Breathing Spaces and Mental Health Crisis Moratoriums (MHCM) were introduced by the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the "2020 Regulations").

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

维好协议还好吗? 前 言 维好协议（KEEPWELL DEED）通常由在中国 1 注册成立的 母 公司签 署，为其 境 外 子 公司的融 资 进 行增信（CREDIT ENHANCEMENT）（见图表），最初常见于债券市场，近年 来也经常出现在贷款交易中。 提供维好承诺的母公司承诺维持其境外债务人子公司的财 务健康，以增强债权人对债务人的信心。 维 好协议 通常包含的承诺有：要求 维 好提 供方维持境外 维好协议与保证的主要区别 维好协议和保证有以下的重要分别 : 1. 仅就本文而言，“中国”或“中国内地”指中华人民共和国，不包括香港及澳门特别行政区和台湾。“境内”及“境外”有相应的意思。 债务人的净资产为正值、为其提供偿还债务的流动资金、 以 及保 持其对该等境 外债务人的管控 权和所有权等。其 中一些承诺或受制于取得相关中国政府部门的审批将资 金 汇出境 外的前 提 条 件，并且 维 好提 供 方必须尽最 大努 力获 得该 等审 批。除 签 署维 好协议 外，维 好 提 供 方通常 还 会 签 署股 权 购买承 诺（EQUITY INTEREST PURCHASE UNDERTAKINGS），即维好提供方承诺购买其境外债务人 子公司持有的若干股权，以便将资金（即购买对价）汇出境外。

金杜合伙人苏萌律师应联合国国际贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）邀请作为碳交易及金融领域专家，于2024年1月31日和2月1日参加在维也纳举行的联合国贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）专家组与国际统一私法协会（UNIDROIT）工作组关于自愿碳信用（VCC）法律性质的联席会议[1]。在联席会议上，苏律师就工作报告内容参与讨论并发表观点，并就中国自愿碳市场发展状况对研究报告做出修订和补充。

In R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court [2023] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court has ruled that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 is not an "officer" of the company.

This case considered this issue within the meaning of section 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the TULRCA). As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, administrators will not be exposed to potential criminal liability for failing to notify the Secretary of State of collective redundancies.

An analysis of recent statistics show what the Insolvency and Tax Disputes teams at Mishcon de Reya have long experienced – that HMRC is not in the habit of overlooking an outstanding debt.

Amendments to the director disqualification regime, enacted in 2015, enable the Insolvency Service (on the request of a creditor of an insolvent company) to seek a compensatory remedy against a disqualified director for the benefit of the creditor(s). This empowers a creditor to take action where an insolvency officer may be unable, or unwilling, to do so.

This case relates to the principle that creditors with the benefit of a third-party debt order, are ostensibly in a better position than other unsecured creditors of an insolvent estate.

The Financial Conduct Authority (“the FCA”) issued a Final Notice against London Capital & Finance plc (“LCF”) for contravening regulatory requirements (pursuant to section 205 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“the Act”)). The Final Notice contained a statement censuring LCF for failing to ensure that its financial promotions were fair, clear and not misleading.

On Wednesday 27 September 2023, Mishcon de Reya hosted the first in a new series of Disputes Essentials breakfast seminars, which aim to provide the latest updates and practical insights on essential dispute-related topics.