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.
There are today at least 2,352 different types of cryptocurrencies being traded on various exchanges1. As legislators, regulators, financial institutions, and other businesses have been seeking to understand the opportunities and risk presented by cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, and other fast-moving Fintech developments since the launch of Bitcoin around 10 years ago, on 18 November 2019 the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce of the Lawtech Delivery Panel published a Legal Statement2 in relation to cryptoassets and smart contracts, following a period of public con
Following the judgments in recent years on attribution to a company of its directors' knowledge in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir [2015] UKSC 23 and UBS AG (London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, the UK Supreme Court has once more returned to this issue in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (a Company Incorporated in The Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, in a case where a bank (Daiwa) was held liable for breaching its Quincecare duty of care to its customer,
Introduction
In the recent case of Global Corporate Ltd v Hale , the Court of Appeal was asked to assess whether sums, described as “interim dividends”, paid to Mr. Hale (the “Respondent”) in his capacity as both a director and shareholder of Powerstation UK Limited (the “Company”), had been made in accordance with section 830 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) prior to the Company’s insolvency.