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
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.
This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.
In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.
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.
Our last newsletter commented on high inflation, dwindling business confidence and international supply chain issues. Those factors continue to influence the economic outlook, with some businesses unable to survive the strengthening head winds impacting the economy. The consumer price index increased 7.2 percent in the 12 months to December 2022, remaining stubbornly high despite significant movements in the official cash rate to 4.5%, up significantly from the 0.25% it was sitting at in October 2021. ANZ's economic forecast warns that a "policy induced recession is looming".
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:
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.