There’s a joke about scratching the surface of the fashion industry and finding — more surface.
And as true as that can be in a world of celebrity air kisses and all-too-perfectly imperfect Instagram posts, there is plenty underneath in fashion. It’s just not always pretty.
Proving that again is the knockdown-drag out fight between Net-a-porter founder Natalie Massenet and her romantic partner of 14 years, Erik Torstensson, cofounder and creative director of the denim brand Frame.
The power couple went from all smiles at all the fashionable parties to slinging lawsuits back and forth.
It is an instance of love, family and big money mixing very uneasily. And the stakes are high.
First and foremost, the former couple are fighting over custody of their 7-year-old son. Then, according to Massenet’s suit filed last month in Los Angeles Superior Court, there’s the $95 million she spent on “expensive properties, lifestyle expenses, vacations, and more based on Torstensson’s promises to repay her in kind.” The suit suggests Torstensson is able to pay as he has a $100 million stake in Frame and “substantial positions” in Kim Kardashian’s Skims, as well as Good American, Safely and Brady.
The explosive suit dragged the whole affair into the spotlight — and in dramatic fashion.
Massenet’s suit alleged that Torstensson “confessed to her that he was a ‘liar, an alcoholic, a drug addict, a sex addict and that it had gone on for seven years.’” Backing that up, the suit included texts and images he allegedly traded with prostitutes and drug dealers.
While salacious lawsuits are nothing new, it was an unusually thorough airing of dirty laundry for the so-often refined world of fashion.
Massenet’s suit claimed Torstensson lived in a one-bedroom apartment without even a bed frame when they met.
“Early and often in their relationship, Torstensson promised Massenet that, if she funded the extravagant lifestyle that he desired, introduced him to her high-profile business contacts, and supported his business ventures, he would repay her. Torstensson made clear that whatever assets and investments were Massenet’s would remain hers,” the suit said.
“Yet, once some money began to come in, Torstensson actually diverted those funds to rent flashy private planes and art to impress his peers, rather than make good on his promises,” the suit alleged. “In reality, Torstensson planned to use Massenet’s fame and fortune to leverage his public standing, reputation, and finances, while draining Massenet’s assets on their expensive lifestyle, and then cut her out of her investment in Torstensson.”
In a statement over the weekend, Bonnie Eskenazi, Torstensson’s attorney, said: “Erik Torstensson is a talented businessman with a proven track record of success, a trusted counselor and, above all, a loving father. It is sad that Ms. Massenet would file a public lawsuit so vengeful and obviously meritless without any regard to the harm it would cause their family — and we will vigorously contest it.”
Last week, Torstensson filed a child custody suit in New York Supreme Court, accusing Massenet of being an unfit parent.
The suit has been sealed, but its contents were reported by The New York Times last week and a person familiar with the paperwork confirmed the details to WWD.
Torstensson’s suit alleged that Massenet “loved the limelight” and sought to “exert control of him.” It also claimed she “used drugs regularly,” “ingested alcoholic beverages heavily” and at times “turned violent” with him.
The suit also said she initiated the romantic relationship, turning to him on a flight and saying, “Kiss me,” while she was still married — an overture that allegedly led to the pair having sex in a car outside her London home and again in a car in Ibiza during her family’s vacation.
The two eventually took their relationship out of the backseat and went public as a blended family with her two daughters from a prior relationship and then their son.
A spokesperson for Massenet told WWD over the weekend: “Erik Torstensson filed a confidential child custody claim — under seal — in relation to his and Natalie’s 7-year-old son and simultaneously leaked it to the media. Torstensson’s improper use of the family court process is nothing more than a vindictive smear campaign in response to Natalie’s claim against him in California to settle financial matters. Natalie’s claim was filed as a last resort, after many months of trying to persuade Erik to mediate privately and thoughtfully, for the sake of their son and with respect to their 14 years together.
“This action is clearly not in the interests of their child and is typical of Torstensson’s behavior that led to the breakdown of the couple’s relationship and the recent changes to his professional roles. Natalie remains open to mediation and to the private resolution of this family matter. Throughout her life and career, Natalie has led with integrity and transparency, expecting the same in her personal relationships.”
The surface layer in fashion can be an important part of the substance. Creatives and business executives cultivate a lifestyle and then, in one way or another, seek to package and sell it either to consumers or to industry contacts. In 2017, Massenet bought a seven-bedroom, $15.5 million East Hampton, N.Y., home that Torstensson would use to entertain friends and contacts and further his businesses and investments, according to her suit.
But when life crumbles, there’s sometimes just no easy way to wrap things up and move on like there is in business.
Susan Scafidi, founder and director of Fordham Law School’s Fashion Law Institute, said the case reminded her that before pair-ups were based on romantic interest, they were financial arrangements.
“Mixing business and pleasure can be a toxic cocktail, but the prophylactic antidote is a well-drafted prenup and/or contracts memorializing even the couple’s subsequent intra-marital business agreements,” she said.
Divorces are more clearly defined in legal terms than romantic breakups.
“As I used to tell my students when I taught property, and very briefly family law, ‘If she liked it, then she should’ve put a ring on it — and executed a prenup!’ An antenuptial agreement is not an anti-nuptial agreement, or at least not necessarily,” Scafidi said.
So Massenet seems to be looking to move the dispute to the realm of business, where everything is dollars and cents and can be hashed out.
Her initial suit argued: “Torstensson is responsible for the damages he caused to Massenet, which include the millions he scammed from her, and a return on her investment in him and his ventures. While Massenet is emotionally devastated and in shock caused by Torstensson’s outrageous behavior, this is a case of a return on investment in a man who leveraged Massenet’s capital and brand to build wealth, while she bore the majority of the costs. Massenet is demanding now what any investor would — a fair, equitable return on the investments she made, value she created, and costs she carried.”
