Todd Oldham's Lawsuit Against Old Navy Dismissed
Todd Oldham lawsuit (not over ways to use burlap) has been dismissed. Photo: Getty Images
The parties' tangled history dates back a few years. Old Navy had hired Oldham as its Design Creative Director in September of 2007. The parties then entered into a side agreement to launch a separate licensing deal for a Todd Oldham signature collection in October 2008.
But the signature line never came about. Negotiations over developing the collaboration crumbled and Oldham's company, L-7 Designs Inc., headed to court alleging that Old Navy breached its contract by failing to negotiate in good faith, says the paper.
U.S. District Court of Southern New York Judge Denny Chin didn't agree. Chin granted Old Navy's motion to dismiss and found that the retailer had made good faith efforts to negotiate for 10 months. The judge wrote:
"L-7 was making extraordinarily high demands. At one point during the discussions, L-7 demanded (through outside counsel) $75 million in compensation for lost royalties and reputational damages.
"It later demanded a minimum guarantee of $37.5 million in royalties for a three-year term, which it then later reduced to $20 million for a two-year term... It is not surprising that Old Navy resisted these demands," WWD reports.
Oldham isn't giving up the fight that easy. In fact, L-7 vows to appeal.
It turns out the designer may have some fashion friends to keep him company. New York & Company also recently filed suit.
Tags: breach of contract, Fashion Lawsuits, FashionLawsuits, Old Navy, signature line, Todd Oldham






Jennifer Marcotrigiano, 1-27-2010, 7:21PM
The L-7 /Todd Oldham v. Old Navy lawsuit was precipitated in nothing but total greed.
The fact is, that Oldham is represented by an overzealous licensing agent for whom Oldham is his sole cash cow, and was using Oldham to fill his barren coffers.The greed that ensued killed the deal. Usually in the good old US greed wins out. God Bless Denny Chin for seeing through the BS and making a sound decision.
Reply »