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。
It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
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。
Advice that may have served House of Pain in their 1992 hit song, “Jump Around,” to “bring a shotgun” to battle likely does not translate well to plaintiffs in federal litigation contemplating bringing a “shotgun” pleading to court. In this article we explore types of shotgun pleadings identified by courts and outline potential responses to a shotgun pleading.
Shotgun Pleadings and Relationship to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
In May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out. At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing
On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.
I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.
引言
按照《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《企业破产法》”）第三十二条[1]规定，管理人有权起诉请求法院撤销破产企业在一定期间内的个别清偿行为。债权人在面对该类个别清偿撤销诉讼时，时常面临举证困难、法律适用不明确等困境。
我们近期代理某金融机构债权人处理一宗个别清偿纠纷诉讼二审程序。本文将尝试结合这一案件，提出我们对上述法律规定的思考，讨论债权人应对个别清偿撤销诉讼的“困境”与“突围”，并且为债权人提供缓释该类纠纷带来的潜在风险的思路。
一、债权人应对个别清偿撤销纠纷的困境
为充实破产企业偿债资产、维护债权人公平受偿，《企业破产法》赋予管理人针对债务人破产前一定期间内特定行为的撤销权。本文关注的是《企业破产法》第三十二条指向的债务人在破产申请受理前6个月内的个别清偿行为，或称“偏颇性清偿行为”。依照该条规定，撤销该类行为需要满足以下条件：
Hundreds and hundreds of claims for personal injury and property damage associated with PFAS contamination have been accumulating in the courtroom of a Federal Judge in South Carolina. A little over four years ago the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that Federal claims that Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) containing PFAS used to fight fires had contaminated drinking water had enough in common that they should all be sent to Federal Judge Gergel in South Carolina for disposition.