
引言
在投融资实践中,一方面,部分掌握核心技术/知识产权(“IP”)的产业投资人、科研院所等出资人(“IP出资人”)在投资时,希望通过IP出资减轻自身的现金出资负担并增强目标公司的核心竞争力,实现共赢。如果出资标的是IP出资人的核心IP,IP出资人往往希望以IP使用权而非IP所有权作为出资,以保护自身利益。另一方面,相较于常见的现金出资,目标公司对IP使用权出资的了解更少,也存在些许疑问。
实践中,IP使用权出资是IP出资人和目标公司/创始人经常向我们咨询的“老话题”。IP使用权出资需要考虑诸多问题和潜在风险,我们在此进行简单介绍,希望为IP出资人和目标公司/创始人提供一些指引。
第一部分 结论
I’m on a curiosity-quest to find the first-ever U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the subject of bankruptcy.
Excitement arises, for a moment, upon discovering Gibbs v. Gibbs, 1 U.S. 371 (1788). After all, Gibbs v. Gibbs:
Here’s a hard-knocks rule for debtor attorneys:
- Never file Chapter 7 for a corporation or an LLC.
Chapter 7 has always been a grave yard for failed Chapter 11s: that’s where Chapter 11 cases go when debtors can’t get a Chapter 11 plan confirmed. For example, 35.4% of Chapter 11 cases filed between 1989 and 1995 converted to Chapter 7. [Fn. 1]
But Chapter 7 is rarely a good first-choice for corporations and LLCs who want/need to liquidate.
Every now and then we get a glimpse into the past . . . that casts light on issues and events of today.
One such glimpse is a Harvard Law Review article from 1909: “The Effect of a National Bankruptcy Law upon State Laws.”[Fn. 1]. It’s by Samuel Williston—the same Samuel Williston who authored “Williston on Contracts” and who served as professor of law at Harvard Law School from 1895 to 1938.
Bankruptcy v. State Laws—in 1909
Bankruptcy issues have been around for a very long time—for centuries, in fact.
And bankruptcy issues have been discussed in these United States for the entire time of our existence–and before.
Even in our Colonial times (prior to 1776), bankruptcy and insolvency issues were in much discussion—especially since debtors often found themselves imprisoned, back then, for unpaid debt.
Three InfoWars entities file voluntary bankruptcy on April 17, 2022, under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.[Fn.1] And a storm of controversy immediately erupts on whether the three entities actually qualify for Subchapter V relief.
On June 10, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court enters an “Agreed Order Dismissing Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases” (Doc. 114), based on this stipulation of the three InfoWars debtors: “Debtors and the UST wish to stipulate to the disposition of the Chapter 11 Cases.”
Legal nature of a keepwell deed
Keepwell deeds are widely used in offshore financing transactions, but such arrangement has only been tested in the PRC courts in recent years. In this alert, we explore issues relevant to the enforceability of such arrangements in Mainland China.
State laws on assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) have been around for a long time. But times have changed over the last half-century. Specifically, the bankruptcy alternative has changed dramatically:
When an enforcement authority issues guidelines to its personnel for making enforcement decisions and makes those guidelines public, all who are subject to that authority should sit-up and take notice.
On June 10, 2022, the U.S. Trustee’s Office, Department of Justice, issues “Guidelines” to its personnel for enforcing rules on “Bifurcated Chapter 7 Fee Agreements.”[Fn. 1]
Here is an internal description on the nature of the guidelines (at 6):
“the specter of sanctions and contempt spawns ancillary litigation that often eclipses the issues at the heart of the underlying dispute.”
—From In re A.T. Reynolds & Sons, Inc., 452 B.R. 374, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), reversing a Bankruptcy Court order of contempt and sanctions for lack of “good faith” in a mandated mediation.