III INITIATIVES: PRIZE IN INTERNATIONAL INSOLVENCY STUDIES
III 2026 Prize in International Insolvency Studies Winners
The winners of the 2026 Prize in Insolvency Studies were recognized at III’ s 2026 International Insolvency Conference in Montreal. Summaries of each winning submission are provided below. To read the full articles, click on the linked title of each submission.
Gold Medal Winner Guillem Gabriel-Pizarro, Fordham Law From cannonballs to water pistols: The endogenous challenges in the treatment of IP licences in European insolvency proceedings and the need for further harmonisation notwithstanding the forthcoming 2026 Directive
The increasing reliance on intellectual property licensing within the knowledge-based economy has made the stability of such arrangements an issue of growing importance in insolvency law. In innovation-driven sectors, licences facilitate access to technology and support substantial investments by licensees. Where the licensor enters insolvency proceedings, however, termination may
26
deprive the licensee of essential technology, undermine investments made in reliance upon the agreement and leave it with no more than an unsecured claim against the estate.
Directive( EU) 2026 / 799 is the first EU legislative instrument expressly to address this problem. The Commission’ s original proposal contemplated mandatory protection against the termination of IP licence agreements in prepack proceedings where the licensor was the debtor. The enacted Directive, however, leaves Member States free to decide whether such protection should be introduced. The EU legislature has recognised the fire, identified the extinguisher and permitted each Member State to decide whether to use it. The harmonising ambition has moved, in that respect, from cannonballs to water pistols.
This article examines what remains after enacting such facultative provision. It asks whether the European Insolvency Regulation can respond coherently to the divergent national policy choices governing the treatment of IP licences in insolvency. Its central argument is that the existing framework is fragmented, uneven and increasingly difficult to reconcile with the EU’ s ambitions for cross-border investment and innovation.
The analysis brings together insolvency law, intellectual property law and private international law. It shows that the resilience of a licence depends on more than just the treatment of executory contracts in insolvency. It also depends upon the legal nature of the licensed right itself. A purely contractual entitlement will ordinarily remain exposed to the lex loci concursus. A proprietary or quasi-proprietary right may bind third parties and resist the effects of the main insolvency proceedings. A functional comparative examination of Austria, France, Germany and Spain reveals significant divergence. These national differences acquire European consequences through the operation of the general rules together with the rights in rem exception of the European Insolvency Regulation.
26