IP licensing and insolvency reform: ipso facto clauses

Licensors of intellectual property rights may soon be unable to terminate licenses where the licensee has gone into an insolvency process.

What are ipso facto clauses and why do they matter?

How was the CIGB received?
Were there any concerns?
What has changed?
What else was proposed?
What's next?
A recap

After the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (CIGB) was published on 20 May 2020, it raced through the House of Commons and House of Lords and, on 26 June 2020 (in under 6 weeks) came into force as the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), with certain of the temporary measures taking effect from 1 March 2020.

How was the CIGB received?

Licensors of intellectual property rights may soon be unable to terminate licences where the licensee has gone into an insolvency process.

What are ipso facto clauses and why do they matter?

Permanent measures
Temporary measures

The much anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020.

The much anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020.

The proposed legislation is split into two broad categories: temporary provisions brought about as a result of COVID-19 and permanent provisions which will result in fundamental changes to UK insolvency law. The proposals, both temporary and permanent, reflect a shift towards a more debtor-friendly regime.

Building on measures already introduced in the Coronavirus Act – such as the moratorium on lease termination for non-payment of rent until 30 June 2020 – the Government announced that further emergency measures will be introduced.

Statutory demands and winding up petitions issued to commercial tenants to be temporarily voided

The forthcoming Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill will include restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions to recover sums owed by tenants.

The Coronavirus pandemic, while primarily a public health issue, is creating numerous legal concerns. We have identified some of the key issues and developments below. In addition, we have formed a task force comprised of partners and senior lawyers from across all practice groups and offices to track developments and provide timely guidance to clients on Coronavirus-related issues.

M&A

Credit agreements by their terms commonly bar the borrower from seeking punitive, indirect, special or consequential damages for a breach of the agreement by lenders and their affiliates. The clauses, as enforced, prevent a borrower from obtaining damages for harm that may be suffered by the borrower's business if the lender wrongfully declines to fund. The clauses prevent lenders from exposure to open-ended damages claims if the lenders refuse to lend to a borrower, including damages that are the direct and indirect result of the failure to lend.

Key Points

• A binding contract by exchange of email did not arise where parties were simply exploring a potential deal.

• Sale by auction is often appropriate where an asset is difficult to value.

• Where no differential treatment of creditors, unfair harm requires that a decision does not withstand logical analysis.

The Facts