contract assignment merger

• What’s New on the Watch?
• COVID-19 Updates
• Private Equity Webinar Series
• Private Equity Finance
• Global PE Update
• Glenn West Musings
• Quarterly Private Funds Update
• Ancillary Agreements
• Co-investments
• Cybersecurity
• Going Privates
• Legal Developments
• Minority Investments
• Portfolio Company Matters
• Purchase Agreements
• R&W Insurance
• Secondaries
• Securities Laws
• Shareholder Agreements
• Specialist Areas
• Contributors
• Global Team
• Privacy Policy

Private Equity

Watch your inbox.

Get the latest views and developments in the private equity world from the Global Private Equity Watch team at Weil.

Spotting issues with assignment clauses in M&A Due Diligence

Written by: Kira Systems

January 19, 2016

6 minute read

Although not nearly as complex as change of control provisions , assignment provisions may still present a challenge in due diligence projects. We hope this blog post will help you navigate the ambiguities of assignment clauses with greater ease by explaining some of the common variations. (And, if you like it, please check out our full guide on Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions in Due Diligence. )

What is an Assignment Clause?

First, the basics:

Anti-assignment clauses are common because without them, generally, contracts are freely assignable. (The exceptions are (i) contracts that are subject to statutes or public policies prohibiting their assignment, such as intellectual property contracts, or (ii) contracts where an assignment without consent would cause material and adverse consequences to non-assigning counterparties, such as employment agreements and consulting agreements.) For all other contracts, parties may want an anti-assignment clause that allows them the opportunity to review and understand the impact of an assignment (or change of control) before deciding whether to continue or terminate the relationship.

In the mergers and acquisitions context, an assignment of a contract from a target company entity to the relevant acquirer entity is needed whenever a contract has to be placed in the name of an entity other than the existing target company entity after consummation of a transaction. This is why reviewing contracts for assignment clauses is so critical.

A simple anti-assignment provision provides that a party may not assign the agreement without the consent of the other party. Assignment provisions may also provide specific exclusions or inclusions to a counterparty’s right to consent to the assignment of a contract. Below are five common occurrences in which assignment provisions may provide exclusions or inclusions.

Common Exclusions and Inclusions

Exclusion for change of control transactions.

In negotiating an anti-assignment clause, a company would typically seek the exclusion of assignments undertaken in connection with change of control transactions, including mergers and sales of all or substantially all of the assets of the company. This allows a company to undertake a strategic transaction without worry. If an anti-assignment clause doesn’t exclude change of control transactions, a counterparty might materially affect a strategic transaction through delay and/or refusal of consent. Because there are many types of change of control transactions, there is no standard language for these. An example might be:

In the event of the sale or transfer by [Party B] of all or substantially all of its assets related to this Agreement to an Affiliate or to a third party, whether by sale, merger, or change of control, [Party B] would have the right to assign any or all rights and obligations contained herein and the Agreement to such Affiliate or third party without the consent of [Party A] and the Agreement shall be binding upon such acquirer and would remain in full force and effect, at least until the expiration of the then current Term.

Exclusion for Affiliate Transactions

A typical exclusion is one that allows a target company to assign a contract to an affiliate without needing the consent of the contract counterparty. This is much like an exclusion with respect to change of control, since in affiliate transfers or assignments, the ultimate actors and responsible parties under the contract remain essentially the same even though the nominal parties may change. For example:

Either party may assign its rights under this Agreement, including its right to receive payments hereunder, to a subsidiary, affiliate or any financial institution, but in such case the assigning party shall remain liable to the other party for the assigning party’s obligations hereunder. All or any portion of the rights and obligations of [Party A] under this Agreement may be transferred by [Party A] to any of its Affiliates without the consent of [Party B].

Assignment by Operation of Law

Assignments by operation of law typically occur in the context of transfers of rights and obligations in accordance with merger statutes and can be specifically included in or excluded from assignment provisions. An inclusion could be negotiated by the parties to broaden the anti-assignment clause and to ensure that an assignment occurring by operation of law requires counterparty approval:

[Party A] agrees that it will not assign, sublet or otherwise transfer its rights hereunder, either voluntarily or by operations of law, without the prior written consent of [Party B].

while an exclusion could be negotiated by a target company to make it clear that it has the right to assign the contract even though it might otherwise have that right as a matter of law:

This Guaranty shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of [Party A]; provided, that no transfer, assignment or delegation by [Party A], other than a transfer, assignment or delegation by operation of law, without the consent of [Party B], shall release [Party A] from its liabilities hereunder.

This helps settle any ambiguity regarding assignments and their effects under mergers statutes (particularly in forward triangular mergers and forward mergers since the target company ceases to exist upon consummation of the merger).

Direct or Indirect Assignment

More ambiguity can arise regarding which actions or transactions require a counterparty’s consent when assignment clauses prohibit both direct and indirect assignments without the consent of a counterparty. Transaction parties will typically choose to err on the side of over-inclusiveness in determining which contracts will require consent when dealing with material contracts. An example clause prohibiting direct or indirect assignment might be:

Except as provided hereunder or under the Merger Agreement, such Shareholder shall not, directly or indirectly, (i) transfer (which term shall include any sale, assignment, gift, pledge, hypothecation or other disposition), or consent to or permit any such transfer of, any or all of its Subject Shares, or any interest therein.

“Transfer” of Agreement vs. “Assignment” of Agreement

In some instances, assignment provisions prohibit “transfers” of agreements in addition to, or instead of, explicitly prohibiting “assignments”. Often, the word “transfer” is not defined in the agreement, in which case the governing law of the contract will determine the meaning of the term and whether prohibition on transfers are meant to prohibit a broader or narrower range of transactions than prohibitions on assignments. Note that the current jurisprudence on the meaning of an assignment is broader and deeper than it is on the meaning of a transfer. In the rarer case where “transfer” is defined, it might look like this:

As used in this Agreement, the term “transfer” includes the Franchisee’s voluntary, involuntary, direct or indirect assignment, sale, gift or other disposition of any interest in…

The examples listed above are only of five common occurrences in which an assignment provision may provide exclusions or inclusions. As you continue with due diligence review, you may find that assignment provisions offer greater variety beyond the factors discussed in this blog post. However, you now have a basic understand of the possible variations of assignment clauses. For a more in-depth discussion of reviewing change of control and assignment provisions in due diligence, please download our full guide on Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions in Due Diligence.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more about what we do with these cookies in our privacy policy .

Feldman & Feldman

Civil litigation law firm, what happens to existing contracts after a business is sold.

In many cases, a company’s contracts are one of the major reasons why a suitor wants to buy it. In most instances, the buyer of the business should be able to assume a contract the seller had. The question is usually what process the buyer will need to follow in order to substitute themselves into an existing contract.

Most Contracts Are Assignable, Meaning the Rights and Obligations Remain Intact

In the best-case scenario, a business’ existing contract will be freely assignable to a new party. The new party will inherit all of the rights and obligations under the contract. The mere fact that a sale took place is enough to allow for the assignment of a contract. Note that the party that sells the business may not be off the hook if the incoming party to the contract fails to perform in accordance with their contractual obligations. However, the seller of the business may be able to seek indemnification from the buyer in case of a breach of the contract or a lawsuit.

The original contract will often include a clause that states whether the agreement is assignable. If it is, the customer or counterparty does not have any say over who is on the other side of the agreement; but they can still sue the new party for breach of contract because they still maintain their rights under the agreement.

Assignment Can Make a Business Agreement More Efficient

If a contract is assignable, there is no new agreement necessary. When a transaction closes, the new company will simply take over performance as the successor-in-interest to the old company. The merger agreement will already assign the rights and obligations under existing contracts to the buyer without a new, specific process for each existing agreement. In general, the principle of assignment makes business transactions more efficient and saves the parties from a complex legal process.

The general rule is that a contract is assignable unless there is a provision in it to the contrary. An anti-assignment clause is generally enforceable; however, the clause must be in the agreement at the time of the business transaction in order to be enforceable. The counterparty to a contract cannot argue against assignment in court when there is no language in the contract concerning assignment just because they do not approve of the new business entity coming into the deal.

At the same time, the incoming business will still have an obligation to perform under the terms of existing contracts. If it fails to perform, it may be sued for breach of contract. Just because there is a new owner does not mean the counterparty forfeits its rights under the contract. The counterparty may not have a say in who performs the contract, but they can still file a lawsuit just the same.

Novation Is a More Complex and Less Certain Way of Transferring Contracts

The complex process that assignment saves parties to a contract from is called novation . This process requires a separate agreement for each contract where the substitution of a party is needed. While novation is not necessarily an anti-assignment process, it will keep a seller from automatically assigning agreements upon the completion of a deal. The original party to a contract must approve and agree to the substitution of a new party.

For example, contracts with a government entity often require novation when there is a merger or sale of the business. Novation is not automatic. There may be requirements that the new party must meet in order to take over an existing contract. The contractual counterparty may try to use a merger transaction and their consent as leverage to negotiate better terms. Never assume a contract will be novated just because a deal has taken place; however, if the counterparty refuses to novate the contract, it will give the other business the right to terminate the deal. If many contracts require novation, the merger process can be complex. The buyer of the company is assuming the risk that not all contracts can be novated because the process would happen after the deal closes.

Some contracts may not be able to survive a business merger. For example, some personal services contracts require the original party to perform. Additionally, some contracts may have specific provisions that prohibit assignment regardless of the circumstances. And, some leases may completely prohibit assignment. Finally, public policy may mandate that certain contracts are not assignable.

A party may not even need a full merger agreement in order to trigger the need for assignment or novation provisions. There may be a stock sale or other business transaction that results in a change of control over the company. In this case, there may be a need to assign or novate contracts, depending on their terms.

Pay Close Attention to the Language of Each Contract Before the Deal Closes

If you are considering purchasing a business, you will get the chance to review relevant contracts before the deal closes and after you have agreed to the terms. There is a due diligence period where you will be able to view corporate financials and agreements. During due diligence, you should scrutinize the terms of key contracts to determine locate any potential anti-assignment provisions. You should also review agreements to understand what your legal obligations may be after the deal closes. Determining which contracts are assignable is a necessary component of assessing the value of the business you’re contemplating purchasing.

If you are selling a business, you need to develop an in-depth understanding of the reliability and trustworthiness of your counterparty. You should contact a contract lawyer to ensure you have adequate protection from a potential lawsuit in case the buyer does not perform in accordance with the obligations in your company’s contracts.

720.306.1001 [email protected]

Assigning Contracts in a M&A Transactions

Often, one of the most valuable portions of a business is its contractual relationships. It could be with contracts with customers, a key supplier, vendors, or strategic partners. In such cases, when a seller decides to sell its business, the buyer may expect for those key contracts to be assigned to it at closing (so that the buyer can benefit from the contractual relationship).

Generally, contracts may address the issue of assignability in a few different ways, including:

The contract might be silent on the topic (in which case, state statutory or common law will dictate how the contract might be assigned) The contract might explicitly prohibit assignment without the other parties prior consent. The contract might be freely assignable (in which case, the assigning party may need to provide notice to the other party of the assignment). The contract might provide for assignment, provided certain conditions are met.

Often, in a M&A transaction, the buying and selling parties will need to obtain consents to the assignment from the other party to the contract. In fact, many times, obtaining certain consents may be a condition to close the transaction (i.e., if you can’t get the consent, the buyer may not close the transaction). We have seen deals fail to close because the other party to the contract would not consent to the assignment. Likewise, in many cases (unless there is a really strong relationship between the seller and the other party to the contract), the other party to the contract doesn’t have the same sense of urgency to provide it’s consent to the assignment. In such cases, we have seen closing be held up for months while the parties attempt to get consent to the assignment.

What can you do about this now?

This can be an easy thing to plan for, in many cases. You can start by changing your template contracts now and, going forward, use a contract with a more-favorable assignment clause to you. For example, you might want to provide that you can assign the contract upon a change of control (whether by asset, stock sale, merger, or otherwise) by providing notice to the other party. Having such a provision in your standard agreements can make the deal process “smooth sailing.” In addition, it takes out the “counterparty risk” (i.e., the risk that the party to the other contract doesn’t consent or takes a long time to do so).

Of course, this is easiest to implement when you have bargaining power. For example, if you have many customers, none of which make up a significant portion of your revenue (i.e., you don’t have high customer concentration), then you certainly want your customers to agree to this.

But, as you can imagine, this may be more difficult in cases where the other party to the contract has more bargaining power. For example, if the other party is a big company (and you are a small account to it), it may be difficult to negotiate these terms in. But, it’s always worth asking (especially if there’s a transaction anywhere in the (near) future.

Reevaluate Your Forms

Let us help. Doida Law Group understands the complexities and nuances that go into negotiating contracts among a variety of high-stakes business situations. We have proven processes in place that provide price certainty and optimal results for all parties. How can we help you today?

We use cookies and similar technologies on our website for collecting analytics, improving functionality and enhancing our services. Please see our Cookie Policy for more information and for details about how to disable cookies. By clicking "I agree" or continuing to use our website, you agree to our use of cookies and similar technologies.

Acquiring Contracts in an M&A Transaction

When acquiring a business, often a key component is the contracts to which the company is a party to. Ensuring the transfer of any such contracts can have significant impacts on the structure and timing of the acquisition of a business.

The General Rule and Exceptions

The general rule is that contracts are freely assignable and can be transferred from one party to another. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. Contracts that are personal in nature, involving personal relations or personal skills, are not assignable. Also, an assignment of a contract cannot result in an increase of the burden on the remaining third party to the contract. Finally, contracts may expressly prohibit assignment of the contract or provide that an assignment can only occur under certain conditions. In the context of most M&A transactions, the relevant exception will be anti-assignment provisions in the contract itself.

Anti-Assignment Provisions

A standard assignment clause will prohibit the transfer of a contract without consent and may specify whether such consent can or cannot be unreasonably withheld. These provisions are typically included to ensure that each of the parties have control over who they engage in commercial arrangements and continue to do business with.  A simple prohibition against assignment however, will not be triggered in the sale of a company by way of a share sale. Therefore, anti-assignment provisions are often include language that addresses the transfer of ownership on the sale of the shares of a company by prohibiting a change of control of a party to a contract without consent.

Asset Purchases

In an asset purchase transaction, the vendor is the company that owns the assets being sold. The resulting transfer of assets will include those desired contracts to which the company is a party to. Such transfer of contracts will be done by way of an assignment, thereby triggering any assignment provision and the corresponding need to obtain consent of the other party(ies) to such contract(s).

Share Purchases

In a share purchase transaction, the vendor is the shareholder(s) of the target company. The vendor sells the shares to the purchaser and there is no transfer of assets as they remain the assets of the target company. In this context, an assignment of a contract is not needed as the parties to the contract remain the same. The need to obtain consent would then only arise if the assignment provision specifically prohibited a change of control.

Seeking Consent

When proceeding with either an asset or share purchase where the consent of third parties is required, the timing of obtaining such consents must be considered. The contracts themselves may dictate when consent must be obtained and may require all costs be covered with respect to such consent. Obtaining the consent of third parties also raises issues with respect to the confidentiality of a transaction, where one or both parties wish to keep the proposed transaction confidential. The impact of not obtaining required consents should be considered, especially if such contracts are material to the business. Because of these various issues it is important to review any contracts that will be transferred or remain with the target company early in the process and discuss how any required consents will be obtained.

Assigning Contracts

To effect an assignment in the context of an asset purchase, the parties should enter into an assignment agreement whereby the vendor assigns and the purchaser assumes the contract and all rights, obligations and benefits thereunder. Often a contract will specify that the vendor will not be released of its obligations on an assignment. In such instances, the vendor and purchaser should address each of their obligations going forward. Typically, the purchaser will be solely responsible and will indemnify the vendor for any non-performance or breach by the purchaser under the contract from and after the date of assignment.  If consent for the assignment is required from a third party, such party can either be made a party to the assignment agreement or its separate written consent can be obtained. If consent is not required, notice should be given to the third party that the assignment has or will occur.  To effect an assignment in the context of a share purchase, only the documents effecting the sale and transfer of shares is needed as between the vendor and purchaser. Depending on the presence and content of any change of control provisions in each contract the target company is a party to, notice to or consent of the third party to each of the contracts may be necessary.

Although generally contracts are assignable, when contemplating the purchase or sale of a business consideration should be given to any contracts that will be assigned or remain with the target company. Each contract should be carefully reviewed in the context of the specific type of transaction so as to determine whether any consents or notices will be required before or after completion of the proposed transaction. Specifically, in the context of an asset purchase, only anti-assignment provisions will necessitate obtaining consent, and in the context of a share purchase, only change of control provisions will necessitate obtaining consent. Each party should also have regard to the timing and confidentiality issues that may arise in obtaining any necessary consents and all assignments or changes in control should be properly documented.

Subscribe to our newsletters

Stay current on business and legal news, topics and trends

Related Content

Family Name vs. Family Business

Many years ago I was asked by some former business owners to assist them with a unique problem. They had run a family business for ... Continued

Avoid These 5 Common Mistakes in Business Succession

Whether a business is worth $1 million or $100 million, the same principles apply when it comes to business succession.  After many years of experience ... Continued

Maintaining Accurate Corporate Records

Outlines a few considerations for keeping proper minute books and corporate records

Smart Intake Forms provide our clients with a secure program that generates a form to gather the necessary information from our clients to complete a request. This eliminates fees that would normally be spent on a lawyer’s time, collecting the data that can now be completed on your own time.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Building Your Business
• Operations & Success

What Is an Assignment of Contract?

Assignment of Contract Explained

Hero Images / Getty Images

Assignment of contract allows one person to assign, or transfer, their rights, obligations, or property to another. An assignment of contract clause is often included in contracts to give either party the opportunity to transfer their part of the contract to someone else in the future. Many assignment clauses require that both parties agree to the assignment.

Learn more about assignment of contract and how it works.

What Is Assignment of Contract?

Assignment of contract means the contract and the property, rights, or obligations within it can be assigned to another party. An assignment of contract clause can typically be found in a business contract. This type of clause is common in contracts with suppliers or vendors and in intellectual property (patent, trademark , and copyright) agreements.

How Does Assignment of Contract Work?

An assignment may be made to anyone, but it is typically made to a subsidiary or a successor. A subsidiary is a business owned by another business, while a successor is the business that follows a sale, acquisition, or merger.

Let’s suppose Ken owns a lawn mowing service and he has a contract with a real estate firm to mow at each of their offices every week in the summer. The contract includes an assignment clause, so when Ken goes out of business, he assigns the contract to his sister-in-law Karrie, who also owns a lawn mowing service.

Before you try to assign something in a contract, check the contract to make sure it's allowed, and notify the other party in the contract.

Assignment usually is included in a specific clause in a contract. It typically includes transfer of both accountability and responsibility to another party, but liability usually remains with the assignor (the person doing the assigning) unless there is language to the contrary.

What Does Assignment of Contract Cover?

Generally, just about anything of value in a contract can be assigned, unless there is a specific law or public policy disallowing the assignment.

Rights and obligations of specific people can’t be assigned because special skills and abilities can’t be transferred. This is called specific performance.   For example, Billy Joel wouldn't be able to transfer or assign a contract to perform at Madison Square Garden to someone else—they wouldn't have his special abilities.

Assignments won’t stand up in court if the assignment significantly changes the terms of the contract. For example, if Karrie’s business is tree trimming, not lawn mowing, the contract can’t be assigned to her.

Assigning Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks) has value, and these assets are often assigned. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) says patents are personal property and that patent rights can be assigned. Trademarks, too, can be assigned. The assignment must be registered with the USPTO's Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS) .  

The U.S. Copyright Office doesn't keep a database of copyright assignments, but they will record the document if you follow their procedure.

Alternatives to Assignment of Contract

There are other types of transfers that may be functional alternatives to assignment.

Licensing is an agreement whereby one party leases the rights to use a piece of property (for example, intellectual property) from another. For instance, a business that owns a patent may license another company to make products using that patent.  

Delegation permits someone else to act on your behalf. For example, Ken’s lawn service might delegate Karrie to do mowing for him without assigning the entire contract to her. Ken would still receive the payment and control the work.

Do I Need an Assignment of Contract?

Assignment of contract can be a useful clause to include in a business agreement. The most common cases of assignment of contract in a business situation are:

• Assignment of a trademark, copyright, or patent
• Assignments to a successor company in the case of the sale of the business
• Assignment in a contract with a supplier or customer
• Assignment in an employment contract or work for hire agreement

Before you sign a contract, look to see if there is an assignment clause, and get the advice of an attorney if you want to assign something in a contract.

Key Takeaways

• Assignment of contract is the ability to transfer rights, property, or obligations to another.
• Assignment of contract is a clause often found in business contracts.
• A party may assign a contract to another party if the contract permits it and no law forbids it.

Legal Information Institute. " Assignment ." Accessed Jan. 2, 2021.

Legal Information Institute. " Specific Performance ." Accessed Jan. 2, 2021.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. " 301 Ownership/Assignability of Patents and Applications [R-10.2019] ." Accessed Jan. 2, 2021.

Licensing International. " What is Licensing ." Accessed Jan. 2, 2021.

Assignment Agreement

Jump to section.

An assignment agreement is a contract that authorizes a person to transfer their rights, obligations, or interests in a contract or property to another person. It serves as a means for the assignor to delegate duties and advantages to a third party while the assignee assumes those privileges and obligations. This blog post will discuss assignment agreement, its purpose, essential elements, and implementation practices.

Key Functions of an Assignment Agreement

Below are some key functions of an assignment agreement.

• Facilitating Clear Transfer of Rights and Obligations: Assignment agreement plays a vital role in diverse industries and business transactions by facilitating a transparent transfer of rights and obligations between parties. These agreements encompass intellectual property rights, contractual duties, asset ownership, and other legal entitlements. By clearly defining the assignment's scope and nature, both parties can ensure a smooth transition without any uncertainties.
• Ensuring Protection of Interest: Another important objective of the assignment agreement is safeguarding the assignor and assignee's interests. These agreements provide a legal framework that protects the assignee's rights while relieving the assignor of responsibilities and liabilities associated with the assigned asset or contract. This protection ensures that neither party faces unexpected consequences or disputes during or after the assignment.
• Outlining Consensus on Terms and Conditions : Assignments often involve intricate terms and conditions, necessitating mutual understanding between the assignor and assignee. Assignment agreement serves as binding documents that outline the assignment's terms and conditions, including payment terms, timelines, performance expectations, and specific requirements. By reaching a consensus on these details, both parties can minimize potential conflicts and align their expectations.
• Complying with Legal Laws: Ensuring legal compliance and enforceability is an important objective of the assignment agreement. Also, it is prudent to create these documents according to the relevant rules, regulations, and industry requirements. By adhering to legal guidelines, the assignment agreement becomes a robust legal instrument that provides a solid foundation for potential legal action in case of breaches or disputes.
• Maintaining Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure: Many assignments involve confidential information, proprietary knowledge, or trade secrets that require protection. An objective of the assignment agreement is to establish clear guidelines regarding the confidentiality and non-disclosure of such information. These guidelines define the scope of confidential information, specify restrictions on its use or disclosure, and outline the consequences of any breaches. By ensuring clarity in these aspects, the agreement protects the interests of both parties and fosters a sense of trust .

Best Practices for Crafting an Assignment Agreement

Assignment agreements are vital in different business transactions, transferring rights and obligations from one person to another. Whether it's a merger, acquisition, or contract assignment, implementing an assignment agreement needs thorough consideration and adherence to best practices to ensure a seamless and lawfully sound process. Below are some key practices to follow when implementing an assignment agreement.

• Identifying the Parties Involved: The initial step in implementing an assignment agreement is to identify the parties participating in the assignment agreement. It is vital to accurately define the assignor, who will transfer the rights, and the assignee, who will receive them. The assignment agreement should include precise details of both parties' names and contact information.
• Defining the Scope and Extent of Assignment: It is imperative to define the assignment's scope and extent clearly to prevent potential disputes or ambiguity in the future. It specifies the rights, benefits, and obligations transferred from the assignor to the assignee. In addition, specific details such as intellectual property rights, contractual obligations, and any relevant limitations or conditions should be explicitly outlined.
• Reviewing and Understanding Existing Contracts or Agreements: Assignment agreements often transfer rights and obligations from preexisting contracts or agreements. It is essential to thoroughly review and comprehend these existing contracts to facilitate a seamless transfer. Identifying any provisions restricting or prohibiting assignment is important and should be addressed accordingly. Seeking legal advice is advisable to ensure compliance with contractual obligations.
• Obtaining Consent from Relevant Parties: In some cases, obtaining consent from third parties directly affected by the transfer of rights and obligations may be necessary. Also, it is important to identify these parties and obtain their consent in writing if required. Failure to get permission may lead to legal complications and a potential breach of contract .
• Crafting a Comprehensive Assignment Agreement: Upon collecting all relevant data, it is time to create a comprehensive assignment agreement. This agreement should utilize unambiguous language to define the rights and obligations transferred, specify the effective date of the assignment, and outline any other relevant terms and conditions. Engaging legal professionals specializing in contract law is highly recommended to ensure the agreement's legal validity and enforceability.
• Seeking Legal Advice and Performing Review: It is important to seek legal advice and conduct a thorough review before finalizing the assignment agreement. Experienced attorneys can provide valuable insights, identify potential risks, and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The legal review helps minimize the likelihood of errors or oversights that could result in future disputes or legal challenges.
• Executing and Recording the Assignment Agreement: Once the assignment agreement has been reviewed and approved, both parties should implement the document by signing it. Also, to enhance its enforceability, it is advisable to have the assignment agreement witnessed or notarized, depending on the jurisdiction's legal requirements. Additionally, maintaining a record of the executed contract is essential for future reference and as evidence of the assignment.
• Communicating the Assignment: Effective communication of the assignment to all relevant parties is important after executing the assignment agreement. Stakeholders, such as employees, clients, suppliers, and contractors, should be notified about the transfer of rights and obligations. It ensures a smooth transition and minimizes potential disruptions or misunderstandings.
• Documenting and Ensuring Compliance: Lastly, it is imperative to maintain proper documentation and ensure ongoing compliance with the assignment agreement's terms. Keeping copies of all relevant documents, including the assignment agreement, consent, and communications related to the assignment, is important. Regularly reviewing and monitoring compliance with the assignment agreement allows for prompt resolution of any issues and helps maintain a transparent and accountable process.

Key Terms for Assignment Agreements

• Assignor: The individual or entity that transfers their rights, responsibilities, or interests to another party using an assignment agreement. And by doing so, the assignor relinquishes any claims and duties associated with the assigned property, contract, or legal entitlements.
• Assignee: The individual or entity that receives the rights, interests, or obligations through an assignment agreement. The assignee assumes the transferred rights and responsibilities, essentially taking on the role of the assignor.
• Obligor: Refers to the party bound by a duty or obligation under a contractual or legal agreement. In an assignment agreement, the obligor is the party whose performance or obligations are assigned to the assignee.
• Assignable Rights: These are the specific rights or interests that can be transferred from the assignor to the assignee via an assignment agreement. These include intellectual property rights, contractual rights, real estate interests, royalties, and other lawful entitlements.
• Consideration: The value or benefit exchanged between the parties in an assignment agreement. Also, consideration is commonly paid in monetary payment, goods, services, or promises. It represents what each party gains or sacrifices as part of the assignment.
• Notice of Assignment: A formal written notification provided by the assignor to the obligor, serving as a communication of the assignment of rights, interests, or obligations to the assignee. This notice establishes the assignee's rights and enables the obligor to fulfill their duties to the correct party.

Final Thoughts on Assignment Agreements

In a nutshell, assignment agreement plays an important role in business transactions, allowing for transferring of rights, duties, and interests between parties. Moreover, by understanding these objectives and addressing them through well-drafted assignment agreement, businesses and individuals can engage in assignments with confidence and clarity. Also, since an assignment agreement includes several legal complexities, it is rational to consult a professional attorney who can guide you through the process.

If you want free pricing proposals from vetted lawyers that are 60% less than typical law firms, Click here to get started. By comparing multiple proposals for free, you can save the time and stress of finding a quality lawyer for your business needs.

Meet some of our Assignment Agreement Lawyers

Seasoned negotiator, mediator, and attorney providing premier legal advice, services, and representation with backgrounds in the following but not limited to law areas: business/commercial (restaurant & manufacturing), contracts, education, employment, family and matrimonial, healthcare, real estate, and probate & wills/trusts

George Oggero is a down-to-earth lawyer who understands that his clients are human beings. He is a lifelong Houston resident. He graduated from St. Thomas High School and then Texas A&M University. He obtained his Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law in 2007. He is experienced in real estate, criminal defense, civil/commercial matters, personal, injury, business matters, general counsel on-demand, and litigation.

Michael has extensive experience advising companies from start-ups to established publicly-traded companies . He has represented businesses in a wide array of fields IT consulting, software solutions, web design/ development, financial services, SaaS, data storage, and others. Areas of expertise include contract drafting and negotiation, terms of use, business structuring and funding, company and employee policies, general transactional issues as well as licensing and regulatory compliance. His prior experience before entering private practice includes negotiating sales contracts for a Fortune 500 healthcare company, as well as regulatory compliance contracts for a publicly traded dental manufacturer. Mr. Brennan firmly believes that every business deserves a lawyer that is both responsive and dependable, and he strives to provide that type of service to every client.

I am an experienced technology contracts counsel that has worked with companies that are one-person startups, publicly-traded international corporations, and every size in between. I believe legal counsel should act as a seatbelt and an airbag, not a brake pedal!

John Daniel "J.D." Hawke is an experienced attorney with a law practice in Mobile, Alabama. He was born in Fairhope, Alabama and after earning his undergraduate degree at Auburn University, he received a law degree from Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in 2010. After law school, he formed the Law Office of J.D. Hawke LLC and over the last decade he has fought incredibly hard for each and everyone of his clients. His practice focuses on representing people facing criminal charges and clients dealing with family law matters. In addition to criminal defense and domestic relations cases, he also regularly handles contract disputes, personal injury cases, small business issues, landlord/tenant disputes, document drafting, and estate planning. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Thomas Codevilla is Partner at SK&S Law Group where he focuses on Data Privacy, Security, Commercial Contracts, Corporate Finance, and Intellectual Property. Read more at Skandslegal.com Thomas’s clients range from startups to large enterprises. He specializes in working with businesses to build risk-based data privacy and security systems from the ground up. He has deep experience in GDPR, CCPA, COPPA, FERPA, CALOPPA, and other state privacy laws. He holds the CIPP/US and CIPP/E designations from the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Alongside his privacy practice he brings a decade of public and private transactional experience, including formations, financings, M&A, corporate governance, securities, intellectual property licensing, manufacturing, regulatory compliance, international distribution, China contracts, and software-as-a-service agreements.

Attorney of 6 years with experience evaluating and drafting contracts, formation document, and policies and procedures in multiple industries. Expanded to estate planning last year.

Find the best lawyer for your project

How it works.

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Business lawyers by top cities

• Austin Business Lawyers
• Boston Business Lawyers
• Chicago Business Lawyers
• Dallas Business Lawyers
• Denver Business Lawyers
• Houston Business Lawyers
• Los Angeles Business Lawyers
• New York Business Lawyers
• Phoenix Business Lawyers
• San Diego Business Lawyers
• Tampa Business Lawyers

Assignment Agreement lawyers by city

• Austin Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• Boston Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• Chicago Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• Dallas Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• Denver Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• Houston Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• Los Angeles Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• New York Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• Phoenix Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• San Diego Assignment Agreement Lawyers
• Tampa Assignment Agreement Lawyers

related contracts

• 93a Demand Letter
• Accounting Services Agreement
• Accounts Receivable Purchase Agreement
• Ad Agency Contract
• Adhesion Contract
• Advertising Services Agreement
• Agency Agreement
• Agency Contract

other helpful articles

• How much does it cost to draft a contract?
• Do Contract Lawyers Use Templates?
• How do Contract Lawyers charge?
• Business Contract Lawyers: How Can They Help?
• What to look for when hiring a lawyer

Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.

Contracts Counsel was incredibly helpful and easy to use. I submitted a project for a lawyer's help within a day I had received over 6 proposals from qualified lawyers. I submitted a bid that works best for my business and we went forward with the project.

I never knew how difficult it was to obtain representation or a lawyer, and ContractsCounsel was EXACTLY the type of service I was hoping for when I was in a pinch. Working with their service was efficient, effective and made me feel in control. Thank you so much and should I ever need attorney services down the road, I'll certainly be a repeat customer.

I got 5 bids within 24h of posting my project. I choose the person who provided the most detailed and relevant intro letter, highlighting their experience relevant to my project. I am very satisfied with the outcome and quality of the two agreements that were produced, they actually far exceed my expectations.

Want to speak to someone?

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

A Fresh Take

Insights on M&A, litigation, and corporate governance in the US.

Delaware Court holds anti-assignment clause prevents enforcement of contract after merger

Get in touch.

On September 16, 2020, the Superior Court of Delaware issued an order with potential implications for companies contemplating acquisitions of businesses or assets.  In MTA Can. Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea , S.A. De C.V. , No. N19C-11-228 AML CCLD, 2020 Del. Super. LEXIS 2780 (Sept. 16, 2020), Judge Abigail M. LeGrow held that, following a merger,[1] the surviving company lacked standing to enforce a contract entered into by its predecessor (the non-surviving company in the merger) because the contract’s anti-assignment clause prohibited assignment “by operation of law”. 

Companies considering acquisitions should carefully review their target’s contracts for anti-assignment clauses that prohibit assignment “by operation of law”, which Delaware courts interpret to include certain mergers.  In addition, where a target’s key contracts contain anti-assignment clauses with such language, companies should carefully consider the preferred transaction structure.  In a reverse triangular merger, the acquirer’s newly formed subsidiary is merged into the target, with the result being that the target survives and becomes the acquirer’s subsidiary.  By contrast, in a forward triangular merger, the target does not “survive” and its rights are transferred to the existing subsidiary, which may implicate anti-assignment clauses.  Reverse triangular mergers do not face the same issue because the target continues its corporate existence as a subsidiary of the acquirer.

Background of the contract and subsequent merger

In 2016, Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V. (“CMP”) purchased mineral rights in the El Gallo Mine from 1570926 Alberta Ltd. (“Alberta”).  In exchange, CMP paid Alberta $5.25m in cash at closing and agreed to pay Alberta an additional $1m in 2018 subject to certain conditions.  Of note, the agreement contained the following anti-assignment clause (the “Anti-Assignment Clause”):

Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under this Agreement may be assigned or delegated, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise, by [Alberta] without the prior written consent of each other party, and any such assignment without such prior written consent shall be null and void. . . . [T]his Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties and their respective successors and assigns.

In July 2017, Alberta merged with Global Royalty Corp. (“Global”), a subsidiary of Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd., and Global was the surviving entity.  Following that transaction, Global changed its name to MTA Canada Royalty Corp. (“MTA”).  In November 2019, MTA brought a breach of contract claim against CMP based on CMP’s alleged failure to pay the $1m in consideration due in 2018.

Superior Court holds that anti-assignment clause extends to certain mergers

CMP argued that MTA lacked standing to enforce Alberta’s contract with CMP because, per the Anti-Assignment Clause, Alberta was required to obtain CMP’s written consent before assigning its rights to MTA.  MTA argued that the Anti-Assignment Clause was meant to prevent third-party assignments, not “successor assignments” like Alberta’s merger.   Id. at *11-12.  To make this argument, it relied on a 1993 Chancery decision, in which then-Vice Chancellor Jacobs had held that, subject to certain conditions, anti-assignment clauses do not apply to mergers unless mergers are explicitly prohibited.   Star Cellular Tel. Co. v. Baton Rouge CGSA ., 1993 Del. Ch. LEXIS 158, at *25 (July 30, 1993).  According to MTA, because the last sentence of the Anti-Assignment Clause referred to “successors”, it was clearly not intended to extend to mergers.

The Superior Court disagreed.  It explained that, as a result of the merger, Alberta had ceased to exist, so MTA could only enforce the contract if it showed that the Anti-Assignment Clause did not apply.   MTA , at *6.  It then held that the Anti-Assignment Clause clearly barred Alberta’s transfer of rights through a merger because the clause prevented assignment “by operation of law”, which Delaware case law had interpreted as referring to forward triangular mergers.   Id.  at *7-14.  In light of what it regarded as a straightforward application of the Anti-Assignment Clause, the Superior Court did not engage in the  Star Cellular analysis.  The Superior Court found that the reference to “successors” in the Anti-Assignment Clause meant only that “valid successors” had the right to enforce the contract.   Id. at *13.

Potentially at odds with Chancery precedent?

Of special relevance is the Superior Court’s treatment of existing Delaware case law on anti-assignment clauses and forward triangular mergers.  Existing precedent from the Court of Chancery held that anti-assignment clauses containing both a prohibition on assignment “by operation of law” and a reference to “successors” were ambiguous.  Under the Star Cellular test, this ambiguity was construed against the application of the anti-assignment clause. 

Specifically, MTA  appears at odds with the Chancery ruling in Tenneco Auto. Inc. v. El Paso Corp. , which also involved the impact of an anti-assignment clause following a forward triangular merger.  C.A. No. 18810-NC, 2002 Del. Ch. LEXIS 26 (Mar. 20, 2002).  The language of the anti-assignment clause in Tenneco  was similar to that in MTA :  both clauses prohibited assignment “by operation of law” while also referencing “successors”.  In Tenneco , Vice Chancellor Noble found that those conflicting references made the anti-assignment clause ambiguous, meaning that, under the Star Cellular test, the successor company could enforce the contract.   Id. at *7-10.  The MTA Court did not explain why it reached the opposite result.

Similarly, in ClubCorp, Inc. v. Pinehurst, LLC , Vice Chancellor Parsons held that, following a forward triangular merger, an anti-assignment clause with language like that in Tenneco was ambiguous because the agreement both referenced “successors” and prohibited assignment “by operation of law”.  No. 5120-VCP, 2011 Del. Ch. LEXIS 176, at *26-29 (Nov. 15, 2011).  Again, the ambiguity militated in favor of finding that the anti-assignment clauses did not apply to the merger.   MTA did not address Pinehurst.

Insights from MTA

MTA has several significant implications for practitioners.  The first is a reminder to carefully review a target’s contracts for anti-assignment clauses.  Such clauses in important contracts should be flagged and thoughtfully evaluated. 

In addition, practitioners should remain aware that Delaware courts interpret the phrase “by operation of law” in assignment clauses to refer to mergers in which the target company does not survive.  The presence of this language in anti-assignment clauses in a target’s important contracts (if those contracts are governed by Delaware law) should prompt a discussion about the appropriate transaction structure.  For example, in MTA , the Court suggested that MTA would have had standing to enforce the contract with CMP if it had been merged through a reverse triangular merger rather than a forward triangular merger.  The Superior Court cited a 2013 Chancery decision, Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH , in which Vice Chancellor Parsons found that “a reverse triangular merger does not constitute an assignment by operation of law”.  62 A.3d 62, 83 (Del. Ch. 2013). 

If dealing with similar language in anti-assignment clauses in important agreements, practitioners should consider alternative transaction structures that would allow the target to retain its corporate existence.  According to MTA , such alternatives should allow successor companies to enforce agreements without running afoul of anti-assignment clauses prohibiting “assignment by operation of law”.[2]

[1] The transaction was an amalgamation under Canadian law, which the parties and the Court agreed was the equivalent of a merger under Delaware law.  The transaction structure was equivalent to a forward triangular merger. 

[2] This may not be true in other jurisdictions.  For example, under California law, a reverse triangular merger has been found to be a transfer of rights by operation of law .  See SQL Sols. v. Oracle Corp. , 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21097, at *8-12 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 1991). 

Country Selector

Our regional experience.

• Netherlands
• Scandinavia
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• United States

Asia-Pacific

• Southeast Asia
• South Korea

Middle East

• Saudi Arabia

International language sites

• Chinese | 汉语/漢語
• German | Deutsch
• Japanese | 日本語

Call Us +1-555-555-555

(913) 575-2323

What Happens To Contracts In A Merger

Businesses merge for a variety of reasons. Business owners might choose to combine their companies in order to grow faster, increase market share, or just for the thrill of taking over a new business. A merger typically involves two different businesses merging into one larger company; after all, if you're combining your operation with another business, why not go all the way and make it bigger? This type of merger requires two very important things: parties that are willing to agree on terms (specifically how they'll split the pie), and contracts (which lay out exactly how everyone will do what they say they'll do). It cannot be emphasized enough how important these agreements are between parties--without them, there's little hope of anything actually getting done.

So, we have two businesses merging and we have contracts that will help guide them in this process. Unfortunately, sometimes one or both of these businesses will go out of business before the merger is complete.

What happens to these contracts then? Can they be saved?

Unfortunately for most parties involved, no. A contract cannot survive the death of either party unless it's assigned under a corporate agreement (such as stock purchase agreements)--which has its own set of issues--or if the contract is supported by consideration produced before the termination. This rule does not apply, however, to consumer contracts; they're typically controlled by state law and can thus continue after one party dies (or even both parties). Typically, there isn't a whole lot of consumer contracts going around between businesses, but keep it in mind if you're ever thinking about merging with another business.

So What Can You Do In A Merger?

Well, the contracts may still die alongside the company that wrote them which leaves us with no protection and without recourse against the other party. However, unless we entered into some kind of merger agreement ahead of time which outlined how our contract would be dealt with if one or both parties died. A " survival clause " is a common feature found in merger agreements; this states that certain terms and conditions survive and continue even after one or both parties have died (or otherwise terminated). If there's not such a clause included here, we're much out of luck and cannot recover damages or enforce our agreement. 

That said, there may be a few ways to go about this if your contract isn't the only thing that died in this merger. If one of the parties did not fulfill all of its responsibilities following the merger's completion, then you may be able to base an argument on breach of contract. You might also have grounds for relief if another party claimed it didn't actually know about the terms and conditions set out in your agreement (constructive knowledge). Again, however, these are typically unavailing so it would be wise to consult with an attorney who is familiar with commercial law before trying either option. As mentioned earlier, you should at least check state laws surrounding consumer contracts; if one or both parties are consumers, the contract may continue even if all other business contracts are extinguished.

There's no way to save your agreement in a merger--and that's quite unfortunate since it puts you at a disadvantage. The best thing you can do is be aware of this possibility ahead of time and include a contingency clause in your merger agreement before it happens. If that doesn't work out for you, see if there are any statutory exceptions available so you have some legal recourse afterwards.

Should I Consult An Attorney About Mergers?

Before signing an agreement, check state law on successor liability and mergers, this is not an easy task so consult a trusted attorney. Ralph Munyan can assist in all aspects of Business and Tech Law, as well as general legal counsel for everyday needs. Considering all possibilities is a job for a professional, Contact Us today !

This post is not legal advice. Contact an attorney today.

What Every Business Owner Should Ask Their Business Attorney in 2022

What Should I Ask My Business Attorney If I Am Selling My Business With A Commercial Lease?

What Types Of Contracts Should A Lawyer Supervise?

Internet and Technology Law

Ready to Start Your LLC in Missouri

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer

Copyright @ 2023 Ralph F. Munyan Attorney At Law, LLC | Website by Tekkii

• The Corporate Counsel
• Deal Lawyers
• Compensation Standards
• PracticalESG
• Meet the Editors
• Commitments
• Partnerships
• 2024 Practical ESG Event Series
• 2024 Proxy Disclosure & 21st Annual Executive Compensation Conferences
• 2023 Practical ESG Conference
• Print & Digital Resources
• Membership Center
• Practice Areas
• Q&A Forum

Del. Court Says Merger is Assignment “By Operation of Law”

A recent Delaware Superior Court decision serves as a reminder that, under Delaware law, a merger may well involve an assignment by operation of law — even if the contract itself doesn’t specifically use the term “merger” in the language defining assignments. In MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea , (Del. Super.; 9/20), the Delaware Superior Court held that a merger involved an impermissible assignment of rights under a mineral rights royalty agreement.

The Court rejected the plaintiff MTA’s argument that the anti-assignment clause did not extend to an “amalgamation” effected under Canadian law because the agreement did not expressly include mergers or amalgamations within the agreement’s non-assignment clause, and because the defendant did not suffer any unreasonable risk of harm as a result of the merger.

Instead, the Court determined that, under Delaware law, language in the contract prohibiting assignments “by operation of law” covered a merger in which the party in question did not survive. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s contention that customary language allowing the agreement to be enforced by “successors and assigns” created an ambiguity as to whether the non-assignment clause was intended to cover successorship situations. To the contrary, it found that the defendant’s interpretation of the non-assignment clause’s successorship language was the only reasonable one: “successors and assignees can enforce the contract if they are valid successors or assignees.”

MTA also attempted to raise the unfairness of the result — it would let CMP off the hook for a payment that it would have otherwise been required to make. The Court wasn’t sympathetic:

In sum, CMP’s motion raises a straightforward issue of contract interpretation. Section 6.12 plainly prohibits assignments, including by operation of law, and that phrase unambiguously includes assignment through merger. MTA’s convoluted analysis does not create an ambiguity. Faced with this plain language that its predecessor voluntarily negotiated, MTA’s only “hook” is the apparent unfairness of allowing CMP to avoid making a payment it allegedly owes. But it is not this Court’s function to save sophisticated contracting parties from an unfair or unanticipated result of their own corporate transactions.

The Court said the parties could have avoided this result through careful drafting during the negotiating process or by using a different structure for the amalgamation. They didn’t, so the court held MTA to its bargain.

-John Jenkins, DealLawyers.com September 24, 2020

Want to keep reading?

Great. Enter your email address and gain instant access to this article

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Company Email *

Consider This Before Rejecting a Dissident Director Nomination

Private equity: increased regulatory scrutiny of healthcare acquisitions, more on ftc challenges kroger-albertsons deal: new merger guidelines applied, white card blue card what’s the big deal, bank mergers: occ announces proposed changes to review process, non-competes: del. supreme court upholds forfeiture for competition provision, gain full access to any of our products with a free trial.

After sign up, we’ll get in touch to help you find the resources that will benefit you the most.