Frances P. Hadfield of Crowell & Moring writes: The Trump administration’s decision to renegotiate NAFTA has unsettled U.S. fashion, apparel, and textile companies that have constructed their businesses around its provisions. Who will be the winners and losers in these talks? And just as importantly, is there more than money at stake?
Adam C. Rogoff, Erica D. Klein and Marsha Sukach of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel provide an overview of the current retailer restructuring environment, identify strategies for maximizing retail asset value, and provide practical tips to optimally position retailers and brands to succeed, including via out-of-court or in-court restructuring.
Andrew B. Lustigman of Olshan Frome Wolosky writes: The fashion industry has begun to realize the infiltration of sham reviews, and the relevance of this phenomenon will likely intensify as the fashion industry continues to engage in online sales.
Robert J. Roby and Catherine Holland of Knobbe Martens write: Fashion design companies need to tell a compelling story in order to cut through the noise of the digital marketplace and remain relevant. Part of telling a compelling story includes managing the dialogue and directing the action. While it is difficult to control either in this age of consumer-created content, there are many steps fashion design companies can take to engage consumers and keep their story on track.
Philip M. Berkowitz of Littler Mendelson writes: Retailers in high fashion must balance their genuine interests in building a brand culture with the requirements of labor and employment law. Practices that seem to make business sense, but which result in depriving groups of individuals from employment, should be reviewed with counsel to be sure that they do not unnecessarily expose the company to liability and the brand to unneeded damage.
Denning Rodriguez of Holland & Knight writes: Many fashion brands, especially emerging brands, remain uninformed of their obligations regarding consumers, as evinced in their marketing and sales campaigns. More so, such brands are ill-equipped to implement the best practices for addressing the legal obligations companies have when they market themselves. As such, without procedures and protocols in place, these brands open themselves up to substantial regulatory and legal action, let alone considerable consumer backlash through social media.
Karen Artz Ash and Alexandra R. Caleca of Katten Muchin Rosenman write: Whether dressed up as the “Three Change Rule,” the “Five Change Rule” or the “20% Rule,” there simply is no “rule,” and any designer who relies on the common misconception that making a set number of changes will circumvent infringement puts their business at risk.