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。

The recent judgment of HHJ Richard Williams, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Loveridge v Povey & Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) deals with what he described as a bitter dispute over the Loveridge family business. The business concerned was the operation of caravan parks in Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Shropshire, in part through five companies, and in part through three partnerships at will. The companies made use of interest-free inter-company loans repayable on demand

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。

Nilsson & Anor v Iqbal & Anor [2024] EWHC 49 (Ch) was an application by the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mohammed Babar Iqbal for a declaration as to the beneficial ownership and an order for possession and sale of his former matrimonial home, Southview, Pollards Hill East in London. Mr Iqbal, the first respondent, did not appear to resist the trustees’ claim. The second respondent, Mrs Iqbal, did. She was his former wife under Islamic law.

Summary

Judgments on claims for fraudulent trading (s 213 Insolvency Act 1986) do not come along every day: they are hard to make good. A recent example is, however, that of Charles Morrison (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in Bouchier & Anor v Booth & Anor [2023] EWHC 3195 (Ch). It runs to 281 paragraphs and covers a wide range of law and fact.

The judgment of Chief ICC Judge Briggs in Re Zhang Zhenxin (Deceased); Eternity Sky Investments Ltd v The Estate of Zhang Zhenxin (Deceased) and Anor [2023] EWHC 2744 (Ch) is of interest because, as the judge himself remarked, there is little authority on the appointments of interim receivers in cases of individual insolvency; and for that matter there is little on the administration of the estates of deceased insolvents, that being the condition of the debtor in this case.

If an employer intends to make 20 or more employees redundant, at one establishment, within a 90-day period, they must notify the Secretary of State at least 30 days before the first dismissal, as per Section 193(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”). Failure to adhere to this requirement is a criminal offence. This legislation has been of great concern to insolvency practitioners who are often dealing with companies in a precarious position and do not have the luxury of time to comply with Section 193(2) TULRCA.

ICC Judge Mullen’s decision in Sunset Ltd & Anor v Al-Hindi [2023] EWHC 2443 (Ch) emphasises the importance of ensuring the existence of a debt capable of forming the basis of a bankruptcy petition at the time of presentation.

The petition in this case was presented against Mr Al-Hindi by Sunset Limited and Morville Limited on 23 June 2022 based on his failure to comply with statutory demands dated 29 March 2022 claiming £248,750 said to be due by way of unpaid rent under leases of four London properties.