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.
On January 27, 2020, FERC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) for rehearing en banc of that court’s decision finding bankruptcy court-FERC concurrent jurisdiction over certain power purchase agreements. Notwithstanding such concurrent jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit’s decision finds that the bankruptcy court’s concurrent jurisdiction is paramount, and that therefore, FERC-jurisdictional power purchase agreements are susceptible to rejection in bankruptcy.
In orders issued on January 25 and 28, 2019, FERC concluded that the Commission and the bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of FERC-jurisdictional contracts sought to be rejected through bankruptcy and, therefore, a party to a FERC-jurisdictional wholesale power agreement must first obtain approval from both FERC and the bankruptcy court to modify the filed rate and reject the filed wholesale power contract, respectively. FERC made its determination in response to two separate petitions (“Petitions”) filed by NextEra Energy, Inc.
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