The first half of 2024 saw a number of high-profile insolvencies in the fashion sector including the online retailer Matches Fashion and brands such as The Vampire’s Wife and Roksanda. Indeed Matches was reported to have owed over £35.9 million to various luxury brands, with a low percentage in respect of the amount recovered for supplier brands.

So, what can brands do to guard against retailers and wholesalers in the fashion supply chain becoming insolvent?

Retention of title – Incorporate a robust clause into your sale contracts

Regularly the news media reports that a fashion business is in difficulty or is about to, or has gone into, administration. But what is the purpose of administration? What does an Administrator do? Most importantly how should suppliers deal with an Administrator? And what does administration mean for a company’s creditors?

Purpose

Since the first Johnson & Johnson talc bankruptcy was filed in 2021, Judge Michael Kaplan has faced countless disagreements in the US Bankruptcy Court. These range from discovery fights, disputes over administration of tens of thousands of individual claims and all-out conflict over the total amount in controversy.

The Package Travel Regulations (“PTRs”), which came into force in 2018, have been tested significantly in recent years with failures such as Thomas Cook and Monarch, in addition to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its latest bankruptcy opinion in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s rule against invalidating 363 sales after appeal is not an iron-clad jurisdictional bar, but rather a mere statutory limitation.[1]

Just hours after the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey entered an order dismissing the Chapter 11 Case of Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, LTL Management, as a bad faith filing, LTL filed for Chapter 11 protection again in the same Bankruptcy Court.

Delaware Judge Brendan Shannon has joined calls for reforming Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code, echoing concerns that the section’s safe harbor from fraudulent transfer liability has allowed investors to “loot privately held companies to the detriment of their non-insider creditors with effective impunity.”[1]

In a decision that once again evidences the Fifth Circuit’s strong stance on the finality of asset sales in bankruptcy absent a stay of the applicable order, on March 8, 2023 the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas published a memorandum opinion and order affirming a bankruptcy court’s exercise of Bankruptcy Code provisions to strip subrogation rights of certain sureties (the “Sureties”) against an asset purchaser.

In what was described as a “momentous decision for company law”, the Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and Others [2022] UKSC 25 (“Sequana”) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by company directors to consider the interests of its creditors when nearing insolvency.

It marks the first time the nature, scope, and content of directors’ duties to creditors when a company is nearing insolvency has been considered by the Supreme Court.

In a decision that may provide much-needed boundaries around the permissibility of debtors created from “out-of-the-box” prepetition corporate transactions, on January 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous opinion dismissing Johnson & Johnson subsidiary LTL Management, LLC’s (“LTL”) chapter 11 case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey as not being filed in good faith.¹