Ashley Stewart secures 15 million dollars in funding to support growth

Plus-size fashion brand Ashley Stewart has secured a 15 million dollar revolving credit facility providing financing to support its liquidity position and ongoing growth efforts. It comes after the company’s attempt to secure Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection was dismissed, leading to a sale of its assets.

The capital infusion was provided by Tiger Finance and comes on the back of Ashley Stewart’s acquisition by G Ashley Inc. through a UCC Article 9 sale. The process allows secured creditors to sell debtor’s property collateral without court involvement.

The funding will contribute to inventory procurement, supply chain continuity and omnichannel initiatives designed to improve both customer experience and margin performance, a press release said. It builds on efforts made upon the brand’s acquisition to streamline the balance sheet, with its new owners now looking to optimise operations.

In a statement, Sarika Gupta, chief financial officer of Ashley Stewart, said: “This partnership underscores Ashley Stewart’s longstanding resilience and ability to reinvent itself through changing retail cycles. With added liquidity, the brand will accelerate ongoing transformation initiatives while staying true to its mission of serving and uplifting curvy women.”

For Tiger Finance, a New York-based lending platform to Tiger Capital Group, Ashley Stewart fits the profile of businesses with “durable brand equity and clear paths to operational improvement”, Andy Babcock, senior managing director of the firm, said. “Our facility is designed to provide Ashley Stewart with the working capital flexibility needed to stabilise operations and position the brand for improved profitability,” he added.

Ashley Stewart currently operates 72 stores across the US, alongside an e-commerce platform and digital marketing presence. The company pursued Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December 2025 in an effort to reverse its UCC Article 9 foreclosure sale initiated the month prior. The filing was tossed by a New Jersey court, however, after it was determined that it was made without authorisation from the company’s official board.