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.
1. El supuesto de hecho
Una sociedad eslovaca productora de bebidas alcohólicas, que había conseguido un aplazamiento de su deuda fiscal previa constitución de garantías, no pudo hacer frente a los pagos pactados y, en consecuencia, presentó la solicitud de iniciación de un procedimiento de convenio de acreedores ante el tribunal regional competente, proponiendo el pago del 35 % de la deuda, que ascendía a un total de 21,4 millones de euros, de los cuales 21,3 correspondían a la deuda fiscal.
(La Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 20 de septiembre del 2017)
El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea establece las condiciones para no considerar ayuda de Estado la decisión de una autoridad pública cuando se comporta como lo haría un acreedor privado en una economía de mercado al aceptar una quita en un procedimiento de convenio de acreedores...
1. El supuesto de hecho
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