It is common for contracts to include a clause that provides that on an event of default the counterparty has an unconditional right to terminate the contract or accelerate payment (an ipso facto clause). The regulation of ipso facto clauses has become a topic of debate in recent years with a number of jurisdictions introducing constraints on such clauses as part of broader restructuring reform packages. These jurisdictions include Germany in 2021 (as part of its implementation of the EU Restructuring Directive) and the United Kingdom in 2020. For jurisdictions introducing such constraints for the first time, there is much to learn from those, such as Canada, that have had constraints on ipso facto clauses in place for much longer. This article examines the experience in Canada alongside the constraints introduced in the United Kingdom, the EU Restructuring Directive and Germany, and identifies a series of steps that policymakers should follow when revising a regime on ipso facto clauses. Although there are a number of common themes that emerge, it is clear that different jurisdictions often make quite distinct policy choices regarding the rationale for any constraints on ipso facto clauses as well as on the specific nature and scope of the provisions. Different jurisdictions find different points of balance between the interests of individual creditors in upholding their freedom of contract and the rights of the debtor and creditors as a whole in preserving the business as a going concern. The range of choices is not per se problematic as long as they are implemented with clarity and transparency, so that debtors and creditors can bargain ex ante in the light of any legislative provisions.

中文翻译：

---

规范 ipso facto 条款的承诺和风险

合同通常包含一个条款，规定在违约事件中，交易对手有权无条件终止合同或加快付款（ipso facto条款）。近年来，对ipso facto条款的监管已成为争论的话题，许多司法管辖区对此类条款引入了限制，作为更广泛的重组改革方案的一部分。这些司法管辖区包括 2021 年的德国（作为其实施欧盟重组指令的一部分）和 2020 年的英国。对于首次引入此类限制的司法管辖区，有很多值得借鉴的地方，例如加拿大对事实上的限制条款到位时间更长。本文考察了加拿大的经验以及英国、欧盟重组指令和德国引入的限制条件，并确定了政策制定者在修订关于ipso facto条款的制度时应遵循的一系列步骤。尽管出现了许多共同的主题，但很明显，不同的司法管辖区通常会就任何限制ipso facto的理由做出截然不同的政策选择条款以及条款的具体性质和范围。不同的司法管辖区在个别债权人维护合同自由的利益与债务人和债权人整体维护企业持续经营的权利之间找到不同的平衡点。选择范围本身并没有问题，只要它们以清晰和透明的方式实施，以便债务人和债权人可以根据任何立法规定事前讨价还价。