Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

We recently blogged (here) about the Privy Council decision of Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda InternationalLtd [2024] UKPC 16 (

Can a creditor obtain a winding up order against a debtor company if the underlying dispute over the debt is subject to an arbitration agreement between the parties?

此前我们在《从“License-in”转型“License-out”——你的“自主知识产权”成色几何？》中对企业在开展License-out过程中涉及的知识产权侵权问题进行了梳理，并提出了实操建议供企业参考。此外，在技术许可交易中，还有一个此前常被中国企业在技术交易中忽略的问题，即技术许可方破产对技术许可的影响。随着中国技术类企业正逐步从技术引进（“License-in”）转向技术输出（“License-out”），中国企业也时常碰到境外被许可方提出的“破产保护”诉求。我们将在本文中对该问题进行探讨，并对国外常见的应对方案“技术托管”进行较为详细的介绍。

一、许可方破产对技术许可合同的影响

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Where a winding up petition is based on a debt arising from a contract with a non-Hong Kong exclusive jurisdiction clause, the court will tend to dismiss or stay the winding up petition in favour of the parties’ agreed forum unless there are strong countervailing factors.

In the current economic climate, more and more companies are getting into financial difficulties, informal workouts by debtor companies, with support from certain creditors, seem to be increasingly common.

When a company is in the so-called “twilight zone” approaching insolvency, it is well-established that the directors’ fiduciary duties require them to take into account interest of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”).

Two recent cases, Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (the “GOCC Case“) and Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581 (the “Trinity Case“), reaffirm

In Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2023] HKCFI 1443, the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Court“) made a winding up order against the Company on the basis that it failed to pay security in time. In considering the Company’s opposition grounds, the Court commented that it retains discretion to wind up a company in cases involving an arbitration clause.