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

In a recent legal development that underscores the intricate interplay between federal bankruptcy law and the cannabis industry, a court case has emerged involving a bankruptcy filing by an employee of a cannabis company. It’s well established that, because cannabis is generally considered a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), certain cannabis related companies are precluded from obtaining debt relief through bankruptcy. Now individuals employed by cannabis companies might find themselves in the same boat. In Blumsack v. Harrington, 2024 Bankr.

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.

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Court”) confirmed a plan for a cannabis-related business (“Debtor”) to sell its equity interests in a Canadian cannabis company, Lowell Farms, and distribute the proceeds to its creditors.

As the cannabis industry matures, there will be winners and losers. Losers lack access to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Marijuana related assets cannot be sold free and clear of liens and encumbrances via the tried and true bankruptcy section 363 sale, which leaves the loser’s creditors without the best tool to maximize the value of the loser’s assets, and deprives acquirers of a federal court order conveying assets. What’s the state of play, and what’s the alternative for the losers, their creditors, and the companies that would acquire them?

STATE OF PLAY

Bank Asset Auction: Bids for Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. (“SVB”) and its subsidiary Silicon Valley Private Bank, together or separately, in whole or in part, are due by Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 8 p.m. and Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8 p.m. We’ve previously reported that SVB is open for operations for a minimum of ninety days until it is sold or liquidated.

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.

The FDIC has statutory obligations to maximize the net present value return from the sale or disposition of the assets entrusted to it as receiver, and to minimize the amount of any loss realized.[1] Today we examine the FDIC’s efforts to fulfill its mandate through the transfer of assets to bridge-banks, Silicon Valley Bank, N.A. (“SVB”) and Signature Bank, N.A. (“SB”).

With the current economic difficulties affecting the tech sector, a number of companies who took Future Fund investment during the pandemic have been faced with the following realities: