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
2021年5月14日，最高人民法院与香港特区政府签署了《最高人民法院和香港特别行政区政府关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和协助破产程序的会谈纪要》（以下简称“《会谈纪要》”），为进一步细化两地破产案件协助机制，最高人民法院发布了《关于开展认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点工作的意见》（以下简称“《试点意见》”），在破产程序的互相认可、互认的案件范围、互认的法律效力、两地司法机构的协助方式等方面为涉及两地的破产工作提供了创新性指引。我们从《试点意见》的诞生背景入手，分析此次《试点意见》的创新亮点，作为在内地和香港特别行政区均专业从事债务重组业务的律师事务所，展望两地破产协助的前景。
一、《试点意见》的诞生背景
在《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法》的效力前提下，香港特区可以与全国其他地区的司法机关以协商方式进行司法协助。在法院判决及仲裁裁决的互认与执行等方面，内地与香港地区已签署八项民商事司法协助安排，但此前两地的司法协助将破产领域除外。《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第五条对跨境破产作出原则性规定，尚无制度性的司法文件。此番《试点意见》的出台，是对两地司法协助在破产领域的拓展性探索，对于破产从业人员参与跨境程序、保全企业资产、参与衍生诉讼与仲裁、境外债权人参与破产程序而言，《试点意见》无疑具有开创性意义。
引言：近期某集团破产清算案中，关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项，上海金融法院作出裁定，对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可，鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中，管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此，关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此，本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手，在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下，阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径，并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。
一、“维好协议”的性质分析
（一）何谓“维好协议”
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.
What happened?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?