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”
On July 6-7, 2017, Craig Jalbert, in his capacity as Trustee for F2 Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 187 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending on the nature of the claims). In certain instances, the Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On June 15, 2017, Curtis R. Smith, as Liquidating Trustee of the Hastings Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 69 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On June 13, 2017, The Original Soupman, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively “Debtors” or “Original Soupman”) commenced voluntary bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to its petition, Original Soupman estimates that its assets are between $1 million and $10 million, and its liabilities are between $10 million and $50 million.
On May 17, 2017, GulfMark Offshore, Inc. (“GulfMark” or “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Starting on April 28, 2017, Craig R. Jalbert, as Distribution Trustee of the Corinthian Distribution Trust, filed approximately 122 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548, 549 and and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Distribution Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.
Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).