When did the Bergdorf Goodman incident allegedly occur?

1. What precisely are reporters calling “the Bergdorf Goodman incident”?

Coverage centers on Saks Global’s federal lawsuit alleging that Yumi Shin, Bergdorf Goodman’s chief merchandising officer, resigned in October 2025 to join Nordstrom and that she misappropriated confidential data and breached a non‑compete; the lawsuit claims she downloaded sensitive financial information and deleted work files before departing ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. The timeline reporters give: departure in October, suit in late November, stories in December

Multiple outlets report Shin left Bergdorf Goodman in October 2025 to take the chief merchant post at Nordstrom; Saks Global’s complaint was filed in federal court on or around Nov. 25, 2025, and stories ran in early December 2025 summarizing the allegations ^{[2] [1] [3]}.

3. What the complaint alleges and when that conduct allegedly occurred

According to the complaint cited by The Fashion Law and Law360, Saks and Neiman Marcus Group say Shin “downloaded sensitive financial data and deleted work files prior to leaving” — conduct described as occurring immediately before her October 2025 resignation and documented in the Nov. 25, 2025 complaint ^{[1] [3]}.

4. How outlets anchored dates and factual claims

Retail Dive and other business outlets state the employment dates plainly: Shin worked at Bergdorf from October 2018 through October 2025 and then resigned to join Nordstrom; those pieces link the alleged downloading/deletion to the period just before her October departure and to filings in late November 2025 ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Competing perspectives and what sources do not show

The reporting reproduces Saks Global’s allegations from its complaint; available sources do not include Yumi Shin’s public response or Nordstrom’s comment on the alleged downloads in the documents provided here, so independent verification of the alleged data transfer is not present in these items ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The Fashion Law and Law360 present Saks’s claims; Retail Dive reports the timeline and that the company sought a temporary restraining order — but none of these excerpts supply a rebuttal from Shin or Nordstrom in the provided material ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Why the exact dates matter commercially and legally

The reports show two distinct dates with legal significance: the alleged conduct (downloads and deletions) tied to Shin’s October 2025 resignation, and the filing date of the lawsuit (around Nov. 25, 2025) when Saks sought relief in federal court. Those discrete timestamps determine statute‑of‑limitations windows, emergency relief requests (like temporary restraining orders), and the enforceability of any non‑compete tied to her exit ^{[1] [3]}.

7. Context that readers should keep in mind about reporting and motive

These stories come amid corporate shifts at Saks Global following its 2024–25 transactions and internal reorganizations; Saks has an interest in protecting proprietary merchandising strategies and brand relationships, which frames why the company pursued litigation quickly after the departure ^{[4] [5] [6]}. That corporate incentive is explicit in Saks’s complaint language as summarized by The Fashion Law, which argues the data is “incalculably valuable” to competitors ^[1].

8. What to watch next and limitations of current reporting

Further clarity will come from court filings, any judicial orders (e.g., whether a temporary restraining order is granted), and statements from Shin and Nordstrom — none of which are included in the handed sources. Readers should treat the timeline (departure in October 2025; complaint filed Nov. 25, 2025; reporting in early December 2025) as the best current reconstruction based on filings cited by The Fashion Law, Retail Dive and Law360 ^{[1] [2] [3]}.