Fulltext Search

Introduction

The proud sporting nations of Ireland and England have for some time traded blows and bragging rights within the Six Nations Tournament as the two pre-eminent and consistent "Home Nations" rugby teams. While the two sides share some similarities in the rebuilding process following the World Cup in France 2023, ahead of this Saturday's clash, few can argue with Ireland's emphatic start to this year's tournament. England, however, can never be written off at Twickenham, so a potential blockbuster awaits!

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。

The Calcutta Cup represents a long and competitive rugby rivalry between the great neighbours that are Scotland and England. Last year, Scotland retained the trophy in a hard-fought match at Twickenham with victory being sealed in the last minute with a try from Duhan van der Merwe who, being 6ft 4 inches, blond and in the peak of physical health, is a fair representation of your average Scotsman.

The Consumer Duty is one of the most significant pieces of regulation to land in the financial services industry for some time and represents a major shift in how firms will need to view customer outcomes and proactively address harm in the retail market. For Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) appointed over a regulated firm that has products within the scope of the duty, this will form part of the regulatory obligations with which the firm (and the IP) will need to ensure compliance.

The recently reported decision of ICC Judge Greenwood in Grove Independent School Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 2546 (Ch) (Grove) provides some clarity on the test to be applied by the court in deciding whether to exercise discretion to grant an order for a Part A1 moratorium. In this case, the company in question was also faced with a winding-up petition, presented by His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

Between 1 April and 30 June 2023, there were 6,342 registered company insolvencies, which is the highest number of insolvencies since the second quarter of 2009, and a 9% increase on the previous quarter of 2023.

Background

In R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v. Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another (Respondents), the Supreme Court held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an "officer" of the insolvent company under section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).