tier 4 ban on assignment

Walker Morris / Insights / Receivables Finance: the prohibition on assignment is now in force

• GCs & In-house
• International
• Diversity & Inclusion
• The Environment
• Wider Society

Our Clients

• Banks & Alternative Lenders
• Commercial Developers
• Energy, Waste & Infrastructure Companies
• Food & Drink Companies
• Manufacturing Companies
• Private Equity
• Residential Builders & Operators
• Retail & Leisure Providers
• illuminate – For GCs and In-house
• Factory of the Future
• Digital transformation in business
• Building Safety Act 2022
• Environmental law in practice
• International Alliances
• Inward Investment
• Newsletters
• Company News
• Sectors (Our clients) Banks & Alternative Lenders Commercial Developers Energy, Waste & Infrastructure companies Food & Drink Companies Logistics Manufacturing Companies Private Equity Residential Builders & Operators Retailers & Leisure Providers
• Services Banking & Finance Block Management Business Immigration City & Estates Commercial Competition Construction & Engineering Consumer Finance Corporate Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution>Real Estate Litigation Employment & Immigration Environment Finance Dispute Resolution Housing Management & Litigation HR Infrastructure & Energy Intellectual Property, Trade Marks & Designs International International Trade Living Logistics Net Zero Pensions Planning & Environment Private Equity Public Sector Real Estate Regulatory & Compliance Restructuring & Insolvency Retail Sports Law Supply Chain Tax Technology & Digital Uncategorized
• Reset Search
• View all services

Receivables Finance: the prohibition on assignment is now in force

18th January 2019

The Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018 came into force on 31 December 2018 meaning that parties to a contract in the UK may no longer be able to prohibit the assignment of receivables arising in respect of supplies made under it, even if it is a long term supply contract providing for multiple deliveries.

As we reported in December 2017 , draft regulations were laid before Parliament in September of that year which proposed to make any term in a business contract that prohibited or restricted the assignment of receivables automatically ineffective. Those draft regulations were subsequently withdrawn amid concerns that they would create uncertainty in the finance markets.

The main areas of concern were that:

• the legislation appeared to be retrospective therefore catching contracts that were already in place;
• the types of assignment which fell within the regulations were not described sufficiently well enough to create certainty; and
• there was no protection for the debtor who may have stipulated for a non-assignment clause in the expectation that its rights of set off would be preserved.

However, the government has since revisited the legislation and on 24 November 2018 the Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018 (the Regulations ) came into force. The Regulations apply to contracts (with a few exceptions described below) created after 31 December 2018 and mean that parties will no longer be able to prohibit the assignment of receivables in the UK. The Regulations make it clear that the prohibition is not retrospective and so the Regulations only apply to new contracts. In effect, this means that one party to a contract cannot prevent the other party from choosing who should receive payments under a contract for the supply of goods, services or intangible assets.

The Regulations also render unenforceable any terms which prevent a person who has been assigned the receivable from being able to enforce the contract, or determine its validity or value (for example by preventing the disclosure of the information required to commence court proceedings for its collection).

The Regulations are aimed at improving access to invoice financing for small and medium-sized enterprises and the government speculates that this will provide a £1 billion, long-term, boost to the economy. Invoice financing allows businesses to assign their right to be paid by a customer to a finance provider. In return the finance provider provides the business with up-front funds, thereby speeding up the business’ working capital cycle (provided the debtor ultimately pays the assigned invoice). Before 1 January 2019, smaller businesses would usually be forced to engage with larger customers on those customers’ standard terms, which often contained non-assignment clauses. As a result, some smaller businesses were restricted from engaging with invoice financing opportunities. This should now change.

The Regulations apply to contracts for the supply of goods, services or intangible assets where the supplier has the right to be paid under the contract. There are, however, a number of exceptions including:

• a large enterprise or part of a large group (as defined by the Companies Act 2006); or
• a special purpose vehicle, set up to hold assets or finance commercial transactions involving it incurring a liability under an agreement of £10 million or more.
• The Regulations also do not apply to services of a financial nature. The definition of ‘financial nature’ is construed widely and includes, amongst other things, leasing, loan relationships and all types of securitisation and derivative transactions.
• The Regulations do not apply to contracts which have as their purpose the acquiring, disposing or transferring of ownership in a firm (as defined in the Companies Act 2006) whether incorporated or established, or of a business or undertaking. However, for this exemption to apply, the contract must include a statement to that effect.
• The Regulations generally do not apply to contracts that relate to non-UK businesses. However, parties cannot contract out of the Regulations by changing the contract’s governing law, if the only reason for doing so is to circumvent the regulations.
• There are also a number of other types of contracts which the Regulations do not apply to, including consumer contracts, real estate contracts, public-private partnership contracts and rental contracts. Interestingly, the Regulations will apply to building contracts which, up to now have been impossible to finance, in practice, through an invoice discounting arrangement.

Practical application

The Regulations will lead to the need for certain changes to the drafting and implementation of commercial contracts:

• No assignment clauses –  An eligible supplier will be able to assign their receivables to a debt purchaser without having to seek their customers’ prior consent. This means a blanket non-assignment clause will no longer work for on its own to preserve rights of set off;
• Confidentiality provisions –  Confidentiality obligations can still be imposed on suppliers, except for any “essential information” that enables the identification of the receivables following assignment. This means information that enables the identification of receivables (so as to facilitate their collection) may be disclosed by a supplier to a third party purchaser for the purpose of receivables assignment or transfer without constituting a breach of confidentiality.
• Set-off –  The Explanatory Note to the Regulations clarifies that a contractual right to set-off is not considered as a restriction on transfer of receivables for the purpose of the Regulations. Although the right to set-off is maintained, businesses may want to consider the practical impact of the Regulations on the mechanism to exercise the right to set-off, such as how cash flow will be affected if you are no longer able to consolidate future transactions to set-off against one original invoice that has already been assigned to a third party.

Many commercial arrangements will be unaffected by this change in legislation. However this will depend, in relation to contracts entered into this year and beyond, on the terms of the contract and the nature of what is being supplied under it. A key point to note is that the Regulations will not nullify the contract as a whole or, indeed, the whole of the clause restricting assignment, but only to the extent applicable to receivables.

Providers of invoice finance will still need to carry out due diligence, at least for now, on taking on any new invoice discounting client to ascertain the extent to which the debtor book may still contain debts which are subject to restrictions on assignment or are otherwise subject to rights of set off.

Small and medium sized companies seeking to avail themselves of the new rules should seek advice before doing so. Invoice discounting products can be an extremely effective way of assisting a growing business meet its working capital needs. However, lumpy cash flow, or bad debt experience (including habitual slow payers in the customer base) can lead to disaster if not properly managed.

If you need advice on how the Regulations may affect your business please get in touch.

Secured Transactions Law Reform Project

Considering the need and shape of future reform, ban on assignment clauses.

Receivables financing is a very important source of finance for small businesses.  Anything which limits the availability of this type of financing, or which increases its costs, requires examination.   Receivables financiers take an assignment or a charge over the receivables they finance.

Some contracts for the supply of goods or services by small businesses include a clause banning assignment of the receivables arising under the contracts: we call these ‘ban on assignment clauses’.   If receivables arising from such a contract are the subject of an assignment to a receivables financier, it may be difficult  for an assignee to enforce collection of those receivables if the assignor experiences financial difficulties, and the debtor can refuse to pay the financier directly.   The concern which arises is whether these difficulties  mean that finance of such receivables is refused, or that steps have to be taken which increase the cost of financing.

Statutory controls on the effect of ban on assignment clauses have been introduced in a number of jurisdictions as well as in the 1988 UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring, the 2001 UN Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade, the 2007 UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions and, more recently, have been included in the UNCITRAL draft Model Law on Secured Transactions. The draft regulations in the Law Commission Consultation Paper 176 and Report 296 also included a limited override of such clauses.    The project is considering whether a limited override should be introduced into English law, and, if so, what the limits should be.

Detailed arguments for and against a limited override are set out in presentations delivered at a recent seminar for receivables financiers . 

It is reasonably clear that outside the context of trade receivables financing, ban on assignment clauses perform a useful and important function, and should not be overridden.   The important debate focuses on whether a limited override would improve access to financing for small businesses.

In order to inform this debate, we are very keen to find out the views of anyone who is interested in this area.    We have drafted a short survey for those financing against receivables, looking at whether ban on assignment clauses cause problems and increase costs, methods used to overcome difficulties in enforcement and frequency of the use of such clauses.

If you are involved in the receivables financing industry, please take a few moments to fill in the  survey and send a scanned copy to [email protected]

Nullification of a ban on invoice assignment clauses was proposed in the form of a power of a Secretary of State to make Regulations in clause 1 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill (SMEE Bill). At the beginning of the year BIS conducted consultation on the Bill, which closed in February 2015. The summary of responses along with draft regulations are available here . On 26th March the SMEE Bill ill received royal assent.

The text of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 can be found  here .

On 9 August 2015, the Government responded to its consultation and announced that a ban on anti-assignment clauses would be brought in under the Act early next year . The Asset Based Finance Association and the National Federation for Small Businesses have spoken in support of the move.

As of the 31st December 2018, the Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018  will nullify the effect of terms in contracts that impose conditions or restrictions on the assignment of receivables in contracts with SMEs.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Credit Cards & Loans
• Banking & Savings
• Finance Apps
• International

Bans on Assignment Clauses Abolished, What Does This Mean for Financing?

A recent decision was taken by the uk government to make bans on assignment clauses null and void. these clauses made it very difficult for many uk businesses to gain access to the finance they need to grow and meet objectives..

Below Steve Noble, COO at Ultimate Finance , offers insight into the potential changes ahead and the way these will impact business and financing.

Ongoing Brexit discussions may mean it seems much longer ago, but in November both Houses of Parliament passed legislation to end Bans of Assignment contractual clauses. This is great news that lenders and SMEs will have been celebrating since the announcement was made.

What’s the problem with Bans on Assignment clauses?

Bans on Assignment often blocks the provision of vital funding to SMEs as some financiers are hesitant to supply this where clients and their customers have agreed a contract containing this type of clause. If the financier IS prepared to provide funding, they will either have to find a workaround – such as requesting that the business approaches their customer for consent –or request additional security from the client. Each of these options proves time consuming, incurs unnecessary costs and makes it difficult for clients to obtain invoice finance. Unsurprisingly, this can cause SMEs to either struggle on without the support they need or rely on alternative finance options that aren’t right for their business.

What does the change mean?

This means that from 2019 SMEs will be able to access the funding they need more easily. It’s why I’m welcoming the news that after two previously unsuccessful attempts, Bans on Assignment clauses are now null and void in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. SMEs will therefore be able to assign receivables to invoice finance providers without having to spend time and money seeking consent from customers or trying to find workarounds to these clauses which can make things unnecessarily complex.

The legislation also makes clauses prohibiting a party from determining the value of a receivable and being able to enforce it ineffective. Again, this will increase the appeal of invoice finance for so many SMEs across the country.

Does the regulation impact your business?

Clearly, this is great news for SMEs and funding partners across the country. However, there are still caveats in place which will inevitably frustrate some.

• The regulations apply to contracts entered into on or after 31 December 2018
• They do not apply to receivables due to be paid to large enterprises – traditionally defined as businesses with more than 250 employees – or special purpose vehicles
• They exclude certain contracts from the scope of the regulations, for example those relating to land and for the provision of financial services
• They only apply to contracts governed by the laws of England, Wales and Northern Ireland

The final point will likely prove the most frustrating, as the current legislation doesn’t change anything for more than 345,900 SMEs in Scotland, leaving them to potentially continue struggling to gain access to vital funding next year.

Hopefully this won’t be a permanent issue however as the Scottish Government may follow in the Central Government’s footsteps and announce similar legislation to ensure SMEs north of the border aren’t at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the UK.

Onwards and upwards

Despite the caveats, the news that Bans on Assignment clauses will soon be a thing of the past is great news for SMEs and lenders alike. This should result in a simplified invoice finance process and therefore more small businesses gaining access to the funding they need to continuing thriving in 2019. If that’s not good news, I don’t know what is.

About Finance Monthly

Follow Finance Monthly

Get our free weekly FM email

• 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.

• Case Studies
• Testimonials

Free Quote: Step 1

• Industry:* Please select Business Services Construction / Trades Courier / Logistics Export Financial Services Hospitality IT Manufacturing Printing / Publishing Recruitment Transport Security Wholesale / Warehousing Other
• Approx annual turnover (£):*
• Company Name:*
• Contact Email:*
• Contact Name:*
• Contact Telephone Number:*
• Invoice Discounting
• Types of Discounting
• Discounting Criteria
• Invoice Discounting Advantages
• Discounting FAQs
• Discounting Benefits
• Spot Invoice Discounting

Invoice Factoring

• Types of Factoring
• Spot Factoring
• Factoring vs Overdraft Facility
• Factoring Benefits
• Factoring Criteria
• Factoring FAQs
• Selective Factoring
• Factoring Costs
• Factoring Rates

Smart Extras

• Which Finance Facility?
• Invoice Finance Tips
• SME Invoice Finance
• Transferring Invoice Finance Providers
• UK Invoice Finance Market
• Import Finance
• Invoice Factoring Discounting Fees
• How Finance Lenders Calculate Prepayment Levels

What would you like?

• No Minimum Fee
• Confidential
• 100% Concentration
• Cheap Factoring
• Cheap Invoice Discounting
• Factoring Advice
• Increase Prepayment
• Asset Refinance
• Fixed Fee Factoring
• Stock Finance
• Trade Finance
• Credit Card Factoring

What Do You Do?

• Permanent Recruitment
• Construction
• Security Company
• Temporary Recruitment
• Engineering
• Recruitment Finance

Where Are You?

• Northern Ireland
• Southampton

We can help you -

• Start a business
• Refinance your business
• Reduce factoring fees
• Change Factoring Company
• Increase Profits

Cashflow Solutions

• Debt Factoring
• Commercial Factoring
• Cashflow Factoring

Invoice Factoring and Invoice Discounting is our speciality. Our independent online advice will help you find the facility you want.

• How We Help
• How We Differ
• Our Approach
• Factoring Companies Guidebook

Ban on Assignment

A clause within the Debtors terms of sale, which specifically bans the assignment of the benefits or proceeds of the sale, thereby refusing to accept the assignment of the invoice.

The 'contract' is in place before the debt arises and therefore will take precedent over the Client's legal right to assign the debt to us, negating our right to the proceeds of the Debt.

Identification

Review customer terms of sale, obtaining copies for the client file.

Where an effective ban on assignment exists, all of the debt due from that customer should be reserved unless a suitable waiver is obtained from the debtor. This limitation applies to both Disclosed and Confidential facilities.

N.B. Where concentration is low there may be occasions where a waiver is not required and credit will take a commercial view. However this aspect would have to be continually monitored throughout the relationship.

Care must be taken in a 'Gone Concern' situation, or where the client may potentially cease to trade, as it may be necessary to rely on the appointment of a Book Debt receiver to recover the proceeds of the debt. Such appointment will result in additional costs of recovery for us, which should be taken into account in any funding decision. It is not however guaranteed that any Receiver, despite the ban, will look favourably on the debt being assigned to us and may retain the funds for other creditors.

Examples of Ban on Assignment Terms & Conditions

"The Seller shall not assign or sub-contract the Purchase Order or any part thereof or any money to become due hereunder without the prior written consent of the Purchaser. Any such permitted assignment or sub-contracting shall not relieve the Seller of any of its obligations under the Purchase Order."

• No Minimum Fees No Minimum Fees
• No Contract No Contract
• Cheapest rates Cheapest rates
• Free Quote Free Quote
• Free Review Free Review
• 10 Percent Off Fees 10 Percent Off Fees
• 1% over base 1% over base
• 100 % Prepayment 100 % Prepayment

Sign up for the latest invoice finance updates below and we will send you a free copy of our guide to sourcing an invoice finance facility.

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Smart Factoring Quotes

The Government restricts bans on assignment

United Kingdom |  Publication |  November 2018

Legislation now in force preventing parties from prohibiting the assignment of receivables under certain contracts.

At the moment, a contract can prohibit or restrict the parties’ ability to assign or transfer rights created under the contract. The extent of the restriction is a matter of interpretation of the clause concerned. If one of the parties to the contract attempts to assign the benefit of the contract in breach of the restriction, the purported assignment is ineffective.

One of the key assets of any business is its receivables, and restrictions on assignment can prevent the parties from factoring receivables or otherwise raising finance on them. The Government has decided that it should be easier for businesses to raise finance on their receivables. Accordingly the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 allows regulations to be made to invalidate restrictions on the assignment of receivables in particular types of contract. The regulations have now been made. They are contained in The Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018. Draft regulations published in July, have been approved by both Houses of Parliament and are now in force.

What types of contracts do the Regulations apply to?

The Regulations apply to contracts for the supply of goods, services or intangible assets under which the supplier is entitled to be paid money. But there are a number of important exclusions from their application, including the following:

• They only apply to contracts entered into on or after 31 December 2018.
• They only apply where the person who supplies the goods, services or intangible assets concerned, and is therefore entitled to the receivable, is a small or medium-sized enterprise which is not a special purpose vehicle. Whether or not an entity qualifies in any particular case requires a detailed examination of the precise wording of the
• Regulations. Counter-intuitively, the test is not applied at the time the contract is entered into, but at the time the assignment takes place.
• There is a specific exemption for contracts “for, or entered into in connection with, prescribed financial services”: These are widely defined to include “any service of a financial nature”.
• There are specific exclusions for particular types of contract, including certain commodities, project finance, energy, land, share purchase and business purchase contracts and operating leases.
• As a general rule, it would seem that the Regulations only apply to contracts governed by English law or the law of Northern Ireland, but they prevent the parties from choosing a foreign law if it can be established that the purpose of doing so was to evade the Regulations.
• The Regulations do not apply if none of the parties to the contract has entered into it in the course of carrying on a business in the United Kingdom.

What is the effect of the Regulations?

The Regulations provide that “a term in a contract has no effect to the extent that it prohibits or imposes a condition, or other restriction , on the assignment of a receivable arising under that contract or any other contract between the same parties.”

A receivable is the right to be paid any amount under a contract for the supply of goods, services, or intangible assets. The Regulations do not prevent the parties from restricting the assignment of other contract rights.

More difficult is to establish what is meant by assignment. Receivables are transferred in various ways in practice. Sometimes the transfer is outright (for instance by way of sale); and sometimes it is by way of security (for instance to secure a loan). The transfer may be effected by a statutory assignment, an equitable assignment, a charge or a trust. “Assignment” is not defined in the Regulations, and so there is some doubt as to which of these transactions are covered.

Although charges are not expressly referred to, they might be covered by the expression “assignment” if it is given a broad interpretation. But because of the uncertainty, the best course is to take an assignment by way of security over a receivable where there is, or might be, a restriction. That way, it is clear that the Regulations do apply.

Non-assignment clauses come in a variety of forms. They will be covered by the Regulations if they prohibit or impose a condition , or other restriction on the assignment of a receivable. The Regulations expressly invalidate terms which prevent the assignee from determining the validity or value of the receivable or their ability to enforce it. Whether or not the Regulations apply in any particular case will require an analysis of the precise terms of the restriction.

The Regulations will be of particular importance to businesses involved in the financing of receivables. And they will also be of concern to buyers because they will override their contractual protections.

• Financial institutions

Practice area:

• Banking and finance

Recent publications

Publication

US Supreme Court sidesteps discovery rule question and allows copyright owners to recover damages without time limit

The Copyright Act provides that a copyright owner must bring an infringement claim within three years of its accrual.

United States | May 16, 2024

Draft Securitisation (Amendment) Regulations published

On April 22, 2024, draft Securitisation (Amendment) Regulations 2024 were published. They amend the Securitisation Regulations 2024 (made on January 29, 2024) which form part of HM Treasury’s programme to deliver a Smarter Regulatory Framework for financial services.

United Kingdom | May 14, 2024

Pensions Regulator issues its 2024 Annual Funding Statement for DB Schemes together with its Corporate Plan 2024-27

The Regulator has issued its DB Funding Statement, which is aimed primarily at schemes with valuation dates between September 22, 2023, and September 21, 2024, or “Tranche 19 schemes”. However, the statement is also relevant for schemes which have been significantly impacted by the “changes in market conditions” in recent years, and therefore need to review their investment strategy.

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .

© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023

• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• United States
• Deutschland (Deutsch)
• Germany (English)
• The Netherlands
• Türkiye
• United Kingdom
• South Africa
• Hong Kong SAR
• Marshall Islands
• Nordic region

Anti-Assignment Clause: Everything You Need To Know

An anti-assignment clause prevents either of the parties to a contract from assigning tasks to a third party without the consent of the non-assigning party. 3 min read updated on February 01, 2023

An anti-assignment clause prevents either of the parties to a contract from assigning tasks to a third party without the consent of the non-assigning party.

Anti-assignment clauses are of two types:

One that prohibits the assignment of work or service pursuant to the contract.

One that prohibits the assignment of payment under the contract.

The clause that prohibits the assignment of work or service is a valid clause, completely enforceable and does not bear much importance. However, the clause that prohibits the assignment of payment is a more complex clause that affects crucial buying and selling decisions.

Are Anti-Assignment Clauses That Prohibit Assigning Payments Enforceable?

As an anti-assignment clause prohibits the assignment of payment, it affects business and thus is unenforceable and ineffective under Section 9-406 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The code clearly states that clauses pertaining to "Discharge of Account Debtor, Notification of Assignment, Identification and Proof of Assignment, Restriction on Assignment of Account, Chattel Paper, Payment Intangibles and Promissory Notes" are ineffective and void.

What Should a Factor Do If a Client's Contract Contains an Anti-Assignment Clause?

Most factors prefer not to enter into an agreement with a client whose contract contains any anti-assignment clause to avoid hassle in the future. However, legal experts suggest that factors should ignore the anti-assignment clauses in the contract and proceed with business as usual along with providing a Notice of Assignment to the account debtor.

Even if the factor decides to proceed with the business decision with the said client, he should be aware that the account debtor may not want to engage in commercial activities with the factor, and may even create difficulties in dealings and collection. Though an anti-assignment clause does not deter the factor's decision to enter into a business arrangement with an account debtor or his ability to be paid given the issuance of a Notice of Assignment, it is for him to decide if the efforts are worth the business. However, to ensure a fool-proof commercial and business dealing, the factor can obtain a signed Estoppel Letter from the account debtor to avoid all future disputes.

What Are the Anti-assignment Provisions and Their Effect on Transaction Structures?

Most commercial contracts end with a clause, ”Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under the Agreement shall be assigned, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise by either party without the prior written consent of the other party.” This is the anti-assignment clause that ensures the interest of both the parties and that none of the two parties transfer any rights to any other individual with our prior consent of the other main party.

Often, a contract assignment issue plays an important factor in merger and acquisition prospects as buyers want to acquire all customer and vendor contracts. However, if any of the contracts bound by the anti-assignment clause need the approval of the other party, it could lead to additional costs for the buyer, which may affect the decision. The general notion is that most contracts are assignable unless categorically included anti-assignment clauses .

What Is the Typical Anti-assignment Language to Look Out For?

There are numerous ways of including an anti-assignment provision in the contract. However, the AIA Standard Form of Agreement contains the following anti-assignment provision:

• The Party 1 and Party 2, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither Party 1 nor Party 2 shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other.

What Are the Recommendations for Parties Entering Into Construction Contracts?

Usually, when commercial agreements are drawn, parties tend to focus on the key business aspects but pay no heed to anti-assignment provisions. It is thus the main responsibility of a corporate lawyer to study, analyze, and dissect agreements to ensure the best for their clients.

• Check the miscellaneous sections of any agreement to rule out any anti-assignment clause in the contract.
• Read and understand the finer points of the anti-assignment clause in the contract, if any.
• Negotiate changes in the anti-assignment clause prior to signing the contract.

If you need help with an anti-assignment clause, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Assignment Law
• Legal Assignment
• Assignment Contract Law
• Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
• Consent to Assignment
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Assignment Legal Definition
• Assignment Of Contracts
• Assignment of Rights Example
• What is an Assignment and Assumption Agreement

Ban on Assignment

Ban on Assignment . It is a clause in a contract between  a vendor and a buyer which prevents the vendor from assigning the related receivables. It can make ineffective any assignment of the receivables arising out of the contract. In some legal environments, the factoring agreement may overrule the ban on assignment.

• Supply Chain Finance

• Open Risk Academy
• Open Risk Commons
• Open Risk Models
• Read our Blog
• Open Risk Dashboard
• Open Risk Data
• Accessibility
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

• 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.

Read more about our firm

© 2024, Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, All rights reserved  | Terms of Use | Site by Bay Design

Ban on Assignment Sample Clauses

Get the official word add-in, related clauses.

• Limitation on Assignment
• Prohibition on Assignment
• Non-Assignment
• Amendment; Assignment
• Limitations on Assignment
• Void Assignment
• Modification; Assignment
• Restrictions on Assignment
• Assignment of the Agreement
• Assignment Agreements

Related to Ban on Assignment

Limitation on Assignment This Agreement is personal to the Participant and, except as otherwise provided in Section 5 above, shall not be assignable by the Participant otherwise than by will or the laws of descent and distribution, without the written consent of the Company executed by a Senior Vice President or above of UL Solutions Inc. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Participant’s legal representatives.

Prohibition on Assignment Other than pursuant to the laws of descent and distribution, Executive's right to benefit payments under this Section 4.2 are not subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge, encumbrance, attachment or garnishment by creditors of Executive or Executive's beneficiary.

Non-Assignment This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the written consent of the other party.

Amendment; Assignment This Agreement may be amended, superseded, canceled, renewed or extended, and the terms hereof may be waived, only by a written instrument signed by authorized representatives of the parties or, in the case of a waiver, by an authorized representative of the party waiving compliance. No such written instrument shall be effective unless it expressly recites that it is intended to amend, supersede, cancel, renew or extend this Agreement or to waive compliance with one or more of the terms hereof, as the case may be. Except for the Management Stockholder’s right to assign his or her rights under Section 4(a) or the Company’s right to assign its rights under Section 4(b), no party to this Agreement may assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other parties hereto.

Limitations on Assignment In entering into this Agreement, the Company is relying on the unique personal services of Executive; services from another person will not be an acceptable substitute. Except as provided in this Agreement, Executive may not assign this Agreement or any of the rights or obligations set forth in this Agreement without the explicit written consent of the Company. Any attempted assignment by Executive in violation of this Section 12(b) shall be void. Except as provided in this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement entitles any person other than the parties to the Agreement to any claim, cause of action, remedy, or right of any kind, including, without limitation, the right of continued employment.

Void Assignment Any sale, exchange or other transfer by any Member of any Units or other interests in the Company in contravention of this Agreement shall be void and ineffectual and shall not bind or be recognized by the Company or any other party.

Modification; Assignment No amendment or other modification, rescission, release, or assignment of any part of this Agreement shall be effective except pursuant to a written agreement subscribed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto.

Restrictions on Assignment Consultant may not assign or otherwise transfer his rights or delegate its obligations created hereunder to any third party without the prior written consent of the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties.

Assignment of the Agreement This Agreement and the rights hereunder may be assigned by FirstLink to any majority-owned subsidiary of FirstLink or to an affiliate or party acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of FirstLink upon prior written consent of Owner. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Alternatively, the Agreement may be assigned by FirstLink to any FirstLink subsidiary so long as FirstLink agrees in writing that it shall remain liable for all obligations arising under this Agreement. FirstLink may also assign this Agreement to any party providing financing to FirstLink; provided that such assignment shall not relieve FirstLink from its obligations hereunder. In connection with a sale or disposition of the Properties, Owner shall request FirstLink's written consent to assign this Agreement and shall require any subsequent owner of the Properties to assume this Agreement and the rights and obligations hereunder. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the respective parties to this Agreement.

Assignment Agreements Each Bank may, from time to time, with the consent of the Borrower and Agent (which will not in any instance be unreasonably withheld), sell or assign to other banking institutions rated "B" or better by Thomxxxx Xxxk Watch Service a pro rata part of all of the indebtedness evidenced by the Notes then owed by it together with an equivalent proportion of its obligation to make Loans hereunder and the credit risk incidental to the Letters of Credit pursuant to an Assignment Agreement substantially in the form of Exhibit J attached hereto, executed by the assignor, the assignee and the Borrower, which agreements shall specify in each instance the portion of the indebtedness evidenced by the Notes which is to be assigned to each such assignor and the portion of the Commitments of the assignor and the credit risk incidental to the Letters of Credit (which portions shall be equivalent) to be assumed by it (the "Assignment Agreements"), provided that the Borrower may in its sole discretion withhold its consent to any assignment by a Bank to any assignee which has total capital and surplus of less than $200,000,000.00 or to any assignment by a Bank of less than all of its Commitments if as a result thereof the assignor will have Commitments hereunder of less than one half of its assigned Commitments or the assignee will have Commitments hereunder of less than $3,500,000.00 or, after giving effect thereto, there would be more than 10 Banks, further provided that nothing herein contained shall restrict, or be deemed to require any consent as a condition to, or require payment of any fee in connection with, any sale, discount or pledge by any Bank of any Note or other obligation hereunder to a Federal reserve bank. Upon the execution of each Assignment Agreement by the assignor, the assignee and the Borrower and consent thereto by the Agent (i) such assignee shall thereupon become a "Bank" for all purposes of this Agreement with a Commitment in the amount set forth in such Assignment Agreement and with all the rights, powers and obligations afforded a Bank hereunder, (ii) the assignor shall have no further liability for funding the portion of its Commitments assumed by such other Bank and (iii) the address for notices to such Bank shall be as specified in the Assignment Agreement, and the Borrower shall execute and deliver Notes to the assignee Bank in the amount of its Commitments and new Notes to the assignor Bank in the amount of its Commitments after giving effect to the reduction occasioned by such assignment, all such Notes to constitute "Notes" for all purposes of this Agreement, and there shall be paid to the Agent, as a condition to such assignment, an administration fee of $2,500 plus any out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by it in effecting such assignment, such fee to be paid by the assignor or the assignee as they may mutually agree, but under no circumstances shall any portion of such fee be payable by or charged to the Borrower.

UNDERSTANDING THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS

Introduction.

Contracts, generally, are freely assignable i.e., either party can freely transfer one’s obligations or rights to a third party. This is what an assignment clause signifies. An assignment is a transfer of rights and liabilities that the third party must then discharge to the other party. But sometimes, some contracts include an Anti-assignment clause to obstruct or limit assignment. They prevent either party to contract to transfer contractual obligations and/or rights to a third party.

The early legal system was against assigning contract rights as it considered them highly personal and intelligible. Fear of litigation, fear of maintenance, and champerty are some of the other reasons that many commentators feel led to the development of a non-assignability clause. However, with the passage of time and the development of technology, the work-load increased mani-fold necessitating the assignment of some rights and liabilities to the third party; now assignment of rights has become a general trend and non-assignment has taken a backseat which especially needs to be drafted to forbid assignment.

An anti-assignment clause also referred to as a non-assignment clause is a boilerplate clause that either bar completely or partially either of the party to the contract from transferring their rights and obligations under the contract to a third party without due permission from the non-assigning party.

FORMS OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

A non-assignment clause in a contract can be presented to the oblige in varied forms depending on the nature of the contract and its terms and conditions.

It may take the following forms-

• Assignments of contract rights and liabilities may be completely prohibited, or;
• Assignments may be limited to entities within the same group as the assignor.
• The agreement may prohibit any transfers of the obligation without the approval of the obligor, which should not be unreasonably denied.

IMPORTANCE OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

A non-assignment clause limits the obligor’s contractual obligations to the obligee. The courts construe the clause in favor of the non-assigning party i.e., the obliger. Since the oblige afterward assigns its rights, the obliger then needs to also cooperate with the assignee i.e., a third-party or a stranger to the contract for the performance of the contract; therefore, the courts assume that only the party that can complain about the assignment is the non-assigning party.

SCOPE OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

Anti-assignment clauses in contracts have become a frequent practice because, without them, contracts are freely assignable. However, there are certain contracts where the assignment is excused by the statutes itself, however, the anti-assignment clause is still drafted into the contract for efficient enforcement. For example, Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act [1] prohibits the practice of “offering to perform” where it is against the lex-terrae. Such contracts could be of IPR where the nature of the contract is personal [2] or could be an employment agreement where an assignment without permission would lead to significant and unfavorable consequences for non-assigning parties. For all other contracts, anti-assignment clauses can be used with ease.

Examples of the use of the Anti-Assignment Clause

• In Franchise Agreement, this clause clearly outlines the extent of the permissibility of the assignment of the intellectual property of the franchise.
• In a Purchase and Sale Agreement, the purchaser may need to assign its rights and obligations to be able to obtain financing more easily. Certainly, the seller would need to keep some control over the financing parts of the transaction through a non-assignment clause to be on the safer side and protect himself against dealing with any strange entity.
• In Asset Acquisition Agreement , a purchaser only obtains those assets and liabilities of a target listed in the agreement. In the case of an asset acquisition. In the case of an asset acquisition, any agreement with an anti-assignment clause will be activated. [3]
• In the Stockholders’ Agreement, this clause will kick in (if included), the moment stockholder tries to transfer, assign, hypothecate, mortgage, or alienate any or all stocks in a corporation. This is the case where there is a complete ban on assignment, however the same can be assigned if however, there are exemptions to non-assignment by operation by law. [4]
• Almost in all Commercial Lease Agreements, there is an anti-assignment clause. The transfer of ownership may be forbidden by an anti-assignment clause, so before selling the business, you must seek permission from your proprietor; however, this permission should not be withheld against the interests of the lease.

However, the list is not exhaustive. There are still a lot of businesses where the anti-assignment clause is used including but not limited to joint-venture agreements, partnership agreements, limited liability company operating agreements, real estate contracts, bills of sale, Assignment, and transaction financing agreements, etc.

ENFORCEABILITY OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

This restrictive clause’s effect will be triggered the moment there is any breach of this clause. According to the traditional view, a contract is void if this restrictive clause is violated; however, the modern view holds that a breach of it will only result in a claim for damages; the contract is not ipso-facto void unless expressly stated in the contract. Along with this view, the court will consider the relevant law, the jurisdiction that governs the contract, and the language of the contract to enforce this clause.

MERITS OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

A contract with an anti-assignment clause thrives with the following advantages-

• The relationship between the assignor and the obligor is preserved, while the connection between the obligor and the assignee is either limited or eliminated.
• The obligor is safeguarded by this, as they may not want to be in a situation where they must mention a set-off defence against one party and a counterclaim against the other or become involved in a disagreement between the assignor and assignee under the contract of assignment. [5]

DEMERITS OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

The anti-Assignment clause also suffers from the following disadvantages-

• In cases where this clause is violated, it is extremely difficult to quantify and measure the damages.
• It can be a lengthy and exasperating process for businesses that are on the brink of bankruptcy, such as start-ups, to finalize the closure until they get the approval of all the commercial entities with whom they had a contract that included a non-assignment clause.
• In the event of a change in ownership, such as a merger or acquisition, a business may feel uneasy about the new owner of its partner company. To have a say in the selection of the other party’s owner, the business may include a clause in the agreement that mandates their approval before the change can occur, allowing them to indirectly manage the situation.

In conclusion, an anti-assignment clause is a provision in a contract that prohibits one party from transferring or assigning their rights or obligations under the contract to a third party without the other party’s consent. This clause is commonly used in contracts to protect the interests of the parties involved and to ensure that the original parties to the contract are the ones who will perform the obligations and receive the benefits. Anti-assignment clauses can be beneficial for both parties in a contract. For the party who is providing goods or services, it ensures that they are dealing with the same party throughout the duration of the contract, which can help to maintain consistency and quality. For the party who is receiving the goods or services, it can assure that they are dealing with a party that has the necessary expertise and resources to fulfill the obligations under the contract. However, there are also potential drawbacks to anti-assignment clauses. They can limit a party’s ability to transfer their rights or obligations under the contract, which can be problematic if the party needs to assign the contract due to unforeseen circumstances. Additionally, anti-assignment clauses can make it more difficult for a party to obtain financing or sell their business, as potential buyers or lenders may be hesitant to take on a contract with such a clause. Overall, the use of anti-assignment clauses in contracts should be carefully considered and tailored to the specific needs of the parties involved. It is important to strike a balance between protecting the interests of the parties and allowing for flexibility in the event of unforeseen circumstances.

Author(s) Name: Avee Singh Dalal (Dr B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat)

References:

[1] The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Sec. 37, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)

[2] Kapilaben v. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth, (2020) 20 SCC 648

[3] Aaron R Katz, A Guide to Understanding Anti-Assignment Clauses, GT ISRAEL LAW BLOG (Feb. 18, 2023, 5:15 PM), https://www.gtlaw-israelpractice.com/2016/02/04/a-guide-to-understanding-anti-assignment-clauses/ .

[4] The Law of Offices of STIMMEL, STIMMEL & ROESER, https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/assignments-basic-law (last visited Feb. 18, 2023).

[5] Michael Bridge, The nature of assignment and non-assignment clauses, LSE RESEARCH ONLINE (2015), https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/61892/1/The_Nature.pdf .

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

• SI SWIMSUIT
• SI SPORTSBOOK

Twins batter Mariners in 11-1 victory in series finale

Nolan o'hara | may 9, 2024.

The Twins had to face the best of the Seattle Mariners’ starting pitching during their four-game series at Target Field in Minneapolis. Turns out, that wasn’t a problem.

The Twins beat up on Mariners starter Logan Gilbert in an 11-1 victory Thursday afternoon at Target Field in Minneapolis in front of an announced crowd of 22,154. The Twins took three of the four games against the Mariners despite facing top-tier pitching throughout the series.

"Big-time series. It was just a big-time, collective offensive move that we made in the series," Twins manager Rocco Baldelli said. "... It might be the best starting pitching you're going to run into all year long. It's just guy after guy who has dominant-type stuff. And we went out there and scored runs the entire series. I don't know what more I could ask for from our offense and the way they did their jobs."

Gilbert entered Thursday’s game with a 1.69 earned-run averaged and hadn’t given up more than four runs and five hits in seven previous starts this season. 

The Twins (22-15) reset those highs to nine hits and eight runs, and they chased Gilbert after four innings, making it his shortest start of the season, too. 

Minnesota plated five runs in the first inning, getting three straight singles from Trevor Larnach, Max Kepler and Jose Miranda. Kepler’s single marked the 11th straight game he’s recorded a hit, the longest hitting streak of his career. It also plated the first run of the game, scoring Edouard Julien, who had led off the inning by drawing a walk.

Later in the inning with two outs and the bases loaded, Manny Margot hit a three-RBI double to left field that scored Larnach, Miranda and Kepler. Carlos Santana brought Margot home with an RBI single to center field to give the Twins an early and commanding 5-0 lead. 

"That was great," Margot said via a translator. "We know the opposing pitcher was one of the best in the league, so getting the lead in the first inning, it was going to be good for the team."

Margot went 1 for 4 with five RBIs.

The lead was certainly good for the team, and the Mariners (20-18) weren't able to do much offensively against Twins starter Pablo Lopez, who pitched 6 1/3 innings of one-run ball, allowing just four hits while fanning 10. It’s the second straight day a Twins starter finished with double-digit strikeouts as Chris Paddack fanned 10 in a 6-3 victory over the Mariners Wednesday night. 

Lopez picked up his fourth win of the season.

"Today was all about the offense," Lopez said. "Everyone knows how good pitching for the Seattle Mariners is, and they were matched up against a tough guy today. He had been dominating, so the way they were able to put at-bats (together) and make things happen, my mindset was just like, 'How can I do my job fast to bring the boys back in the dugout as soon as possible?'

"They made it fun. They made it fun to be a part of the game today, the series, just go out there and just try to do my job, just try to do my part, and they gave me confidence. They made my job easier, so I was trying to make it easier on them somehow."

Lopez certainly did that by delivering another stellar start. The lone run he gave up came in the second inning when Mitch Haniger led off the frame with a double and was later brought home on Luke Raley's single to right field a couple at-bats later.

But Ryan Jeffers, who's been on a tear, homered in the bottom of the frame to get the run right back.

That was the only run the Mariners would push across in Thursday's series finale.

The offense continued to deliver for the Twins all game long. In the fourth inning, Julien hit an RBI single that scored Santana, who led off the frame with a single of his own. Jeffers hit a sacrifice fly to left field that scored Austin Martin, who was walked earlier in the fourth.

Then in the fifth inning, the Twins added another run when Miranda doubled and was brought home by Margot, who grounded out to short. In the seventh inning, Kepler hit a 411-foot solo homer to right-center field off Mariners reliever Tyson Miller. Miranda later reached on an error and scored when Margot hit a grounder to third baseman Luis Urias, but Urias' throw to first was off the mark, allowing Margot to reach and take second base. Those seventh-inning runs made it an 11-1 game.

Josh Staumont, called up from Triple-A St. Paul on Wednesday, made his first appearance of the season in the ninth inning with a 10-run advantage. While he allowed one hit and walked one, Staumont also fanned three and closed out the game without allowing any damage.

NOLAN O'HARA