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.

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 710/2019, de 8 de marzo, resuelve en casación, por primera vez, creo, el extremo relativo a la oponibilidad al concurso de una condición resolutoria acompañada de una cláusula penal de retención de la totalidad del precio ya pagado por el comprador inmobiliario insolvente. Según la Sala, la condición resolutoria (inmobiliaria) es plenamente oponible al concurso; en este caso se hallaba inscrita, pero no parece que esta condición haya sido relevante para su efectividad.

Interesante Resolución de la Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado de 5 junio 2019. En el origen, se trata de la inscripción de una venta directa de bien hipotecado, hecha en liquidación concursal, por un valor inferior al de tasación, pero sin contar con el consentimiento del acreedor hipotecario, como impone el artículo 155.4 de la Ley Concursal (LCon). Según la administración concursal, este consentimiento no es preciso, pues en virtud del artículo 97 ha desaparecido el crédito hipotecario por no estar incluido en la lista ni haber sido ésta objeto de impugnación.

Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 227/2019, de 11 abril. Después de la declaración de concurso de la prestataria, la acreedora hipotecaria (una Caja Rural) comunicó un crédito de 117.174,82 euros, que se correspondía a 114.839,44 euros de principal, 1.089,29 euros de intereses remuneratorios y 127,16 euros de intereses de demora. El crédito es clasificado como crédito con privilegio especial. Abierta la liquidación, se procedió a la subasta de las dos fincas sobre las que se había constituido la hipoteca en garantía del reseñado crédito. La subasta se celebró el 11 de marzo de 2013.