assignment by operation of law

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.

Do Change of Control Transactions Constitute an Assignment by Operation of Law?

Commercial landlords often rely on anti-assignment provisions to restrict the ability of tenants to assign their interest in a lease to a third party. Such provisions often restrict assignments by “operation of law,” which are generally considered involuntary assignments mandated via a court order. Commercial landlords may assume that a change of control transaction violates a basic anti–assignment clause. Landlords wishing to restrict change of control of a tenant entity, however, should have clear anti-assignment provisions in their leases that expressly restrict such transactions and characterize such “changes of control” as assignments.

A change of control is a significant change in the equity, ownership, or management of a business entity. This can occur through a merger, consolidation or acquisition.

The general rule is that change of control of a corporate entity is not an assignment by operation of law, and therefore does not violate a basic anti-assignment provision. Courts have reasoned that a landlord entering into a lease with a corporate tenant should be aware that a corporation, or limited liability company, is an entity which exists separate and apart from its ownership, and that a change in ownership of the corporate entity does not change the tenant entity under the lease.

Courts in many states including Florida, New York and Delaware have held that a change of control is not an assignment by operation of law. In Sears Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arnold , a Florida court held, “[t]he fact that there is a change in the ownership of corporate stock does not affect the corporation’s existence or its contract rights, or liabilities.” Further, in Meso Scale Diagnostics LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GMBH , a Delaware court ruled, “[g]enerally mergers do not result in an assignment by operation of law of assets that began as property of the surviving entity and continued to be such after the merger.”

Importantly, the rule is different if the tenant entity does not survive the transaction. In MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea , a Delaware Superior Court held that a merger in which the contracting entity does not survive may be held to be an assignment by operation of law.

If a landlord intends for a change of control of a tenant to violate the anti-assignment clause in its lease, the landlord should ensure that its lease expressly states that a change of control constitutes an assignment.

Latest Posts

Orange County Proposes to Implement Vision 2050 and Orange Code in September 2024
Orange County Proposes Ordinance to Halt Certain Development Projects
Avoiding Common Problems Caused by Notices of Commencement
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Process Section 404 Permits While Florida’s Appeal is Pending
Will Recorded Covenants Hold and Remain Binding on Successors in Title to Real Property? A Pivotal Certified Question Heads to the Florida Supreme Court

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

Refine your interests »

Written by:

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

Increased visibility
Actionable analytics
Ongoing guidance

Published In:

Lowndes on:.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Corporations
Definitions

Operation of Law (Best Overview: Definition And Examples)

What is operation of law ?

How do you define operation of law?

Can the law create rights or obligations automatically and by default?

In this article, we will break down the notion of “ operation of law ” so you know all there is to know about it.

We will look at the operation of law definition , how it works , how the law can operate a termination of rights, assignment or transfer , we’ll look at an agency by operation of law example , operation of law in real estate and more.

Be sure to read this entire post as we have amazing content for you!

We are super excited to start!

Are you ready?

Let’s do this!

Table of Contents

Operation of law definition

According to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, operation of law is defined as:

A way in which someone gets certain rights (or sometimes responsibilities) automatically under the law without taking action, requiring cooperation from another person, or being the subject of a court order. Author

What is notable with this definition is that certain “ rights ” or “ responsibilities ” will apply to a situation by default or automatically by applying the legal regime or statute.

What does operation of law mean

Operation of law or by operation of law means that a person’s rights and obligations are created by the application of the law, statute or regulation regardless of the person’s desire or intention.

In other words, a person may acquire certain rights or become liable for certain obligations through the application of legal rules without consideration of his or her intention .

The law can grant rights, impose restrictions or prohibitions on a person by operation of law or determine what a person can or cannot do.

For example:

If two people own a property as joint tenants with right of survivorship, in the event one dies, the other will acquire full title to the property by operation of law Author

In this example, the law operates a transfer of title of the property by the application of the joint tenancy rules.

Agency by operation of law

The rights, responsibilities and obligations of parties to an agency contract may be affected by the operation of law.

For instance, termination of agency by operation of law occurs when:

The parties expressly provide for termination by operation of law
For defined cause
The agent’s performance is partially or fully executed

In a contract of agency , the principal does not have an obligation to remain in the contract and can terminate the agency by giving reasonable notice to the agent at any time.

This termination right is granted to the principal by ‘operation of law’.

Assignment by operation of law

Assignment by operation of law is when certain rights are assigned to another.

Title to a patent can be assigned in a financial transaction such as a merger or as a result of operation of law in the event of bankruptcy Author

Termination by operation of law

In contract law , a contract may be terminated by operation of law.

In the following situations, a contract may be terminated without consideration of the intention of the parties:

An offer may become null and void if the person dies
A contract may be terminated (or voided) if it was formed based on fraudulent acts
A contract may be terminated if a person did not have the capacity to sign
A contract may be deemed unenforceable and voided in full by operation of law

Discharge by operation of law

Discharge by operation of the law is when a person is freed or liberated from certain obligations by operation of law.

When a person goes bankrupt, the person’s debts are discharged. This means that the person is no longer legally bound to make any payments to his or her creditors. Author

Reset by operation of law

Reset by operation of law is when a court resets the case for a legal reason that it has identified.

When a case is reset, it means that the litigants will need to start the case from the beginning.

Typically, a case is reset by a judge exercising its judicial powers .

Power of attorney operation of law

In a power of attorney, the person appointing an attorney can define that by operation of law, the power of attorney may lapse or not .

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned hereby appoint John Doe as my attorney-in-fact. My attorney-in-fact shall have the power to act hereunder. The duration of such powers shall not be affected by the lapse of time, and all such powers shall remain in effect until express revocation of the present power of attorney, the execution of these same powers to any other individual, or expiration by operation of law. Author

Transfer by operation of law

What’s common is the transfer of property by operation of law.

In other words, by applying certain laws, statutes or rules, an asset will be transferred or titled conveyed by operation of law.

The common example is with respect to the following ownership rights :

Joint tenants with right of survivorship
Joint tenants in common
Intestate death

If two people own a property together as joint tenants with right of survivorship , in the event of the death of one, the survivor becomes the full owner of the property.

In this case, the title to the property is transferred by operation of law.

Similarly, if a property is held by two people as tenants in common , in the event one dies, the deceased share in the property will be transferred to his or her estate.

In a case when a person dies without a will ( intestate death ), the law will determine the heirs and have the person’s assets transferred to those heirs.

Operation of law real estate

A typical example of how the operation of law works in real estate is with regard to the doctrine of adverse possession .

A non-owner of a property , by “operation of law”, may get title to land, property or real estate as he or she has been occupying the same for a certain period of time .

The rights granted to a non-owner of a property are granted regardless of the intention of the property owner or the non-owner.

Operation of law clause

The parties to a contract can include an operation of law clause where they define certain events to trigger certain legal consequences without the need of a party to act in any way.

“Operation of law” means the assignment of Party A’s assets by the court order in the context of a merger. Author

Operation of law examples

There are many examples where, by operation of law, a person acquires certain rights or obligations.

Here are examples of how a person may be impacted by the operation of the law:

If a person passes away without a will, the heirs will be determined by the operation of law
A person’s assets may be transferred upon death to his or her heirs without a will through the operation of law
The title of land can pass to a non-owner by operation of law through adverse possession
The title to a property or asset held by joint tenants with right of survivorship will be transferred to the survivor in the event one dies by operation of law
An easement by prescription rights occurs by operation of law
When a party fails to pursue a complaint will lead to its dismissal by operation of law
The assets of a bankrupt person or entity will be transferred to the trustee or bankruptcy estate by operation of law through the application of the bankruptcy laws
When a child turns 18 , by operation of law the guardianship ends
Operation of law discharge happens when a person’s debt is discharged by filing for bankruptcy
Operation of law agency occurs when the law creates a principal and agent relationship not because of an agreement but by application of the law

Operation of law FAQ

What does operation of law mean?

The operation of law legal definition is when a person acquires legal rights or obligations automatically through the application of the law.

A contract may be void by operation of law if the person did not have the capacity to sign. In this example, for a contract to be legally formed in compliance with contract laws, you must strictly observe the contract formation elements which include capacity. Without capacity, by operation of law, the contract is void. Author

What does assignment by operation of law mean?

Assignment by operation of law means when certain rights, property or assets are assigned or transferred to another legally without the need of the property owner to act in any way.

In the event of bankruptcy, the assets of the bankrupt are assigned to the bankruptcy trustee by operation of law Author

In the event of a person’s death without a will, the assets of a person are assigned, by operation of law, to the heirs designated by law Author

Can a corporation be created by operation of law?

A de facto corporation or de jure corporation is an enterprise recognized by operation of law although it did not comply with every aspect of the law in regards to its formation.

The law creates a corporation or enterprise by operation of law to provide some protection against third parties.

Articles Recommended For You!

If you enjoyed this article on “operation of law”, we recommend you check out our articles on the following topics that you may also enjoy:

Business and law blog - Incorporated.Zone

Legal Definition

Sandbagging meaning (explained: all you need to know), corporation vs incorporation (differences: all you need to know), b2b meaning in business (explained: all you need to know), most popular, what is a special purpose entity (all you need to know), what is corporate raiding (explained: all you need to know), what are golden shares (explained: all you need to know), what is a targeted repurchase (explained: all you need to know), what is a friendly takeover (explained: all you need to know), editor's picks, corporate social responsibility (what it is and how it works: explained), ttm meaning (all you need to know), restaurant or cafe (differences: all you need to know), what is unlevered free cash flow (explained: all you need to know), sole proprietorship vs llc (best guide: all you need to know).

Follow us on Twitter
Join us on LinkedIn
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on instagram
Follow us on YouTube

Anti-Assignment Provisions and Assignments by ‘Operation of Law’: What Do I Have to Do? What Should I Do?

Introduction.

One of the key roles of legal due diligence in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is to assist in the efficient and successful completion of any proposed M&A transaction. Due diligence is not merely a procedural formality but can serve as a proactive shield against unforeseen challenges and risks. One essential aspect of the legal due diligence process is reviewing third-party contracts to which the target entity is party, in order to better understand the scope of its commercial relationships and to anticipate any issues that may arise via the underlying contractual relationships as a result of completing the proposed M&A transaction.

A frequent reality in many M&A transactions is the requirement to obtain consents from third parties upon the “change of control” of the target entity and/or the transfer or assignment of a third-party contract to which the target is party. Notwithstanding the wording of such contracts, in many instances, the business team from the purchaser will often ask the question: “When is consent actually required?” While anti-assignment and change of control provisions are fairly ubiquitous in commercial contracts, the same cannot be said for when the requirement to obtain consent is actually triggered. The specifics of the proposed transaction’s structure will often dictate the purchaser’s next steps when deciding whether the sometimes-cumbersome process of obtaining consents with one or multiple third parties is actually needed.

This article examines what anti-assignment provisions are and how to approach them, depending on the situation at hand, including in the context of transactions where a change of control event may be triggered. This article also discusses how to interpret whether consent is required when faced with an anti-assignment provision which states that an assignment, including an assignment by operation of law , which requires consent from the non-assigning party.

Understanding Anti-Assignment Provisions

Generally, an anti-assignment provision prohibits the transfer or assignment of some or all of the assigning party’s rights and obligations under the contract in question to another person without the non-assigning party’s prior written consent. By way of example, a standard anti-assignment provision in a contract may read as follows:

Company ABC shall not assign or transfer this agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Company XYZ.

In this case, Company ABC requires Company XYZ’s prior written consent to assign the contract. Seems simple enough. However, not all anti-assignment provisions are cut from the same cloth. For example, some anti-assignment provisions expand on the prohibition against general contractual assignment by including a prohibition against assignment by operation of law or otherwise . As is discussed in greater detail below, the nuanced meaning of this phrase can capture transactions that typically would not trigger a general anti-assignment provision and can also trigger the requirement to get consent from the non-assigning party for practical business reasons.

To explore this further, it is helpful to consider anti-assignment provisions in the two main structures of M&A transactions: (i) asset purchases and (ii) share purchases.

Context of M&A Transactions: Asset Purchases and Share Purchases

There are key differences between what triggers an anti-assignment provision in an asset purchase transaction versus a share purchase transaction.

i) Asset Purchases

An anti-assignment provision in a contract that forms part of the “purchased assets” in an asset deal will normally be triggered in an asset purchase transaction pursuant to which the purchaser acquires some or all of the assets of the target entity, including some or all of its contracts. Because the target entity is no longer the contracting party once the transaction ultimately closes (since it is assigning its rights and obligations under the contract to the purchaser), consent from the non-assigning party will be required to avoid any potential liability, recourse or termination of said contract as a result of the completion of the transaction.

ii) Share Purchases

Provisions which prohibit the assignment or transfer of a contract without the prior approval of the non-assigning party will not normally, under Canadian law, be captured in a share purchase transaction pursuant to which the purchaser acquires a portion or all of the shares of the target entity. In other words, no new entity is becoming party to that same contract. General anti-assignment provisions are not typically triggered by a share purchase because the contracts are not assigned or transferred to another entity and instead there is usually a “change of control” of the target entity. In such cases, the target entity remains the contracting party under the contract and the consent analysis will be premised on whether the contract requires consent of the third party for a “direct” or “indirect” change of control of the target entity and not the assignment of the contract.

Importantly, some anti-assignment provisions include prohibitions against change of control without prior written consent. For example, the provision might state the following:

Company ABC shall not assign or transfer this agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of Company XYZ. For the purposes of this agreement, any change of control of Company ABC resulting from an amalgamation, corporate reorganization, arrangement, business sale or asset shall be deemed an assignment or transfer.

In that case, a change of control as a result of a share purchase will be deemed an assignment or transfer, and prior written consent will be required.

A step in many share purchase transactions where the target is a Canadian corporation that often occurs on or soon after closing is the amalgamation of the purchasing entity and the target entity. So, what about anti-assignment provisions containing by operation of law language – do amalgamations trigger an assignment by operation of law? The short answer: It depends on the jurisdiction in which the anti-assignment provision is being scrutinized (typically, the governing law of the contract in question).

Assignments by Operation of Law

In Canada, the assignment of a contract as part of an asset sale, or the change of control of a party to a contract pursuant to a share sale – situations not normally effected via legal statute or court-ordered proceeding in M&A transactions – will not in and of itself effect an assignment of that contract by operation of law . [1]

Still, one must consider the implications of amalgamations, especially in the context of a proposed transaction when interpreting whether consent is required when an anti-assignment provision contains by operation of law language. Under Canadian law, where nuances often blur the lines within the jurisprudence, an amalgamation will not normally effect the assignment of a contract by operation of law . The same does not necessarily hold true for a Canadian amalgamation scrutinized under U.S. legal doctrines or interpreted by U.S. courts. [2]

Difference Between Mergers and Amalgamations

As noted above, after the closing of a share purchase transaction, the purchasing entity will often amalgamate with the target entity ( click here to read more about amalgamations generally). When two companies “merge” in the U.S., we understand that one corporation survives the merger and one ceases to exist which is why, under U.S. law, a merger can result in an assignment by operation of law . While the “merger” concept is commonly used in the U.S., Canadian corporations combine through a process called “amalgamation,” a situation where two corporations amalgamate and combine with neither corporation ceasing to exist. For all of our Canadian lawyer readers, you will remember the Supreme Court of Canada’s description of an amalgamation as “a river formed by the confluence of two streams, or the creation of a single rope through the intertwining of strands.” [3] Generally, each entity survives and shares the pre-existing rights and liabilities of the other, including contractual relationships, as one corporation. [4]

MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V.

As a practical note and for the reasons below, particularly in cross-border M&A transactions, it would be wise to consider seeking consent where a contract prohibits assignment by operation of law without the prior consent of the other contracting party when your proposed transaction contemplates an amalgamation.

In MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V. (a Superior Court of Delaware decision), the court interpreted a Canadian (British Columbia) amalgamation as an assignment by operation of law , irrespective of the fact that the amalgamation was effected via Canadian governing legislation. In essence, the Delaware court applied U.S. merger jurisprudence to a contract involving a Canadian amalgamation because the contract in question was governed by Delaware law. This is despite the fact that, generally, an amalgamation effected under Canadian common law jurisdictions would not constitute an assignment by operation of law if considered by a Canadian court. As previously mentioned, under Canadian law, unlike in Delaware, neither of the amalgamating entities cease to exist and, technically, there is no “surviving” entity as there would be with a U.S.-style merger. That being said, we bring this to your attention to show that it is possible that a U.S. court (if the applicable third-party contract is governed by U.S. law or other foreign laws) or other U.S. counterparties could interpret a Canadian amalgamation to effect an assignment by operation of law . In this case, as prior consent was not obtained as required by the anti-assignment provision of the contract in question, the Delaware court held that the parties to that agreement were bound by the anti-assignment provision’s express prohibition against all assignments without the other side’s consent. [5]

To avoid the same circumstances that resulted from the decision in MTA Canada Royalty Corp. , seeking consent where an anti-assignment provision includes a prohibition against assignment by operation of law without prior consent can be a practical and strategic option when considering transactions involving amalgamations. It is generally further recommended to do so in order to avoid any confusion for all contracting parties post-closing.

Practical Considerations

The consequences of violating anti-assignment provisions can vary. In some cases, the party attempting to complete the assignment is simply required to continue its obligations under the contract but, in others, assignment without prior consent constitutes default under the contract resulting in significant liability for the defaulting party, including potential termination of the contract. This is especially noteworthy for contracts with third parties that are essential to the target entity’s revenue and general business functions, as the purchaser would run the risk of losing key contractual relationships that contributed to the success of the target business. As such, identifying assignment provisions and considering whether they are triggered by a change of control and require consent is an important element when reviewing the contracts of a target entity and completing legal due diligence as part of an M&A transaction.

There can be a strategic and/or legal imperative to seek consent in many situations when confronted with contractual clauses that prohibit an assignment, either by operation of law or through other means, absent the explicit approval of the non-assigning party. However, the structure of the proposed transaction will often dictate whether consent is even required in the first place. Without considering this nuanced area of M&A transactions, purchasers not only potentially expose themselves to liability but also risk losing key contractual relationships that significantly drive the value of the transaction.

The Capital Markets Group at Aird & Berlis will continue to monitor developments in cross-border and domestic Canadian M&A transactions, including developments related to anti-assignment provisions and commercial contracts generally. Please contact a member of the group if you have questions or require assistance with any matter related to anti-assignment provisions and commercial contracts generally, or any of your cross-border or domestic M&A needs.

[1] An assignment by operation of law can be interpreted as an involuntary assignment required by legal statute or certain court-ordered proceedings. For instance, an assignment of a contract by operation of law may occur in, among other situations: (i) testamentary dispositions; (ii) court-ordered asset transfers in bankruptcy proceedings; or (iii) court-ordered asset transfers in divorce proceedings.

[2] MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V ., C. A. No. N19C-11-228 AML, 2020 WL 5554161 (Del. Super. Sept. 16, 2020) [ MTA Canada Royalty Corp. ].

[3] R. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. , [1975] 1 S.C.R. 411.

[4] Certain Canadian jurisdictions, such as the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia), explicitly state that an amalgamation does not constitute an assignment by operation of law (subsection 282(2)).

[5] MTA Canada Royalty Corp .

With extensive experience in a broad range of corporate finance and commercial matters, Jeffrey offers clients a practical and business-minded approac...

Jeffrey K. Merk

[email protected]
T 416.865.7768
C 416.722.7988

Liam is a driven and forward-thinking corporate lawyer, with a passion for helping public and private clients achieve their growth objectives.

Liam Tracey-Raymont

[email protected]
T 416.865.3964

Gary is a trusted legal business partner and is committed to building long-standing client relationships.

Gary Volman

[email protected]
T 647.426.2799

Christian advises clients on a range of capital markets transactions, bringing to bear a strong work ethic and problem-solving skills which make him a...

Christian Nianiaris

[email protected]
T 647.426.2810

Josh summered at the firm in 2021 and 2022. He recently graduated with Distinction from the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, achieving Dean’...

Joshua Ward

[email protected]
T 416.863.1500

Related Areas of Expertise

Capital Markets
Mergers & Acquisitions
International Transactions

Related publications

Tax court declines to apply gaar to non-ccpc plan, creditors rejoice: ontario court of appeal confirms summary judgment is ‘tailor-made’ to enforce liquidated claims, know the limit, play within it: restrictive covenants in canada.

138. Assignment by operation of law.

The rights and liabilities 1 of either party to a contract may in certain circumstances be assigned by operation of law, as, for example, when a party

To view this document in full, take a free 7 day trial of LexisNexis and benefit from:

Access to 20 million legal documents from over 1,600 Sources as part of our archive
The ability to download court judgments within 30 minutes of their release
New enactments available within 24 hours of publication on legislation.gov.uk
Exclusive Sources to LexisNexis include; Halsbury’s Laws, Atkin’s Court Forms, Encyclopedia of Forms and Precedents and the All England Law Reports

** Trials are provided to all LexisNexis products and content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisNexis services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.

To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING

HELP & SUPPORT

Legal Help and Support
Tolley Tax Help and Support

LEGAL SOLUTIONS

Compliance and Risk
Forms and Documents
Legal Drafting
Legal Research
Magazines and Journals
News and Media Analysis
Practice Management
Privacy Policy
Cookie Settings
Terms & Conditions
Data Protection Inquiry
Protecting Human Rights: Our Modern Slavery Agreement

Primary tabs

Assignment is a legal term whereby an individual, the “assignor,” transfers rights, property, or other benefits to another known as the “ assignee .” This concept is used in both contract and property law. The term can refer to either the act of transfer or the rights /property/benefits being transferred.

Contract Law

Under contract law, assignment of a contract is both: (1) an assignment of rights; and (2) a delegation of duties , in the absence of evidence otherwise. For example, if A contracts with B to teach B guitar for $50, A can assign this contract to C. That is, this assignment is both: (1) an assignment of A’s rights under the contract to the $50; and (2) a delegation of A’s duty to teach guitar to C. In this example, A is both the “assignor” and the “delegee” who d elegates the duties to another (C), C is known as the “ obligor ” who must perform the obligations to the assignee , and B is the “ assignee ” who is owed duties and is liable to the “ obligor ”.

(1) Assignment of Rights/Duties Under Contract Law

There are a few notable rules regarding assignments under contract law. First, if an individual has not yet secured the contract to perform duties to another, he/she cannot assign his/her future right to an assignee . That is, if A has not yet contracted with B to teach B guitar, A cannot assign his/her rights to C. Second, rights cannot be assigned when they materially change the obligor ’s duty and rights. Third, the obligor can sue the assignee directly if the assignee does not pay him/her. Following the previous example, this means that C ( obligor ) can sue B ( assignee ) if C teaches guitar to B, but B does not pay C $50 in return.

(2) Delegation of Duties

If the promised performance requires a rare genius or skill, then the delegee cannot delegate it to the obligor. It can only be delegated if the promised performance is more commonplace. Further, an obligee can sue if the assignee does not perform. However, the delegee is secondarily liable unless there has been an express release of the delegee. That is, if B does want C to teach guitar but C refuses to, then B can sue C. If C still refuses to perform, then B can compel A to fulfill the duties under secondary liability.

Lastly, a related concept is novation , which is when a new obligor substitutes and releases an old obligor. If novation occurs, then the original obligor’s duties are wiped out. However, novation requires an original obligee’s consent .

Property Law

Under property law, assignment typically arises in landlord-tenant situations. For example, A might be renting from landlord B but wants to another party (C) to take over the property. In this scenario, A might be able to choose between assigning and subleasing the property to C. If assigning , A would be giving C the entire balance of the term, with no reversion to anyone whereas if subleasing , A would be giving C for a limited period of the remaining term. Significantly, under assignment C would have privity of estate with the landlord while under a sublease, C would not.

[Last updated in May of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

business law
landlord & tenant
property & real estate law
trusts, inheritances & estates
wex definitions

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 .

Do Change of Control Transactions Constitute an Assignment by Operation of Law?

Commercial l andlords often rely on anti-assignment provisions to restrict the ability of tenants to assign their interest in a lease to a third party . Such provisions will often explicitly restrict assignments by “ operation of law, ” which are generally considered involuntary assignments mandated via a court order. Commercial landlords may assume that a change of control transaction violates a basic anti – assignment cla use, but clear drafting is necessary for Landlords to protect their interests . Landlords wishing to restrict change of control of a tenant entity , should have clear anti-assignment provision s in their leases that expressly restrict such transaction s and characterize such “changes of control” as assignments .

A change of control is a significant change in the equity, ownership, or management of a business entity. This can occur through a merger, consolidation or acquisition.

The general rule is that change of control of a corporate entity is not an assignment by operation of law , and therefore does not violate a basic anti- assignment provision. Courts have reasoned that a landlord entering into a lease with a corporate tenant should be aware that a corporation, or limited liability company, is an entity which exists separate and apart from its ownership, and that a change in ownership of the corporate entity does not change the tenant entity under the lease.

Courts in many states including Florida, New York and Delaware have held that a change of control is not an assignment by operation of law. I n Sears Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arnold , a Florida court held , “ [t] he fact that there is a change in the ownership of corporate stock does not affect the corporation’s existence or its contract rights, or liabilities. ” Further, i n Meso Scale Diagnostics LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GMBH , a Delaware court ruled, “ [ g ] enerally mergers do not result in an assignment by operation of law of assets that began as property of the surviving entity and continued to be such after the merger.”

If a l andlord inten d s for a change of control of a tenant to violate the anti-assignment clause in its lease, the landlord should ensure that its lease expressly state s that a change of control constitutes an assignment .

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read here. Please review the full disclaimer for more information. Relying on the information provided in this article or communicating with Lowndes through our website does not create an attorney/client relationship.

Related Attorneys

Related Expertise

Business Litigation
Commercial Leasing

We use cookies on our website to improve functionality and collect statistical information on our website traffic. For details on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy . By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. This type of cookie does not collect any personally identifiable information about you and does not track your browsing habits. You may disable necessary cookies by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies (also known as performance cookies) help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage at an aggregate level. You may disable analytical cookies by clicking on the Manage Cookies button.

assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Prohibition of assignment clause did not prevent a transfer of rights by operation of law

What happened, what did the court of appeal say, what does this mean for me.

Dassault Aviation SA v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co. Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 5 involved a contract for the sale of two aircraft and spare parts.

Under the contract, which was governed by English law, Dassault Aviation would sell the aircraft to Mitsui Bussan Aerospace (MBA). Under a separate contract (governed by Japanese law), MBA would subsequently on-sell the aircraft to the Japanese Coastguard.

MBA was concerned that, if Dassault delivered the aircraft late to MBA, this would affect delivery times under MBA’s contract with the Coastguard and MBA could be liable for late delivery to the Coastguard.

To protect itself against this risk, MBA took out an insurance policy from Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (MSI) (which, despite the name, was not connected in any way with MBA). The insurance policy was governed by Japanese law.

As it happened, the aircraft were delivered late. MBA claimed under the insurance policy, and MSI duly paid the claim.

Under article 25 of the Japanese Insurance Act (No. 56 of 2008), where an insurer pays out under a Japanese policy of insurance, the insurer is automatically subrogated to any claim the policyholder may have in connection with the event that led to the pay-out. In other words, the policyholder’s right to claim damages passes automatically to the insurer.

Essentially, the same position applies in England and Wales under the common law. See the box “ What is subrogation? ” for more information.

In this scenario, this would mean that MBA’s right to claim against Dassault for breach of contract (due to the late delivery by Dassault) would pass to MSI, so that MSI could claim directly against Dassault.

However, the sale contract between Dassault and MBA contained the following clause (the assignment prohibition):

“[T]his Contract shall not be assigned or transferred in whole or in part by any Party to any third party, for any reason whatsoever, without the prior written consent of the other Party and any such assignment, transfer or attempt to assign or transfer any interest or right hereunder shall be null and void without the prior written consent of the other Party.”

Dassault argued that the prohibition prevailed and prevented MBA’s rights under the contract from transferring to MSI under the Insurance Act. If correct, this would mean that MSI would have no right to claim against Dassault to recover the amount it had paid out to MBA.

Subrogation is a broad doctrine which essentially states that, if a person (X) pays or discharges a debt or obligation of someone else (Y), then X steps into Y’s shoes and acquires Y’s rights.

Under English law, subrogation applies in a wide range of circumstances, including the following.

When an insurer pays out to a policyholder . The insurer is subrogated to the policyholder’s rights and can take action in place of the policyholder. For example, an individual might take out buildings and contents insurance on their property and, at some point during the policy term, a leak develops, flooding the property and causing damage. The damage is caused by faulty workmanship by a plumber. The individual may be able to claim against the plumber in negligence but instead claims under their insurance policy. The insurer is subrogated to the claim in negligence against the plumber in place of the individual.
When a guarantor pays out under a guarantee . For example, a person (X) borrows a sum of money from a lender. Another person (Y) gives a guarantee for X’s obligation to repay the sum. The lender calls on the guarantee and Y repays the sum instead of X. By way of subrogation, Y can bring proceedings against X to claim back the amount Y has paid out to the lender. (This is also described as a right of reimbursement, rather than subrogation.)
Where a person pays someone else’s secured debt . For example, a person (K) takes out a mortgage loan from a bank, which is secured by a mortgage over K’s property. The mortgage becomes payable, but K’s colleague (L) pays the mortgage off instead of K. Until K reimburses L, L is subrogated to the mortgage security over the property. If K does not reimburse L, L can enforce the mortgage and take possession of the property (and sell it).
Where an agent pays out for their principal . For example, an individual appoints an agent to negotiate a purchase of land on the individual’s behalf. The purchase contract is settled and the individual is required to pay the purchase price. However, for whatever reason (perhaps for ease), the agent pays the purchase price. The seller transfers the land to the individual. By virtue of subrogation, until the agent is paid back, the agent has all the rights over the land which the seller had before the sale.

Subrogation can be complicated and how it works in practice varies greatly depending on the legal and factual circumstances. In many respects, subrogation is less a doctrine and more a form of remedy which a person who has discharged someone else’s obligations can seek in an appropriate form. The principal point of subrogation is that the person whose obligations have been discharged should not be unjustly enriched by failing to perform those obligations themselves.

However, one common factor to all types of subrogation is that it involves an automatic transfer of rights , which occurs by operation of law and does not require a specific assignment by anyone.

Initially, the dispute was referred to arbitration at the ICC in London. The arbitration panel held (by a majority) that MBA’s rights under the sale contract had transferred to MSI under the Insurance Act.

Dassault appealed to the High Court of England and Wales. The High Court overturned the arbitrators’ decision, finding that the prohibition was wide enough to capture a transfer by operation of law.

The High Court noted the words “by any Party” in the assignment prohibition were ambiguous and needed to be interpreted. It therefore embarked on the traditional process of contractual interpretation that applies when the wording of a contract is unclear. See the box “ How will the court interpret a contract? ” for more information.

It held that the words indicated an element of action or willingness by a Party, and that this was what was required for the prohibition to apply. A transfer would fall outside the prohibition only if it were outside the voluntary control of the transferring party (here, MBA).

In this case, although MBA had not directly assigned its rights to MSI, it had entered willingly into the insurance policy and made a claim under it, with the direct and predictable result that its rights would be transferred to MSI under the Insurance Act. In the High Court’s view, this amounted to an assignment by MBA and was caught by the prohibition.

MSI appealed to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

The court re-examined the words “by any Party” and found that they were unambiguous and clear. They covered a transfer effected by a party to the sale contract, but that did not include a transfer that occurred automatically by operation of law (as was the case under the Insurance Act).

The judges disagreed with the High Court’s approach that the key question was whether the transfer was outside MBA’s voluntary control. Rather, it was a simple case of reading the contract to decide whether the transfer had been made by MBA.

It had not. The transfer had taken place automatically under the Insurance Act and so was not prohibited by the assignment prohibition.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the sale contract between Dassault and MBA contained provisions that specifically contemplated the parties taking out insurance (Dassault insurance against loss or damage to certain specific equipment, and MBA insurance in connection with ferry flight delivering the aircraft).

Although these specific provisions did not cover the insurance policy that MBA had placed with MSI, they did indicate that the parties were happy for insurance to cover the arrangements, suggesting in turn that they understood that rights under the contract might transfer to an insurer.

The court found, therefore, that MBA’s rights had transferred to MSI and the assignment prohibition did not apply.

If the wording of an agreement is clear, the courts will assume that it reflects the parties’ intentions and enforce the literal word of the contract. This will be the case even if the result is unusual or uncommercial.

The only exception to this is where the parties’ agreement is in some way restricted by law. For example, the court may find that a clause is unenforceable as a restraint of trade, a contractual penalty, and unreasonable exclusion or limitation of liability, or an attempt to carry out unlawful acts. In these cases, the courts may be able to strike parts of the contract out to make it work.

However, if the wording of a contract is ambiguous and could have more than one meaning, the court must embark on a process of contractual interpretation (also called construction).

The law on contractual interpretation is now settled, following three landmark cases ( Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50; Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36; and Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24).

In short, the court will examine the wording of the contract and ascertain what a reasonable person with all the relevant background knowledge at the time of the contract would have understood.

The court will look not only at the text of the contract, but also the surrounding context at the time. This is a single exercise, and the court will not automatically prefer the wording (textualism) over the surrounding circumstances (contextualism) or vice versa. However, the weight the court will give the text and the context will vary depending on the nature and formality of the contract.

If, after doing this, the court finds there is still more than one plausible interpretation of the contract, it will prefer the interpretation that is most consistent with business common sense.

The case shows the importance of formulating any prohibition of assignment provisions properly.

Here, the court felt that the wording of the sale contract was clear. By using the words “by any Party”, the prohibition extended only to direct attempts by a party to assign their rights.

Had those words not appeared (e.g. “ [T]his Contract shall not be assigned or transferred in whole or in part to any third party… ”), the court may have been required to embark on a deeper analysis of the clause to understand whether it would have prohibited transfers by operation of law. Indeed, the court might have concluded that it would have done so.

The case revolved around automatic transfers under Japanese law. The position might well be different under English law. This point was not argued – both Dassault and MSI appear to have accepted that, had the contract been governed by English law, the transfer of rights to MSI would have taken place – and so the court did not need to decide the issue.

But that does not mean that it is impossible to exclude the right to subrogation through a prohibition of assignment, and contract parties may wish to ensure any contractual prohibitions are worded broadly enough that they at least make an attempt to do so.

However, whether this is appropriate will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and may be more obviously covered by agreeing a subrogation waiver. For example, it is very common for a buyer of a business to deploy warranty and indemnity (W&I) insurance and for the seller(s) to require the W&I insurer to expressly waive any rights of subrogation.

Conversely, most liability insurance policies contain an express obligation on the insured party not to enter into any agreement with a third party that might restrict the insurer’s right of recovery. A prohibition of assignment that excludes a right of subrogation may do exactly that and could, in theory, invalidate the insurance policy itself.

Where insurance arrangements are contemplated under a contract, the parties should have a mind to the potential implications from an insurance-law perspective, including any potential subrogation following a claim under an insurance policy.

Any contractual provisions that do contemplate insurance are unlikely to stipulate a particular governing law for the insurance, so it may not be possible to make an informed assessment. In addition, the party taking out insurance may well not inform the other party that they are doing so and/or might take out insurance of a type not contemplated by the contract.

In each case, this could lead to a contract party facing legal proceedings under the contract by a third party whose identity is not known at the date of the contract.

Ultimately, where a contract party intends in advance to procure insurance in relation to the subject matter of the contract, it is important to seek legal advice to ensure that the policy and the contract operate smoothly and clearly alongside each other.

Access the court’s decision on whether a contract prohibited an assignment by operation of law ( Dassault Aviation SA v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co. Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 5)

Corporate and M&A
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Sign up to receive our publications

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Cookies enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

To understand more about how we use cookies or to change your cookie preferences, click on “ Show settings ”. By clicking “ Accept cookies ,” you agree to the storing of cookies on your device.

Your privacy

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.

Because we respect your right to privacy, below you will find descriptions on the types of cookies used on this site and options to opt out where preferred. Please note blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms.

You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site.

All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.

“By Operation of Law” (Including Draft No-Assignment Language)

30 September 2021 23 June 2011 | Ken Adams

In Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GMBH (go here for a PDF copy), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that it’s not clear whether for purposes of a no-assignment provision a reverse triangular merger constitutes an assignment “by operation of law.” (A reverse triangular merger is when Sub merges into Target.)

I’m not going to go into any detail regarding the case, as that information is readily available elsewhere. (Plucking a couple of examples at random, go here for Milbank’s analysis and go here for Shearman & Sterling’s analysis.)

Transfers by operation of law are generally considered involuntary transfers. They include court-ordered property transfers, bankruptcy-related transfers, and transfers to or from an executor or an administrator. Whether mergers and consolidations are transfers by operation of law is an open question. The cases reach inconsistent results.

That suggests that if you use the phrase by operation of law , you run the risk of getting into a fight over exactly what it means. And the Meso Scale Diagnostics case provides a great example of exactly that.

So what should you do instead? Koncision’s confidentiality-agreement template uses a bare-bones no-assignment provision that doesn’t get into by-operation-of-law territory, so here’s a more detailed version that I’ve just come up with:

Without the prior written consent of the other party, neither party may voluntarily or by court order (1) assign any of its rights under this agreement, whether by contract or by merger (whether that party is the surviving or disappearing entity), consolidation, dissolution, or otherwise, or (2) delegate any of its obligations under this agreement or its performance in satisfaction of any conditions to any obligations of the other party under this agreement. Any assignment or delegation in breach of this section X will be void.

Some observations:

I’m aware it doesn’t read very easily.
If you provide for the possibility of consent, it would be safest to assume that consent can’t be unreasonably withheld. If you have a problem with that, omit any mention of consent.
I think it’s helpful to distinguish the issue of volition (voluntary or or by court order) from the mechanism of assignment (by contract or something else).
I suggest that “by court order” is what’s left if you eliminate mergers, consolidations, and dissolution from by operation of law .
The reference to “the surviving or disappearing entity” covers both direct mergers, triangular mergers, and reverse triangular mergers.
Don’t simply prohibit assigning the entire contract—a court might construe that as prohibiting just delegation of duties.
The reference to “performance in satisfaction of any conditions” acknowledges that if you promise to pay me $50 if I mow your lawn, I might want to delegate the task of mowing your lawn to someone else. If I do so, I’m not delegating an obligation, I’m delegating performance aimed at satisfying a condition. I got this idea from Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate , but I’ve chosen to articulate it differently.
Saying that any assignment or delegation in breach will be void might be enough by itself. But including a prohibition too would provide a remedy if the other party nevertheless tries to assign or delegate, thereby causing you to incur legal fees.
Saying that a court-ordered assignment will be void won’t work if the law overrides any restriction on assignment. See this August 2006 post on AdamsDrafting on how that plays out in bankruptcy.
If you’re worried about a change of control, you might want to handle that by means of an event-of-default provision rather than a no-assignment provision: it’s a bit of a stretch to consider a change in Acme’s ownership as constituting assignment by Acme of its rights under a contract.

But once you have your broad no-assignment wording, you have to determine whether for a given transaction you need the full monty , something less, nothing at all, or a provision authorizing assignment. I won’t get into that here.

About the author

Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting , and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.

9 thoughts on ““By Operation of Law” (Including Draft No-Assignment Language)”

Ken, thanks for the mention of the book. Language involving “by operation of law”, seems a bit specialist for a confidentiality agreement. As to what it means, I think it is a sweep-up that may cover oddities, eg:

– contracts with an individual that may continue when he dies, eg copyright licence agreements? – contracts that become contracts with a new entity by virtue of a law.

In the latter category, I can cite my former client Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, which was dissolved and whose assets transferred to University College London under the University College London Act 1996 (see section 5 which deals with automatic transfer of property without any assignment). See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/3/contents/enacted

To tee up a potential Plan B, counsel for a non-assigning party might ask for a termination right — if the other party engages in a merger that the non-assigning party doesn’t like, and the merger would not be considered an “assignment” under applicable law, then the non-assigning party can terminate the agreement.[1] [2]

[1] Of course, the consequences of termination would have to be thought through and suitably addressed.

[2] I’ve never been 100% comfortable with the concept of terminating the Agreement. My late partner and mentor Tom Arnold was of the school of thought that contracts per se are historical facts and can never be terminated – only specific rights and duties can be terminated.

I have some nitpicks.

The Texas statute on the effect of a merger (section 10.008 at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BO/pdf/BO.10.pdf ) specifically says that a merger vests rights in property in the successor organization without any assignment or transfer having occurred. Someone who knows this law better than me might be able to comment on whether that would include, for example, a lease to either real property or capital equipment. If you nonetheless want to prohibit the lease vesting int he successor, i think your language will have to use a word other than “assign.”

Along the same lines, the statute makes the successor entity be the primary obligor without calling it a delegation, so the non-delegation language might not be effective. The statute does allow a contract to specify additional obligors.

The two points above are important mainly because Texas law allows a merger to have multiple surviving or new entities result from the merger. So, your valuable lease might end up being held by a much less creditworthy entity. I don’t have a solution for this problem that would be generally applicable. I think instead, the drafter will have to look towards protections elsewhere, like warranties that the lessee would breach by becoming less creditworthy or a termination right that kicks in on any organic event.

You might want to change “court order” to “government action” to handle situations where regulatory bodies take control of a company (e.g. banks, insurers) and also have statutory, quasi-judicial power to transfer obligations to successors.

Finally, your construction of “neither party may” seems to run afoul of the guidance in MSCD 2.150. But the meaning of “may” in the construction remains consistent with MCSD and the alternative construction — each party shall not — is a clunky here, so I see why you chose the alternative.

Chris: Hmm. Regarding your first two points, I’ll have to put on my thinking cap. I might take a while to respond.

Yes, I will change “court order” to something that refers to “Government Body” or some such. I did something similar for purposes of Koncision’s confidentiality-agreement template.

I periodically fall foul of my own guidelines, and I’m delighted when people point that out. But regarding “neither party may,” have a look at MSCD 2.152.

“By operation of law” could also cover death, if one of the parties is an individual. I doubt it would be any more effective than trying to prohibit assignment by court order. There are, of course, ways of addressing the effect of death directly, if it’s a real issue.

Pingback: Koncision » Rethinking the “No Assignment” Provision

One senior lawyer advised me a one-sided transfer of shares from A to B under “operation of law” without any transfer deed or court order. He explained the following: 1. A breached the shareholders agreement. The agreement said that in case any shareholder breaches, his shares will be bought by other shareholders. 2. Since the agreement was breached, hence the shares were transferred to other shareholders under “operation of law”. 3. Since it came under operation of law, hence the transfer of shares became “transmission of shares” which needs no court order or transfer deed. I was shocked to listen this approach. Can you comment.

so does permanent disability fall under operation of the law and therefore Transmission applies?

Your page is very useful for us mortals to understand some technical language. I am grateful indeed.

The voice that matters.

Innovative scholarship. Extensive writings. Hundreds of Drafting Clearer Contracts presentations around the world. Commitment. That’s what makes Ken Adams the unmatched authority on clearer contract language.

164 Brompton Road Garden City, NY 11530-1432

(516) 318-6956

[email protected]

Anti-Assignment Provisions And Assignments By 'Operation Of Law': What Do I Have To Do? What Should I Do?

Contributor

Introduction

A frequent reality in many M&A transactions is the requirement to obtain consents from third parties upon the "change of control" of the target entity and/or the transfer or assignment of a third-party contract to which the target is party. Notwithstanding the wording of such contracts, in many instances, the business team from the purchaser will often ask the question: "When is consent actually required?" While anti-assignment and change of control provisions are fairly ubiquitous in commercial contracts, the same cannot be said for when the requirement to obtain consent is actually triggered. The specifics of the proposed transaction's structure will often dictate the purchaser's next steps when deciding whether the sometimes-cumbersome process of obtaining consents with one or multiple third parties is actually needed.

This article examines what anti-assignment provisionsare and how to approach them, depending on the situation at hand, including in the context of transactions where a change of control event may be triggered. This article also discusses how to interpret whether consent is required when faced with an anti-assignment provision which states that an assignment, including an assignment by operation of law , requires consent from the non-assigning party.

Understanding Anti-Assignment Provisions

Generally, an anti-assignment provision prohibits the transfer or assignment of some or all of the assigning party's rights and obligations under the contract in question to another person without the non-assigning party's prior written consent. By way of example, a standard anti-assignment provision in a contract may read as follows:

Company ABC shall not assign or transfer this agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Company XYZ.

In this case, Company ABC requires Company XYZ's prior written consent to assign the contract. Seems simple enough. However, not all anti-assignment provisions are cut from the same cloth. For example, some anti-assignment provisions expand on the prohibition against general contractual assignment by including a prohibition against assignment by operation of law or otherwise . As is discussed in greater detail below, the nuanced meaning of this phrase can capture transactions that typically would not trigger a general anti-assignment provision and can also trigger the requirement to get consent from the non-assigning party for practical business reasons.

To explore this further, it is helpful to consider anti-assignment provisions in the two main structures of M&A transactions: (i) asset purchases and (ii) share purchases.

Context of M&A Transactions: Asset Purchases and Share Purchases

There are key differences between what triggers an anti-assignment provision in an asset purchase transaction versus a share purchase transaction.

i) Asset Purchases

An anti-assignment provision in a contract that forms part of the "purchased assets" in an asset deal will normally be triggered in an asset purchase transaction pursuant to which the purchaser acquires some or all of the assets of the target entity, including some or all of its contracts. Because the target entity is no longer the contracting party once the transaction ultimately closes (since it is assigning its rights and obligations under the contract to the purchaser), consent from the non-assigning party will be required to avoid any potential liability, recourse or termination of said contract as a result of the completion of the transaction.

ii) Share Purchases

Provisions which prohibit the assignment or transfer of a contract without the prior approval of the non-assigning party will not normally, under Canadian law, be captured in a share purchase transaction pursuant to which the purchaser acquires a portion or all of the shares of the target entity. In other words, no new entity is becoming party to that same contract. General anti-assignment provisions are not typically triggered by a share purchase because the contracts are not assigned or transferred to another entity and instead there is usually a "change of control" of the target entity. In such cases, the target entity remains the contracting party under the contract and the consent analysis will be premised on whether the contract requires consent of the third party for a "direct" or "indirect" change of control of the target entity and not the assignment of the contract.

Importantly, some anti-assignment provisions include prohibitions against change of control without prior written consent. For example, the provision might state the following:

In that case, a change of control as a result of a share purchase will be deemed an assignment or transfer, and prior written consent will be required.

Assignments by Operation of Law

Difference Between Mergers and Amalgamations

As noted above, after the closing of a share purchase transaction, the purchasing entity will often amalgamate with the target entity ( click here to read more about amalgamations generally). When two companies "merge" in the U.S., we understand that one corporation survives the merger and one ceases to exist which is why, under U.S. law, a merger can result in an assignment by operation of law . While the "merger" concept is commonly used in the U.S., Canadian corporations combine through a process called "amalgamation," a situation where two corporations amalgamate and combine with neither corporation ceasing to exist. For all of our Canadian lawyer readers, you will remember the Supreme Court of Canada's description of an amalgamation as "a river formed by the confluence of two streams, or the creation of a single rope through the intertwining of strands." 3 Generally, each entity survives and shares the pre-existing rights and liabilities of the other, including contractual relationships, as one corporation. 4

MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V.

In MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V. (a Superior Court of Delaware decision), the court interpreted a Canadian (British Columbia) amalgamation as an assignment by operation of law , irrespective of the fact that the amalgamation was effected via Canadian governing legislation. In essence, the Delaware court applied U.S. merger jurisprudence to a contract involving a Canadian amalgamation because the contract in question was governed by Delaware law. This is despite the fact that, generally, an amalgamation effected under Canadian common law jurisdictions would not constitute an assignment by operation of law if considered by a Canadian court. As previously mentioned, under Canadian law, unlike in Delaware, neither of the amalgamating entities cease to exist and, technically, there is no "surviving" entity as there would be with a U.S.-style merger. That being said, we bring this to your attention to show that it is possible that a U.S. court (if the applicable third-party contract is governed by U.S. law or other foreign laws) or other U.S. counterparties could interpret a Canadian amalgamation to effect an assignment by operation of law . In this case, as prior consent was not obtained as required by the anti-assignment provision of the contract in question, the Delaware court held that the parties to that agreement were bound by the anti-assignment provision's express prohibition against all assignments without the other side's consent. 5

Practical Considerations

The consequences of violating anti-assignment provisions can vary. In some cases, the party attempting to complete the assignment is simply required to continue its obligations under the contract but, in others, assignment without prior consent constitutes default under the contract resulting in significant liability for the defaulting party, including potential termination of the contract. This is especially noteworthy for contracts with third parties that are essential to the target entity's revenue and general business functions, as the purchaser would run the risk of losing key contractual relationships that contributed to the success of the target business. As such, identifying assignment provisions and considering whether they are triggered by a change of control and require consent is an important element when reviewing the contracts of a target entity and completing legal due diligence as part of an M&A transaction.

1. An assignment by operation of law can be interpreted as an involuntary assignment required by legal statute or certain court-ordered proceedings. For instance, an assignment of a contract by operation of law may occur in, among other situations: (i) testamentary dispositions; (ii) court-ordered asset transfers in bankruptcy proceedings; or (iii) court-ordered asset transfers in divorce proceedings.

2. MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V ., C. A. No. N19C-11-228 AML, 2020 WL 5554161 (Del. Super. Sept. 16, 2020) [ MTA Canada Royalty Corp. ].

3. R. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. , [1975] 1 S.C.R. 411.

4. Certain Canadian jurisdictions, such as the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia), explicitly state that an amalgamation does not constitute an assignment by operation of law (subsection 282(2)).

5. MTA Canada Royalty Corp .

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Corporate/Commercial Law

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Jump to main content

California Corporate & Securities Law

Speaking Engagements
Corporate Governance (308)
California Corporations Code (98)
California Secretary of State (93)
Corporate Securities Law (81)
Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (75)
Legislation (74)
Securities and Exchange Commission (61)
Nevada Corporations (56)
Limited Liability Companies (52)
General Corporation Law (51)
Limited Liability Company (51)
California Securities Laws (44)
California Financing Law (37)
Mergers & Acquisitions (37)
Choice of Law/Conflict of Law (34)
nonprofit corporation law (33)
California Sui Generis (32)
derivative action (32)
foreign corporation (28)
contract (27)
Department of Business Oversight (26)
nevada corporation (23)
Derivative Suits (22)
Nevada (22)
Banking and Financial Institutions (21)
Securities Litigation (21)
board of directors (21)
Finance Lenders Law (20)
Corporations Code (19)
Finance Lenders (19)
Insider Trading (19)
Alter Ego (18)
Delaware General Corporation Law (18)
Administrative Procedure (17)
Administrative Procedure Act (17)
Financial Institutions (17)
Investment Advisers (17)
Legal History (17)
Uncategorized (17)
nonprofit corporations (17)
Broker-Dealers (16)
California Legislature (16)
dissolution (16)
fiduciary duty (16)
internal affairs doctrine (16)
revised uniform limited liability (16)
securities fraud (16)
Non competition agreements (15)
federal securities law (15)
personal jurisdiction (15)
California General Corporation Law (14)
Nevada General Corporation Law (14)
broker-dealer (14)
derivative suit (14)
stockholder inspection (14)
Pseudo-Foreign Corporations (13)
Secretary of State (13)
Uniform Commercial Code (13)
Enforcement & Investigations (12)
Non-Compete Covenants (12)
Uniform Partnership Act (12)
Whistleblowers (12)
Constitution (11)
Delaware General Corproration Law (11)
Partnerships (11)
Securities Act of 1933 (11)
derivative lawsuit (11)
Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product (10)
California Constitution (10)
Executive Compensation (10)
Financial Code (10)
Nevada Revised Statutes (10)
climate change (10)
conversion (10)
nonprofit mutual benefit (10)
unincorporated association (10)
Delaware law (9)
First Amendment (9)
Investment Adviser (9)
Pseudo foreign corporation (9)
attorney-client privilege (9)
Labor Code (8)
Nevada legislature (8)
Stephen Bainbridge (8)
business judgment rule (8)
jurisdiction (8)
nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (8)
officers (8)
CARULLCA (7)
Commissioner of Business Oversight (7)
Nevada Supreme Court (7)
Section 2116 (7)
Section 25401 (7)
choice of law (7)
employees (7)
limited partnership (7)
CalPERS (6)
Delaware (6)
Department of Corporations (6)
Finance Lender (6)
Nevada limited liability company (6)
Public Records Act/FOIA (6)
Special Litigation Committee (6)
articles of incorporation (6)
dissenters' rights (6)
real estate broker (6)
strategic lawsuit against public participation (6)
suspended (6)
venture capital (6)
Civil Code (5)
Investment Company Act (5)
Political Speech (5)
Rule 10b-5 (5)
Section 25019 (5)
derivative (5)
director (5)
distributions to shareholders (5)
dividend (5)
exemption (5)
finders (5)
nonprofit public benefit (5)
qualification (5)
reverse veil piercing (5)
scienter (5)
section 25110 (5)
shareholder voting (5)
unfair competition law (5)
usurious (5)
Anti-SLAPP (4)
Attorney General (4)
Attorney's fees (4)
California (4)
California Commodity Law (4)
Civil Procedure (4)
Dodd-Frank Act (4)
Exchange Act (4)
Investment Advisers Act (4)
NRS 78.138 (4)
Nevada secretary of state (4)
Regulation S-K (4)
cannabis (4)
compliance and disclosure (4)
department of real estate (4)
election (4)
emergency services act (4)
environmental social governance (4)
exclusive forum (4)
forum selection (4)
fractional shares (4)
franchise tax board (4)
legal writing (4)
liability of director (4)
officer liability (4)
preemption (4)
promissory notes (4)
proxy advisor (4)
proxy voting guidelines (4)
service of process (4)
social activism (4)
stock option (4)
tortious interference (4)
uniform limited partnership act (4)
virtual annual meeting (4)
whistleblower (4)
Administrative Review (3)
Broc Romanek (3)
Franchise Tax (3)
Government Code (3)
Jennifer A. Dorsey (3)
Litigation (3)
Nevada constitution (3)
Office of Administrative Law (3)
Rule 147 (3)
Rule 147A (3)
Salman v. U.S. (3)
Section 25402 (3)
Section 407 (3)
Senator Bill Dodd (3)
Silver Hills (3)
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (3)
cannabizfile (3)
commodity (3)
condominium (3)
corporate attorney (3)
criminal conviction (3)
draft legislation (3)
entitled to vote (3)
entity name (3)
exculpation (3)
fictitious name (3)
forum selection bylaw (3)
forum selection clause (3)
free speech (3)
hybrid annual meeting (3)
indemnification (3)
intrastate offering (3)
investment contract (3)
jury trial (3)
partnership (3)
private fund (3)
repurchase (3)
reverse stock split (3)
sale of all or substantially all (3)
section 228 (3)
section 309 (3)
securities (3)
standing (3)
"parol evidence rule" (2)
926 North Ardmore (2)
AB 1517 (2)
Accountants (2)
Annual meeting (2)
Auerbach (2)
Bernard Sharfman (2)
California Consumer Financial Protection Act (2)
California Supreme Court (2)
Calstrs (2)
Classified Board (2)
Court of Chancery (2)
Credit Union (2)
Davis Test Only Smog Testing (2)
Delaware precedents (2)
Director Inspection Rights (2)
Dodd-Frank (2)
Drulias v. 1st Century (2)
Form 1-A (2)
Form 10-K (2)
Gantler v. Stephens (2)
Harvard Shareholder Rights Project (2)
Institutional Shareholder Services (2)
Insurance (2)
Jury trial waiver (2)
Limited (2)
Milton Freeman (2)
Mueller v. San Diego (2)
Muratsuchi (2)
NRS 78.139 (2)
New York (2)
North American Securities Administrators (2)
Part 205 Rules (2)
Pay Ratio Rule (2)
People v. Black (2)
Postal Instant Press (2)
Proposition 13 (2)
Regulation A (2)
Restatement (Second) Agency (2)
Roughing It (2)
SEC v. Howey (2)
Section 12 (2)
Section 16 (2)
Section 17703.04 (2)
Section 18 (2)
Section 2(a)(1) (2)
Section 204 (2)
Section 22050 (2)
Section 25130 (2)
Section 25217 (2)
Section 25501 (2)
Section 3(c)(5)(C) (2)
Section 953(b) (2)
Supermajority vote (2)
Wells Fargo (2)
Wynn Resorts (2)
abstentions (2)
administrative proceeding (2)
agency law (2)
amendment (2)
annual report (2)
attorney fees (2)
binary options (2)
business name (2)
chapter 5 (2)
chevron deference (2)
civil service (2)
conflict of laws (2)
consent (2)
de novo (2)
fiduciary (2)
forum non conveniens (2)
fraudulent (2)
hacking (2)
liability (2)
limited offering exemption (2)
liquidated damages (2)
lucian bebchuk (2)
marijuana (2)
negotiating permit (2)
nonprofit cooperative associations (2)
operating agreement (2)
pay ratio (2)
penalty (2)
personal property broker (2)
practice of law (2)
private contracting (2)
real estate fund (2)
record date (2)
reincorporation (2)
revlon duties (2)
section 602(a) (2)
security definition (2)
statute of frauds (2)
successor-in-interest (2)
termination (2)
trade secrets (2)
votes cast (2)
work product doctrine (2)
writing (2)
written consent (2)
10 CCR 260.015.23 (1)
10 CCR 260.102 (1)
10 CCR 30.105 (1)
10 CCR Section 146 (1)
10 CCR Section 260.140.1 (1)
10 CCR Section 260.238 (1)
100% owned (1)
101 Geo. L.J. 923 (1)
102(b)(7) (1)
17703.04 (1)
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187188 (1)
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8795 (1)
2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 523 (1)
2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 959 (1)
2017 Del. LEXIS 522 (1)
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2352 (1)
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40831 (1)
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77643 (1)
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9657 (1)
204(a)(10) (1)
206 Cal. App. 4th 384 (1)
210.1-02 (1)
210.3-10 (1)
26 FR 11896 (1)
260.105.22 (1)
260.105.29 (1)
260.141.11 (1)
260.211.4 (1)
260.211.5 (1)
260.211.6 (1)
260.211.7 (1)
35 persons (1)
44 U.S.C. Sec. 3502(5) (1)
463 U.S. 646 (1)
574 F.3d 42 (1)
66 2/3 vote (1)
9 Cal. 2d 126 (1)
926 N. Ardmore (1)
95 Theses (1)
AB 1104 (1)
AB 123 (Ellison) (1)
AB 1535 (1)
AB 1541 (1)
Action by written consent (1)
Advisory mandamus (1)
Allergia (1)
Anderson v. Alexza (1)
Andre G. Bouchard (1)
Anzhela Knyazeva (1)
Apollo Capital (1)
Apollo Capital Fund (1)
Applied Medical Corp. v. Thomas (1)
Armistice Day (1)
Article 7 (1)
Article 8 (1)
Article I (1)
Article IV (1)
Article VII (1)
Auerbach v. Bennett (1)
Baldwin (1)
Bayless Manning (1)
Beachcomber Management (1)
Benjamin Cardozo (1)
Benninghoff v. Superior Court (1)
Bill Holden (1)
Birmingham v. Good (1)
Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drugs (1)
Board of Equalization (1)
Bob Lamm (1)
Bovet v. Chiang (1)
Braden v. BH Fin. Services (1)
Brady v. Maryland (1)
Brian Sandoval (1)
Broadridge (1)
BrokerCheck (1)
Bucket Shop (1)
Bureau of Real Estate (1)
Bus. & Prof. Code (1)
Business and Professions (1)
C. Arlen Beam (1)
CCP Section 382 (1)
CORRESP (1)
Cal. Const. Art. XV (1)
Cal. Corp. Code Section 312 (1)
Cal. Fin. Code (1)
California Civil Code (1)
California Pines Property Owners Association v. Pe (1)
California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Progra (1)
Calvin H. Higbie (1)
Caremark claim (1)
Central Laborers (1)
Central Laborers' Pension fund (1)
Cheveron deference (1)
Civil Code Section 1476 (1)
Civil Code Section 2026 (1)
Cohen v. Mirage (1)
Commissioner of Real Estate (1)
Commissioner's Rules (1)
Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation (1)
Concepts Statement No. 8 (1)
Conrad L. Rushing (1)
Consipio holdings bv v. carlberg (1)
Consuelo Maria Callahan (1)
Contract assignments (1)
Corp Fin (1)
Corporate Council (1)
Correspondence (1)
Council of Institutiona Investors (1)
Court of Appeal (1)
Curci Investments (1)
Cydney Posner (1)
Cymbeline (1)
D&O (1)
DSCL-100 (1)
Dana Sabraw (1)
Daniel M. Gallagher (1)
Davis Polk (1)
De Leon (1)
De Officiis (1)
Deborah A. Demott (1)
Debt Collectors Licensing Act (1)
Declassified board (1)
Delaware Supreme Court (1)
Desaigoudar v. Meyercord (1)
Desert Place v. Michael (1)
Diamond View v. Herz (1)
Disputesuite.com (1)
Documentary Transfer Tax Act (1)
Duke Energy (1)
Duke v. Superior Court (1)
Dwight Eisenhower (1)
Echeverria (1)
EchoStar (1)
Ed Chau (1)
Ed Tiryakian (1)
Elizabeth Holmes (1)
Erhart v. BofI (1)
Financial Choice Act (1)
Financial Code Section 17000 (1)
Financial Code Section 22340 (1)
Financial Code Section 22600 (1)
Flowers v. FINRA (1)
Form 10-Q (1)
Form 8-K (1)
Form ADV (1)
Form PF (1)
Form SD (1)
Fourth of July (1)
Frances T. v. Village Green (1)
Franchise Investment Law (1)
Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (1)
Friese v. Superior Court (1)
G.W. Warrens (1)
Gaillard v. Natomas (1)
Galaviz v. Berg (1)
Gantler v. Stevens (1)
Gardner v. Henderson Water Park (1)
Gayle M. Hyman (1)
George Foley (1)
George Santayana (1)
Glass Lewis (1)
Goldfield (1)
Gonzolo P. Curiel (1)
Government Code Section 7603 (1)
Grafton partners v. Superior court (1)
Greb v. Diamond International (1)
Grosset v. Wenaas (1)
Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (1)
Hardwick v. Wilcox (1)
Harold Marsh (1)
Harold Marsh Jr (1)
Hazel Bradford (1)
Henry VI (1)
Hollis v. Hill (1)
Hornstein v. Berry (1)
Howey test (1)
Hullinger v. Anand (1)
Hutchinson v. Hutchinson (1)
IAR Systems Software (1)
ITV Gurney Holding Inc. v. Gurney (1)
Ignazio Ruvolo (1)
In re Dish (1)
In re Dish Network (1)
In re Dish Network Derivative (1)
In re Holy Hill Community Church (1)
In re Sagent Technology (1)
In re Stephan (1)
In re: CytRX Corp. (1)
Inc. v. Bouboulis (1)
Inc. v. Dabney (1)
Inc. v. Guardian (1)
Inc. v. Northway (1)
Insurance Code (1)
Intelligent Digital Systems v. Beazley (1)
Ira p. Robbins (1)
Item 2.02 (1)
Item 2.04 (1)
Item 303 (1)
Item 402 (1)
Item 407 (1)
Item 501 (1)
J. Travis Laster (1)
JAMES D.C. Barrall (1)
Jacobs v. Locatelli (1)
James W. Hardesty (1)
Janis L. Sammartino (1)
John Carney (1)
John Carreyrou (1)
John Coates (1)
John Jenkins (1)
Johnson & Johnson (1)
Joint Rule 51 (1)
Joint Rule 61 (1)
Jon L. Pritchett (1)
Jon S. Tigar (1)
Jon Tigar (1)
Jon b. Streeter (1)
Joseph A. Grundfest (1)
Joseph P. Kennedy (1)
Judge Beth Freeman (1)
Judge Brian C. Walsh (1)
Judge Cynthia Ann Bashant (1)
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel (1)
Judge Gonzolo Curiel (1)
Judge Jeffrey S. White (1)
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller (1)
Judge Marcy Friedman (1)
Judge Marla Miller (1)
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald (1)
Judge Otis D. Wright (1)
Judge Paul M. Marigonda (1)
Judge Peter H. Kirwan (1)
Judge Susan Illston (1)
Justice Conrad L. Rushing (1)
Justice Kristina Pickering (1)
Justice Mark B. Simons (1)
Justice Stephen G. Breyer (1)
Kathryn M. Werdegar (1)
Katz v. Chevron (1)
Kenneth R. Yegan (1)
Kevin LaCroix (1)
Kevin McCarthy (1)
King Lear (1)
Kirschner v. Natomas (1)
LLC v. Scoreinc.com (1)
Labor Code Section 1102.5 (1)
Labor Code Section 2854 (1)
Labor Code Section 2865 (1)
Laboratory Specialists International (1)
Las Vegas (1)
Le v. Sunlan (1)
Leondra (1)
Literature (1)
Louis Freeh (1)
MAUCRSA (1)
MAtthew P. Digesti (1)
Magna Carta (1)
Maienschein (1)
Marcus Tullius Cicero (1)
Maren Nelson (1)
Marine Bank v. Weaver (1)
Mark Gibbons (1)
Mark Twain (1)
Markley v. City Council (1)
Marshall v. Galvanoni (1)
Martijn Cremers (1)
Martin Luther (1)
Martin Luther King Jr. (1)
McCarran Airport (1)
Meinhard v. Salmon (1)
Michael King (1)
Michal Barzuza (1)
Military & Veterans Code (1)
Munchee (1)
NRS 49.095 (1)
NRS 78.115 (1)
NRS 78.130 (1)
NRS 78.150 (1)
NRS 78.205 (1)
NRS 78.225 (1)
NRS 78.257 (1)
NRS 78.335 (1)
NRS 78.347 (1)
Nathanael Cousins (1)
National Grange (1)
Nedlloyd (1)
Nones of April (1)
North American Securities Administrators Associati (1)
November 11 (1)
Otis D. Wright II (1)
Outdoor Advertising Act (1)
Overland (1)
Overland Storage (1)
Parametric Sound Corp. (1)
Pat McCarran (1)
Pederson v. Owen (1)
People v. Martinez (1)
Pharmacyclics (1)
Pharmaplast S.A.E. v. Zeus Medical (1)
Professor Stephen Bainbridge (1)
Proposition 20 (1)
Q&A (1)
Real v. St. Jude Medical (1)
Regulation S-X (1)
Removal of office holders (1)
Restatement (Second) Conflicts (1)
Restatement (Third) of Agency (1)
Rev. & Tax. Code (1)
Revlon Standard (1)
Richard M. Aronson (1)
Richard d. fybel (1)
Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon (1)
Robert H. Volk (1)
Robert L. Jackson (1)
Roberta Romano (1)
Roger T. Benitez (1)
Roman law (1)
Rossdale Group LLC v. Walton (1)
Roth Capital (1)
Rule 13q-1 (1)
Rule 144 (1)
Rule 14a-8 (1)
Rule 15c2-12 (1)
Rule 203(m)-1 (1)
Rule 206(4)-5 (1)
Rule 21F-2 (1)
Rule 23.1 (1)
Rule 240.21F-7 (1)
Rule 260.012.12 (1)
Rule 260.102.1 (1)
Rule 260.102.13 (1)
Rule 260.140.46 (1)
Rule 260.302 (1)
Rule 303A.03 (1)
Rule 701(e) (1)
Rule 8312 (1)
SB 1234 (1)
SEC Rel. No. 33-4434 (1)
SEC v. Dorozhko (1)
SEC v. Obus (1)
SEC white paper (1)
Samuel Alito (1)
Samuel Clemens (1)
Samuel L. Clemens (1)
Schoff v. Clough (1)
Seaborn v. Wingfield (1)
Sean J. Griffith (1)
Second Circuit (1)
Section 1 (1)
Section 10 (1)
Section 10(b) (1)
Section 1001 (1)
Section 1002 (1)
Section 109.5 (1)
Section 11346.4 (1)
Section 11901 (1)
Section 12(a)(2) (1)
Section 12160 (1)
Section 1503 (1)
Section 162 (1)
Section 1671 (1)
Section 17 (1)
Section 17(a) (1)
Section 17(b) (1)
Section 171 (1)
Section 17157(d) (1)
Section 1717 (1)
Section 17702.09 (1)
Section 17704.01 (1)
Section 17705.03 (1)
Section 17713.03 (1)
Section 189 (1)
Section 19(d) (1)
Section 194.8 (1)
Section 2(a)(2) (1)
Section 2000 (1)
Section 202(a)(29) (1)
Section 204(a) (1)
Section 204(a)(10) (1)
Section 204(a)(5) (1)
Section 207 (1)
Section 21(a) (1)
Section 2105 (1)
Section 211 (1)
Section 2114 (1)
Section 2115 (1)
Section 213 (1)
Section 216 (1)
Section 21F (1)
Section 21F(h)(2) (1)
Section 220 (1)
Section 22000 (1)
Section 22009 (1)
Section 2203 (1)
Section 22203 (1)
Section 22502 (1)
Section 2295 (1)
Section 23151 (1)
Section 2322 (1)
Section 23301 (1)
Section 24d (1)
Section 25002 (1)
Section 25011 (1)
Section 25013 (1)
Section 25100(f) (1)
Section 25100(o) (1)
Section 25102 (1)
Section 25102(a) (1)
Section 25102(f) (1)
Section 25102(o) (1)
Section 25102.1 (1)
Section 25104(f) (1)
Section 25113 (1)
Section 25120 (1)
Section 25206.1 (1)
Section 25211 (1)
Section 25300 (1)
Section 25400(d) (1)
Section 25403 (1)
Section 25500 (1)
Section 26000 (1)
Section 26228 (1)
Section 2787 (1)
Section 2819 (1)
Section 2860 (1)
Section 2900 (1)
Section 291 (1)
Section 29500 (1)
Section 29536 (1)
Section 3 (1)
Section 3(a)(10) (1)
Section 3(a)(11) (1)
Section 3(a)(9) (1)
Section 3(c)(7) (1)
Section 300 (1)
Section 302 (1)
Section 305 (1)
Section 307 (1)
Section 310 (1)
Section 31101 (1)
Section 312 (1)
Section 31300 (1)
Section 317 (1)
Section 3310 (1)
Section 3344.1 (1)
Section 3439.09 (1)
Section 3513 (1)
Section 408 (1)
Section 410.10 (1)
Section 425.16 (1)
Section 500 (1)
Section 506 (1)
Section 527.6 (1)
Section 553 (1)
Section 60 (1)
Section 600(e) (1)
Section 602 (1)
Section 603 (1)
Section 6068(e) (1)
Section 6250 (1)
Section 6258 (1)
Section 701 (1)
Section 703 (1)
Section 710 (1)
Section 7132 (1)
Section 8 (1)
Section 8(a) (1)
Section 800 (1)
Section 8333 (1)
Section 902(a) (1)
Section 922 (1)
Senate Insurance (1)
Shaev v. Baker (1)
Shaffer v. Heitner (1)
Sharemaster v. SEC (1)
Sheila K. Oberto (1)
Sheley v. Harrop (1)
Shimadzu (1)
Shining light on Corporate Political Spending (1)
Shlensky v. Wrigley (1)
Show Ready (1)
Simone M. Sepe (1)
Sleep EZ v. Mateo (1)
Small v. Fritz (1)
Smith v. Van Gorkom (1)
Snap Inc. (1)
Somers v. Digital Realty Trust (1)
Sonoro Invest SA v. Miller (1)
Souza v. Elevate (1)
Special Situations Fund (1)
Special Situations Fund III (1)
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Riley (1)
Statements of Information (1)
Strong v. Cochran (1)
Strong v. Repide (1)
Super Pawn Jewelry & Loan v. Am. Envtl. (1)
Superior court (1)
Supreme Court (1)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (1)
TSC Industries (1)
Tena Campbell (1)
The City of God (1)
Theranos (1)
Tick Segerblom (1)
Tooley v. Donaldson (1)
Tract No. 7260 Ass'n v. Parker (1)
Treasurer John Chiang (1)
Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court (1)
Uniform Electronic Transactions (1)
Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (1)
Unocal standard (1)
Vahoora v. Masood (1)
Veteres (1)
Vladimir Ivanov (1)
Voss v. Sutardja (1)
Wadler v. Bio-Rad (1)
Washington College of Law (1)
Wellisch v. Pennsylvania Higher (1)
Western Surety v. La Cumbre Office Partners (1)
White & Whitley Grp. v. Wilson (1)
Wilkinson v. Schulman (1)
William Cos. v. Energy (1)
William Griffith Wilson (1)
Wireless Carriers (1)
Wittenberg (1)
You can't go home again (1)
Zetwick v. County of Yolo (1)
accredited investor (1)
administrative mandate (1)
advancement of expenses (1)
advertising (1)
advice of counsel (1)
alex kozinski (1)
alma cohen (1)
alternative due date (1)
ambiguous (1)
anthony rendon (1)
applicable filing period (1)
approval of the outstanding shares (1)
assessor (1)
association (1)
at issue (1)
authority (1)
bassam salman (1)
because of test (1)
best efforts (1)
bizfile California (1)
blockchain (1)
brief case (1)
buy-sell agreement (1)
buyback rights (1)
caltrans (1)
cannabis cooperative (1)
casuitry (1)
catalyst theory (1)
chairman of the board (1)
change in control (1)
change of ownership (1)
church debt (1)
church extension fund (1)
classical theory (1)
coin offerings (1)
collusion (1)
comitia (1)
commission merchant (1)
compensation (1)
compensatory plan (1)
confidentiality (1)
conflicts (1)
contracting out (1)
control person liability (1)
conventicle (1)
convivio (1)
corporate giving (1)
corporate philanthropy (1)
corporation (1)
cremers (1)
crowdfunding (1)
crowdfunding permi (1)
custodianship (1)
dante alighieri (1)
debt versus equity (1)
deceased personality (1)
declassification (1)
declassify (1)
deed of trust (1)
default (1)
defense costs (1)
definition of security (1)
demand futility (1)
department of tax and fee administration (1)
direct harm (1)
disclaim appointment (1)
disclosure only (1)
disparagement clause (1)
disqualification (1)
distribution of assets (1)
documentary transfer tax (1)
doing business (1)
donald trump (1)
due execution (1)
duly appointed (1)
duly elected (1)
earliest dated consent (1)
earnings release (1)
effective (1)
empanel (1)
emphyteusis (1)
emphyteuta (1)
emphyteutic (1)
enforcement actions (1)
equitable (1)
escheat (1)
evidentiary hearing (1)
examination (1)
exclusive meaning (1)
exoneration (1)
extraordinary writ (1)
fair value (1)
fake news (1)
false news (1)
family trust (1)
fiduciary in fact (1)
financial difficulties (1)
financial reporting (1)
for cause removal (1)
forbearance (1)
foreclosure (1)
foreign (1)
foreign exchange (1)
foreign registrant (1)
foreign subsidiary (1)
fraction (1)
fractions (1)
franchise (1)
fundamental interest (1)
gaming debt (1)
george wingfield (1)
good faith (1)
grammatical gender (1)
grand jury (1)
guidance (1)
hamartia (1)
heightened scrutiny (1)
hewlett-Packard v. Commissioner (1)
homograph (1)
ides of march (1)
illegal offer (1)
impanel (1)
improper purpose (1)
in this state (1)
inclusive meaning (1)
incorrect (1)
independent judgment (1)
independent regulatory agency (1)
initial list (1)
insider (1)
insured versus insured (1)
integration clause (1)
interest (1)
internal investigation (1)
interstate business (1)
intrastate business (1)
issuer transaction (1)
judge jennifer A. Dorsey (1)
judge lawrence j. o'neill (1)
justice Terry B. O'Rourke (1)
kanno v. marwit capital (1)
kevin de leon (1)
kevin kiley (1)
krechuniak v. Noorzoy (1)
lammers (1)
landlord (1)
lay person (1)
lead generators (1)
lead independent director (1)
leidos v. Indiana Public Retirement (1)
lex incorporationis (1)
libelous or slanderous (1)
listing manual (1)
lyman P.Q. Johnson (1)
lynn LoPucki (1)
manager (1)
marcy friedman (1)
market manipulation (1)
matal v. tam (1)
meaning of "and" (1)
member liability (1)
members (1)
mining leases (1)
misappropriation theory (1)
money order (1)
motion to dismiss (1)
motor clubs (1)
mutual water company (1)
natural person (1)
nautilus v. yang (1)
negligence (1)
neil gorsuch (1)
nelson v. Anderson (1)
nominated (1)
non voting common stock (1)
nonbinary (1)
nonissuer transaction (1)
notice filing (1)
offering statement (1)
office of investor education and Advocacy (1)
office of legislative counsel (1)
other constituency statute (1)
pannellus (1)
pay-to-play (1)
performance (1)
personal benefit (1)
persons (1)
piercing the corporate veil (1)
pilcrow (1)
policy exclusion (1)
policy updates (1)
preferred stockholders (1)
presiding director (1)
prevailing party (1)
primary violator (1)
private right of action (1)
privilege (1)
procedural (1)
professor bainbridge (1)
promoter (1)
proper party (1)
proper purpose (1)
properly appointed (1)
protected activity (1)
public notice (1)
public policy (1)
purchaser (1)
qualified (1)
qualifying assets (1)
real estate development (1)
reasonable (1)
reasonably likely (1)
reckless (1)
recorder (1)
regulatory assets under management (1)
regulatory capture (1)
removal (1)
required to be registered (1)
resident agent (1)
resignation (1)
resource extraction rule (1)
rim cards (1)
risk capital (1)
rounding (1)
safeguards (1)
salameh v. Tarsadia (1)
scilicet (1)
second declension (1)
secretary's certificate (1)
section 158 (1)
section 208 (1)
section 31202 (1)
section symbol (1)
securities lending (1)
securities owners protection (1)
securities portfolio (1)
security (1)
settlement (1)
sham corporation (1)
shareholders meeting (1)
sheriff's levy (1)
sheriff's sale (1)
signature (1)
societe anonyme (1)
squeeze out (1)
staggered board (1)
standard of care (1)
state charter (1)
statute (1)
statute of limiations (1)
statute of repose (1)
stockholder (1)
stockholder action by consent (1)
stockholder approval (1)
subsidiary (1)
subsidiary meaning (1)
substantial evidence (1)
substantive (1)
successive representation (1)
successor liability (1)
suitability (1)
supermajority (1)
sureties (1)
surrender certificates (1)
synagogue (1)
table funding (1)
talcum powder (1)
tarantulas (1)
tax cuts and jobs act (1)
taxpayer transparency and fairness act (1)
test the waters (1)
tonopah (1)
totally held (1)
touting (1)
transact intrastate business (1)
transfer (1)
translate (1)
troisieme voie (1)
tweeting (1)
umbrella registration (1)
unclaimed property law (1)
unicorn (1)
vacancy (1)
veil piercing (1)
verification (1)
voire dire (1)
voltaire (1)
voting power (1)
webb v. shull (1)
whistleblower disclosures to the press (1)
wholly owned (1)
willful misconduct (1)
yard signs (1)

Courts Consider Anti-Assignment Clauses And Reverse Triangular Mergers

In a reverse triangular merger, the acquiring company forms a subsidiary that merges with and into the target with the outstanding shares of the target being converted into securities of the acquiring corporation or some other consideration. Does a reverse triangular merger constitute an assignment of a target corporation's contracts? Because the reverse triangular merger is an exceedingly common acquisition technique, one would expect that this question was answered long ago. Surprisingly, however, this isn't the case.

Earlier this year, Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons analyzed whether a reverse triangular merger violated an anti-assignment clause that read as follows: "Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under this Agreement shall be assigned, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise by any of the parties without the prior written consent of the other parties . . .". He concluded:

In sum, Meso could have negotiated for a "change of control provision." They did not. Instead, they negotiated for a term that prohibits "assignments by operation of law or otherwise." Roche has provided a reasonable interpretation of Section 5.08 that is consistent with the general understanding that a reverse triangular merger is not an assignment by operation of law. On the other hand, I find Meso's arguments as to why language that prohibits "assignments by operation of law or otherwise" should be construed to encompass reverse triangular mergers unpersuasive and its related construction of Section 5.08 to be unreasonable.

Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH , 62 A.3d 62, 88 (Del. Ch. 2013). See I’ve Been Thinking About Conversion, But I Haven’t Decided To Convert .

Here in California, U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti recently addressed the issue even more recently as follows:

No California state court has resolved this matter, and the Court is not inclined to guess at possible conclusions. The Court therefore begins from the presumption that a reverse triangular merger, which leaves intact the acquired corporation, does not effect a transfer of rights from the wholly owned subsidiary to its acquirer as a matter of law. What little applicable law there is could be analogized from California cases on stock sales, like Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier , 48 Cal. 2d 208, 223, 308 P.2d 732 (Cal. 1957), which suggested that if a plaintiff had sold all of his stock in a corporation, there could be no contention that the corporation's licenses would be extinguished as a matter of law, since the two contracting parties were still extant and in privity.

Florey Inst. of Neuroscience & Mental Health v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138904 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013).

Both jurists confronted, and declined to follow, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's earlier decision in SQL Solutions v. Oracle Corp. , 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21097 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 1991) with Vice Chancellor Parsons saying: "I decline to adopt the approach outlined in SQL Solutions , however, because doing so would conflict with Delaware's jurisprudence surrounding stock acquisitions, among other things. Under Delaware law, stock purchase transactions, by themselves, do not result in an assignment by operation of law." Judge Conti said "Plaintiff relies solely on SQL Solutions to argue that assignment occurred as a matter of law when an acquired corporation became another corporation's wholly owned subsidiary. That case did not analyze nonassignment clauses and also found that federal copyright law forbid transfer."

Hollywood, Somali Pirates and Homer

Over the weekend, I saw the recently released film, Captain Phillips . The movie tells the story of the takeover of the MV Maersk by Somali pirates. When the Navy uses a Somali speaker to communicate with the pirates, one of the pirates asks "Who's this?". The translator answers "nemo", the Latin word for "no one". The interchange, of course, is an echo of the famous encounter of Odysseus and the Cyclops, Polyphemus in Homer's Odyssey :

Κύκλωψ, εἰρωτᾷς μ᾽ ὄνομα κλυτόν, αὐτὰρ ἐγώ τοι ἐξερέω: σὺ δέ μοι δὸς ξείνιον, ὥς περ ὑπέστης. Οὖτις ἐμοί γ᾽ ὄνομα: Οὖτιν δέ με κικλήσκουσι μήτηρ ἠδὲ πατὴρ ἠδ᾽ ἄλλοι πάντες ἑταῖροι. Cyclops, you are asking my renowned name, nevertheless I will declare: "Give to me the hospitality, you were promising. My name is no one: no one is what my mother, father and all my comrades call me."

Homer, Odyssey Book 9, lines 364 -367 (my translation). Matters went downhill from there for both Polyphemus and the pirates.

Keith Paul Bishop

Get the latest news and analysis about california corporate & securities law. subscribe to our newsletter today.

We respect your email privacy

Copyright © 2020 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved Disclaimer This publication is made available by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP for educational purposes only to convey general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you acknowledge there is no attorney-client relationship between you and Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. This publication should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney applied to your circumstances. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Click here for full disclaimer . Cookie Policy Privacy Policy

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

IMAGES

Operation of Law (Best Overview: Definition And Examples)
Assignment by Operation of Law
Unlock Unmatched Help in Assignment by Operation of Law by USA Legal
PPT
Demystifying Retrospective and Retroactive Operation of Law
Contract Drafting Class 26 Thurs. Apr ppt video online download

VIDEO

Assignment # Operation Research #
ASSIGNMENT CRIMINAL LAW GROUP 6
30 December 2023
CO
Assignment problem |Introduction
September 16, 2021 Assignment problem| Part 2

COMMENTS

Mergers and Restrictions on Assignments by "Operation of Law"
Nonetheless, " [w]hen an anti-assignment clause includes language referencing an assignment 'by operation of law,' Delaware courts generally agree that the clause applies to mergers in which the contracting company is not the surviving entity.". [3] Here the anti-assignment clause in the original acquisition agreement did purport to ...
Do Change of Control Transactions Constitute an Assignment by Operation
Learn how change of control transactions, such as mergers or acquisitions, affect the lease rights of commercial tenants and landlords. Find out when a change of control is an assignment by operation of law and how to draft anti-assignment clauses to prevent it.
Operation of Law (Best Overview: Definition And Examples)
The parties to a contract can include an operation of law clause where they define certain events to trigger certain legal consequences without the need of a party to act in any way. For example: "Operation of law" means the assignment of Party A's assets by the court order in the context of a merger.
Anti-Assignment Provisions and Assignments by 'Operation of Law': What
Assignments by Operation of Law. In Canada, the assignment of a contract as part of an asset sale, or the change of control of a party to a contract pursuant to a share sale - situations not ...
operation of law
operation of law. A way in which someone gets certain rights (or sometimes responsibilities) automatically under the law without taking action, requiring cooperation from another person, or being the subject of a court order . This situation usually arises from the happening of an event, such as a death, that triggers a change in human affairs ...
Mergers and Restrictions on Assignments by "Operation of Law"
[4] And, although Delaware has recognized that a merger in which the contracting party is the survivor (a reverse triangular merger) is not an assignment by operation of law "because the ...
Anti-Assignment Provisions and Assignments by 'Operation of Law': What
Assignments by Operation of Law. In Canada, the assignment of a contract as part of an asset sale, or the change of control of a party to a contract pursuant to a share sale - situations not normally effected via legal statute or court-ordered proceeding in M&A transactions - will not in and of itself effect an assignment of that contract ...
Operation of Law: Legal Definition & Examples
The operation of law definition pertains to the legal principles that apply automatically without the need for action by any entities involved. Essentially, it concerns aspects of law automatically bestowed upon individuals, such as rights and responsibilities. So, when you ask what does operation of law means, it refers to the automatic ...
138. Assignment By Operation Of Law.
Halsbury's Laws Of England / Contract (Volume 22 (2019)) / 4. Consideration and Privity / (2) Privity / (ii) Exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity / a. At Common Law / 138. Assignment by operation of law. This comprehensive encyclopedia of the law covers all parts of Contract.
assignment
Assignment is a legal term whereby an individual, the "assignor," transfers rights, property, or other benefits to another known as the " assignee .". This concept is used in both contract and property law. The term can refer to either the act of transfer or the rights /property/benefits being transferred.
Operation of law
The phrase " by operation of law " is a legal term that indicates that a right or liability has been created for a party, irrespective of the intent of that party, because it is dictated by existing legal principles. For example, if a person dies without a will, their heirs are determined by operation of law. Similarly, if a person marries or ...
Spotting issues with assignment clauses in M&A Due Diligence
Learn how to spot and review assignment clauses in mergers and acquisitions contracts. Find out what assignment by operation of law means and how it can be excluded or included in anti-assignment provisions.
Do Change of Control Transactions Constitute an Assignment by Operation
Learn how change of control of a tenant entity affects the anti-assignment clause in a lease. Find out when a change of control is not an assignment by operation of law and when it is.
Assignment (law)
Assignment (law) Assignment [1] is a legal term used in the context of the laws of contract and of property. In both instances, assignment is the process whereby a person, the assignor, transfers rights or benefits to another, the assignee. [2] An assignment may not transfer a duty, burden or detriment without the express agreement of the assignee.
A Guide to Understanding Anti-Assignment Clauses
The court noted that generally, mergers do not result in an assignment by operation of law of assets that began as property of the surviving entity and continued to be such after the merger. Thus ...
Assigning Contracts in the Context of M&A Transactions
Under this structure, the subsidiary obtains all of the target company's assets and liabilities by operation of law. Simple anti-assignment clauses are generally not triggered in a forward triangular merger because the rights are vested, and not assigned, by operation of law. Therefore, the target's contracts generally transfer ...
Assignments: The Basic Law
Learn the definition, concept and effect of assignment of rights and obligations under a contract or lease. Find out the difference between assignment and novation, and the legal implications of assignment by operation of law.
Prohibition of assignment clause did not prevent a transfer of rights
Dassault appealed to the High Court of England and Wales. The High Court overturned the arbitrators' decision, finding that the prohibition was wide enough to capture a transfer by operation of law. The High Court noted the words "by any Party" in the assignment prohibition were ambiguous and needed to be interpreted.
"By Operation of Law" (Including Draft No-Assignment Language)
How to draft a no-assignment provision that covers various types of transfers by operation of law, such as mergers, bankruptcy, and court orders? See examples, explanations, and tips from Ken Adams, a contract drafting expert.
Assignments by Operation of Law
An assignment by operation of law can be interpreted as an involuntary assignment required by legal statute or certain court-ordered proceedings. For instance, an assignment of a contract by operation of law may occur in, among other situations: (i) testamentary dispositions; (ii) court-ordered asset transfers in bankruptcy proceedings; or (iii ...
Anti-Assignment Clause Prohibiting Assignment by Operation of Law
When an anti-assignment clause contains language referencing an assignment by operation of law, Delaware courts generally find that the clause applies to mergers in which the contracting company ...
Courts Consider Anti-Assignment Clauses And Reverse Triangular Mergers
On the other hand, I find Meso's arguments as to why language that prohibits "assignments by operation of law or otherwise" should be construed to encompass reverse triangular mergers unpersuasive and its related construction of Section 5.08 to be unreasonable. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 62 A.3d 62, 88 (Del. Ch. 2013
Delaware Court holds anti-assignment clause prevents ...
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.
Top Story
Catch the top stories of the day on ANC's 'Top Story' (18 May 2024)

Private Equity

Do Change of Control Transactions Constitute an Assignment by Operation of Law?

Latest Posts

Written by:

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

Published In:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Operation of Law (Best Overview: Definition And Examples)

Operation of law definition

What does operation of law mean

Agency by operation of law

Assignment by operation of law

Termination by operation of law

Discharge by operation of law

Reset by operation of law

Power of attorney operation of law

Transfer by operation of law

Operation of law real estate

Operation of law clause

Operation of law examples

Operation of law FAQ

What does operation of law mean?

What does assignment by operation of law mean?

Can a corporation be created by operation of law?

Articles Recommended For You!

RELATED ARTICLES

Anti-Assignment Provisions and Assignments by ‘Operation of Law’: What Do I Have to Do? What Should I Do?

Understanding Anti-Assignment Provisions

Context of M&A Transactions: Asset Purchases and Share Purchases

Assignments by Operation of Law

Difference Between Mergers and Amalgamations

MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V.

Practical Considerations

Jeffrey K. Merk

Liam Tracey-Raymont

Gary Volman

Christian Nianiaris

Joshua Ward

Related Areas of Expertise

Related publications

138. Assignment by operation of law.

To view this document in full, take a free 7 day trial of LexisNexis and benefit from:

Popular Documents :

Popular Links

HELP & SUPPORT

LEGAL SOLUTIONS

Primary tabs

Contract Law

Property Law

Spotting issues with assignment clauses in M&A Due Diligence

What is an Assignment Clause?

Common Exclusions and Inclusions

Exclusion for Affiliate Transactions

Assignment by Operation of Law

Direct or Indirect Assignment

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

Do Change of Control Transactions Constitute an Assignment by Operation of Law?

Related Attorneys

Related Expertise

Necessary Cookies

Analytical Cookies

Assignments: The Basic Law

Prohibition of assignment clause did not prevent a transfer of rights by operation of law

This website uses cookies

“By Operation of Law” (Including Draft No-Assignment Language)

9 thoughts on ““By Operation of Law” (Including Draft No-Assignment Language)”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

The voice that matters.

Contributor

Introduction

Understanding Anti-Assignment Provisions

Context of M&A Transactions: Asset Purchases and Share Purchases

Assignments by Operation of Law

Difference Between Mergers and Amalgamations

MTA Canada Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V.

Practical Considerations

Corporate/Commercial Law

California Corporate & Securities Law

Courts Consider Anti-Assignment Clauses And Reverse Triangular Mergers

Keith Paul Bishop