. The explicit complaint, written by Alex Weingarten, the attorney who once famously represented Britney Spears’s father, read like a “Jackie Collins novel,” as one person put it. The lawsuit included a litany of Torstensson’s alleged misdeeds, from adultery
and illegal drug use to social climbing and inappropriate use of funds. (A rep for Torstensson had no comment regarding the suit.) |
|
|
This Fall, DVF pays homage to the dress. From iconic silhouettes to bold new statements, this collection celebrates
confidence and individuality. Sequin finishes, translucent layers, and hand-beaded details create statement party looks for special occasions.
Welcome to the new DVF, explore the Fall collection now at dvf.com
|
|
|
The complaint also laid bare how the Massenet-Torstensson relationship unequivocally blended the personal
and professional. After all, the life they had built together, which started after he pitched the concept of Mr. Porter to her in 2009 and became romantic in 2010, was itself a business. Their ambition as a couple was wrapped up in their pursuits as entrepreneurs; their business peers were their off-duty friends, on full display on social media for all the world to see. As Massenet put it herself in the claim, she believed she had invested in Torstensson and expected a
return.
The claim also reflected the scorn of both a personal and financial dissolution. Massenet argued that Torstensson deceived her for many of their 14 years of romantic coupledom, and pushed her to spend excessively on material things that she didn’t necessarily want—$95 million worth of things, no less. “Torstensson repeatedly assured Massenet that, in return for her financial support, business introductions, and value creation, Massenet would share in the eventual
returns from Torstensson’s investments and business ventures,” the complaint read. “A self-made entrepreneur herself, Massenet believed and banked on Torstensson’s potential. Torstensson expressly promised Massenet that he would contribute to joint real estate purchases and reimburse her for fronting shared living costs once his investments produced liquidity, while Massenet continued to maintain her assets and investments separate from Torstensson.”
Weingarten led the complaint with a
quote from a 2019 Los Angeles Times article about Frame, Torstensson’s Culver City–based denim business that he launched in partnership with Grede when the two men were running Wednesday, a group of marketing agencies out of London. (Grede and Torstensson eventually sold Wednesday to BBDO.) In the article, Torstensson told reporter Lindzi Scharf that “Natalie once said, ‘You’re my best investment. I hope.’”
The suit was promptly leaked to the Daily Mail,
which ran a series of “explosive” articles, first published on Thursday. By Friday, the trades had picked it up, and Torstensson was removed from his position as the creative director of Frame. By Saturday evening, as Massenet attempted to celebrate her 60th birthday party at the Hamptons home of her business partner Nick Brown and his partner Derek Blasberg, there were already rumblings that Torstensson would file a countercomplaint. (The
original party had been canceled earlier in the year because of their breakup.)
By that point, of course, the scandal had already reached escape velocity. The New York Times began reporting a story, with three Styles reporters investigating the accusations made in the Massenet suit, which cited the 1976 case Marvin v. Marvin—an important precedent whereby a California court ruled that nonmarried partners could claim property division for “both express and implied
contracts.” The reporters also started circling claims that were alleged to be included in Torstensson’s potential countersuit.
Meanwhile, the Massenet-Torstensson affair had veritably sucked all the oxygen out of the fashion industry and led to rampant speculation. Why had Torstensson disgraced his partner? Why
had Massenet gone so public with the accusations? How would this impact their 8-year-old son, who will be forced to live through his parents’ mutual attempts at reputation massacre?
Beyond the petty gossip, though, this was actually quite personal. Massenet and Torstensson were connected to nearly every person of consequence in the fashion industry. And as Massenet’s call to Grede laid bare, financial and personal boundaries were blurred. In short, everyone was invested. |
Should Massenet have taken the high road and pushed Torstensson privately to pay what she believed
was his share of expenses in order for her to maintain their lifestyle? My understanding, from multiple parties, is that Massenet believed there was no other way forward than the nuclear option, no matter the reverberations. Massenet, a former journalist, may have calculated the impact of a narrative that reversed the traditional power dynamic: a case in which a towering business visionary, who was bankrolling an exploitative younger bimbo, had run out of patience. |
|
|
Anyway, a complex relationship had clearly devolved into two wealthy people, who seemingly had a hard time
living within their means, warring over money. According to sources familiar with Torstensson’s position—I wouldn’t say anyone is on his side here—she bought the expensive stuff, like the real estate, but he claims he was (and is) paying for the day-to-day costs, like housekeepers and other upkeep. (Reps for both parties had no comment on this.)
Massenet has made it clear to friends and associates that, despite all her success, she could use some liquidity. In Richemont’s
exhaustively detailed deal to merge Yoox with Net-a-Porter, in 2015, Massenet’s earnings post-taxes and payments to her ex-husband are estimated to be around $80 million—not billions, sure, but generational wealth nonetheless. (Massenet had no comment on whether that estimate was accurate.) After her noncompete ran out, Massenet joined competitor Farfetch as co-chairman, only to be undone by founder and C.E.O. José Neves. At the same time, she launched Imaginary with Brown, and
she and Torstensson took business interests in many of the same companies, including Skims. A sale at Skims’ $4 billion valuation threshold would return the fund many times over, handsomely benefiting its L.P.s and Massenet, alike, but that exit is hardly assured, and it may not be proximate.
Torstensson, who made tens of millions of dollars on the sale of Wednesday Agency Group to BBDO, may also have a lot of his wealth tied up in illiquid investments. According to people familiar with
the cap table, he was given a stake in Skims worth far less than $300 million. However, in the suit, Massenet’s lawyer estimated his stake in the company is worth “in excess” of that amount at Skims’ current $4 billion valuation. (Massenet had no comment when I asked about this. Torstensson did not respond to a request for comment.) Torstensson’s other interests and investments cited in the case—including Westman Atelier, Elder Statesman, Sweetgreen, Boy Smells, and the creative agency
General Idea—are likely too minor to generate anything meaningful. Yes, he owns a significant stake in Frame, but the exit prospects for a solid denim company—a strong business, but slowish growth—are limited.
What happens now very much depends on whether Torstensson files a countersuit. On Tuesday morning, I was told there was a 50-50 chance. By Tuesday night, I was told it was less likely, and that Torstensson was being advised to protect his son and the children from Massenet’s first
marriage, with whom he was close. But it is by no means certain that he won’t proceed. The New York Times story probably won’t run for at least a week or two, if it ever comes together. I’m told that Massenet wishes to take the suit private and settle out of court, and for this to all be over. And if she gets her wish, perhaps a couple weeks of public shame and humiliation will have achieved its endgame, at least for now. |
As for what happens afterward? Torstensson is not a great candidate for a serious comeback. Earlier
in his career, he played second fiddle to Grede, who used his creative ideas to build Frame into a business. Someone said to me the other day that Torstensson was Jens’s muse before Kim Kardashian entered the picture. That tracked. But the two haven’t been close socially for years, particularly as Torstensson became Massenet’s muse.
Over the years, Massenet has deployed her understanding of media narratives with aplomb. She didn’t speak out against the folks at Richemont
and Marchetti, who did her dirty when she left Net-a-Porter, perhaps because the destruction that occurred in her wake told the story for her. But this very public spat, and what it implies about her personal economics, could undermine Imaginary, which has all but closed its next funding round. While the P.R. nightmare could further endear her to the fashion community, it will inevitably chill some limited partners, the institutions that invest in V.C.s. As a fiduciary, how can
Massenet oversee their invested capital when she can’t even manage her own bank accounts?
Of course, Massenet isn’t actually a trained fiduciary. She is a builder, a connector, and the sort of investor whose differentiating talent is carving out room on the cap table of coveted companies like Skims and The Row. There’s no denying they succeeded in raising so much money—for consumer brands, a tricky investment space with a lower and slower rate of return—because of her reputation and
relationships. Brown, meanwhile, is the guy running the models, scrutinizing the returns, and working with the operating teams. And I’d expect the firm to project that image in the immediate future. Presumably, the L.P.s might have preferred a less hostile and wholly visible P.R. dispute—but they’ll likely soldier through because she still has access to unique dealflow.
It’s all just an unfortunate conclusion to what was a golden age of fashion. Massenet and Torstensson were the prom
queen and king of this new way of making money in a fracturing, challenging market. They were upwardly mobile. And they truly seemed in it together. Once, at the end of 2022, I met with Torstensson and Frame C.E.O. Nicolas Dreyfus for an interview at the Polo Lounge in Beverly Hills. While we were chatting, Bob Iger walked by and nodded at Torstensson, who then started telling me some story about spending time with the Disney C.E.O.—maybe something
about his brief flirtation with politics? But I clearly remember one thing. After Iger walked by, Torstensson said: “You know, I was only there because of Natalie.” |
No reading list today. I’ll do a big one on Monday.
See you tomorrow,
Lauren
P.S.:
We use affiliate links because we are a business. We may make a couple bucks off them. |
|
|
Puck fashion correspondent Lauren Sherman and a rotating cast of industry insiders take you deep behind the scenes of this
multitrillion-dollar biz, from creative director switcheroos to M&A drama, D.T.C. downfalls, and magazine mishaps. Fashion People is an extension of Line Sheet, Lauren’s private email for Puck, where she tracks what’s happening beyond the press releases in fashion, beauty, and media. New episodes publish every Tuesday and Friday. |
|
|
Puck’s daily art market email, anchored by industry expert Marion Maneker, offers unparalleled access to the mega-auctions and galleries,
elite buyers and sellers, and the power players who run this opaque world. Wall Power also features Julie Brener Davich, a veteran of Christie’s and Sotheby’s, who provides unique insights into how the business really works. |
|
|
Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news. You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here. |
Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10006 |
|
|
|
