24. LICENCE



24.1 The Chargee, ( bank ), hereby grants to the Chargor , ( CIG ), an exclusive license, revocable only in accordnance with Clause 24.2, to develop, produce, exploit and otherwise deal with the Game.



24.2 The Chargee, ( bank ), may terminate the license granted pursuant to Clause 24.1 above upon the happening of an Event of Default which remains unremedied on the date failing 60 days after the the Chargee has given written notice to the Chargor of such Event of Default. Click to expand...

The last thread got closed because it linked to a banned source, so I'm linking to the original source here:CIG, the creators of Star Citizen, a game that has pulled in $150 million in crowdfunding, many times the original goal of $6 million, has applied for additional loan funding from a bank, in return offering up literally everything they own as collateral -. From the attached PDF:. They can't apply for any additional loans or funding because they have nothing to offer - all their assets have a negative pledge clause.Putting everything you own up as collateral is pretty rare - Ford did it just before the 2008 recession and it was a heavily remarked upon piece of news because mortgaging the company was, and is, a gutsy move that requires either a strong long-term plan requiring lots of capital investment, or is an act of desperation in trying to feed a furnace and the only thing left are the floorboards and planking upon which it sits. Either way it's a huge risk.Obviously the terms of the loan aren't public, but this looks like it's more of the latter than the former - banks will look at the company's assets, net income, company structure, accountant reports, etc. and then usually offer (or refuse) a loan with strings attached, the number of strings depending on the financial shape of the business. CIG went to Coutts with their finances and came back with a floating charge, a fixed charge (on all assets), and a negative pledge. Evidently, their finances did not impress.