Amazon Challenges Saks Global Bankruptcy Financing, Citing $475 Million Stake as ‘Worthless’ Amid Luxury Retail Restructuring

Deal Background and Amazon’s Investment Terms

Amazon’s capital infusion supported Saks Global’s Neiman Marcus takeover and included a commercial agreement for a “Saks at Amazon” storefront, with Saks committing to $900 million in payments over eight years via referral fees on sales.[1]

The e-commerce giant now calls its stake “presumptively worthless” due to Saks’ failure to meet budgets, cash burn exceeding hundreds of millions in under a year, and unpaid invoices to partners like Chanel ($136 million), Kering ($59 million) and Capri Holdings ($33 million).[1][3]

Financing Objection and Potential Remedies

Amazon contends the debtor-in-possession financing would “saddle” Saks with billions in new obligations, using flagship asset value to benefit other debtors at creditors’ expense, including its own.[1]

The filing urges Saks to “resolve” issues but warns of “more drastic remedies” such as appointing an examiner or trustee; a federal judge approved initial financing access hours after the objection.[1][2][6]

[1][3]

Restructuring Strategies and Luxury Sector Pressures

Saks plans to leverage its prime real estate portfolio through sales or sale-leaseback deals to fund operations, while closing “dark stores” amid competition from luxury brands’ standalone outlets and e-commerce shifts.[2][6]

Turnaround specialist Jim Lanzone, Saks’ new CEO as of January 2026, leads the effort following two prior CEOs and declining revenues; factors include high luxury prices eroding perceived value and direct-to-consumer sales growth.[5][13][3]

For private equity and M&A advisors tracking luxury retail bankruptcy restructurings, Saks’ case highlights risks in debt-fueled consolidations like the Neiman Marcus deal, echoing Macy’s store closures and broader department store distress.[4][8][11]

• Neiman Marcus acquisition (2024): $2.7 billion, accelerated debt load.[4]
• Financing secured: $1.75 billion DIP, but creditor fights loom.[2]
• Real estate pivot: Potential liquidity via property sales.[2][6]

Implications for Creditors and Investors

Amazon’s push signals heightened scrutiny in cross-border M&A integration failures in luxury retail, where operational synergies falter against online disruption; outcomes could set precedents for equity recovery in Chapter 11 for tech-retail partnerships.[1][9][11]

Saks and Amazon declined comment; proceedings continue in Texas court.[1]