non assignment clause definition

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 .

Are Anti-Assignment Clauses Enforceable?

Written by: Brittainy Boessel

July 22, 2020

8 minute read

Contracts, in general, are freely assignable, which means that either party can transfer its contractual obligations or rights to a third party. But sometimes contracts include anti-assignment clauses to limit or prohibit assignment. Read on to discover the basics of assignment and anti-assignment clauses, what makes them unenforceable, and learn how to negotiate them.

What Is Assignment?

An assignment is like a transfer. If an agreement permits assignment, a party could assign — or transfer — its obligation to another party. The second party — the one to whom the contract was assigned — would then be required to provide the products or services.

Assignments don’t necessarily relieve liability for the party who transfers the agreement. Depending on the contract, the party who assigned its obligations may remain a guarantor of— or responsible for—the performance of the third party assigned the work. In other words, the party to the contract (the assignor) would be responsible for breaches committed by the party to which it assigned its performance (the assignee). To remove itself from the liability of the agreement, the assignor would need to seek a novation , which cancels the first contract and creates a new contract between the party that is the assignee and the original counterparty to the contract.

What is an Anti-Assignment Clause?

Anti-assignment clauses—also sometimes referred to as assignment clauses or non-assignment clauses—can appear in various forms. Essentially, they prevent one or both contracting parties from assigning some or all of their respective contractual obligations or rights to a third party.

Anti-Assignment Language to Look for in a Contract

When reading through your contract, you can typically find a separate paragraph entitled “Assignment,” “Non-assignment,” or “Anti-assignment.” Sometimes you’ll find the assignment language buried within a “Miscellaneous Provisions” section, which contains all the boilerplate language of a contract, such as severability and waiver provisions.

Contracts include two primary types of anti-assignment clauses. The first type categorically precludes all assignments of rights and duties. It usually reads something like this: “Neither Party may assign, delegate, or transfer this agreement or any of its rights or obligations under this agreement.”

The second type prohibits assignments unless the assigning party obtains the prior written consent of the other party. It usually reads something like this: “Neither this agreement nor any right, interest, or obligation herein may be assigned, transferred, or delegated to a third party without the prior written permission of the other party, and whose consent may be withheld for any reason.”

Some clauses may state that a change of control, such as a merger, consolidation, or acquisition, is considered an assignment. Read carefully , because you want to ensure that you won’t be in breach if you transfer the contract to an affiliate.

Additionally, check the termination section of your agreement. Some termination clauses may state that a non-assigning party may terminate the contract in the event of a non-permitted assignment. Or a termination clause may state that the agreement automatically terminates upon such a transfer.

Without an anti-assignment provision, contracts are generally assignable even absent the consent of the counterparty. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a group of laws governing the sale of goods, prefers the free transferability of all types of property, including contracts.

Still, courts normally enforce anti-assignment clauses that are negotiated and agreed upon by both parties, depending on the applicable law, the jurisdiction governing the contract, and the language agreed upon in the contract. Be aware though that courts tend to narrowly interpret anti-assignment clauses. For instance, an anti-assignment clause may prohibit assignment but fail to state that an assignment in violation of the contract will be invalid. In this case, a party may be able to file a suit for breach of contract, but the court may not permit it to invalidate the assignment.

Even without a solid anti-assignment clause, there may still be an opportunity to prevent certain assignments. Courts may not enforce assignments to which the counterparty did not consent, even in the absence of a valid anti-assignment clause, especially if the contract is personal in nature. Some obligations can be performed equally well by a third party, such as a requirement to make payments. But a personal obligation involves a special relationship between parties or requires special levels of expertise, discretion, or reputation. For example, personal service contracts, including employment agreements, are personal enough in nature that they’re not transferable unless the non-transferring party consents.

In general, assignment is not enforceable when:

• The contract prohibits and voids assignment

As discussed above, contract provisions can prohibit and void an assignment.

• The assignment materially changes the contract

If the assignment would significantly impact the performance of the contract — for instance, if it greatly increases the risks or burden imposed on the other party — then a court would likely not enforce the assignment.

• The assignment violates the law

Certain laws prevent assignments. For example, some states legislate that an employee cannot assign its future wages to a third party.

• The assignment violates public policy

If the assignment would harm public policy interests, it will be void. For instance, victims may not assign their personal injury claims to third parties to discourage excessive litigation.

Negotiating Anti-Assignment Clauses

In certain situations, the inclusion of an anti-assignment clause may not be in a party’s best interests. If a party depends on a unique service provider or a specific person to perform, then it must make sure that that service provider or person can’t assign work to an unknown third party without its consent. For instance, if you pay a premium to hire a renowned jazz band to perform at your charity gala, you don’t want a local high school garage band to show up instead. In any situation involving unique services or providers, make sure you have the right to consent prior to any assignment under the agreement.

Another example of the importance of assignability is in mergers and acquisitions. When a company purchases another business, the acquired business’s existing customer base and supplier contracts make it more valuable . Consequently, if a party hopes to eventually sell its business, it would want the right to assign its existing contracts to the buyer. Otherwise, potential buyers may be scared off because of the time and money it will take to transfer the existing agreements. Plus, the existence of anti-assignment clauses may heavily impact the selling price. If it’s possible you may sell your business, ensure that you have the right to assign your contracts and that consent is not solely within the discretion of the counterparty.

If you want the right to assign the contract, but your agreement does not permit assignments, you’ll need to negotiate with your counterparty on this point. If the clause in your agreement prohibits all assignments, try to include a carve out by allowing assignment of your rights and obligations upon the prior written consent of the other party. Add that the counterparty shall not unreasonably withhold or delay consent. You may also want to carve out an exception to the anti-assignment clause by excluding assignments between affiliates or necessitated by change of control transactions, such as mergers or acquisitions.

Courts tend to construe anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses narrowly. As mentioned, a number of courts have held that an anti-assignment clause does not remove the power of a party to assign the contract and invalidate the contract unless the provision explicitly states that such assignments will be invalid or void. Thus, if you want to make an assignment that violates your agreement, rather than creating an opportunity for a breach of contract case, explicitly state in your contract that such assignments are invalid or void.

If you don’t want the counterparty to be able to assign its rights or obligations, state your preference clearly in your agreement with one of these options.

• Require consent always

Include a clause such as, “Neither party may assign or delegate this agreement or its rights or obligations under this agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, and any assignment or delegation that violates this provision shall be void.”

• Don’t require consent for affiliates or successors

Include a clause such as, “Neither party may assign or delegate this agreement or its rights or obligations under this agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, except that no consent is required (a) for assignment to an entity in which the transferring party owns greater than 50 percent of the assets; or (b) in connection with any sale, transfer, or disposition of all or substantially all of its business or assets; provided that no such assignment will receive an assigning party of its obligations under this agreement. Any assignment or delegation that violates this provision shall be void.”

• Require consent to be given reasonably

Include a clause such as, “Neither party may assign or delegate this agreement or its rights or obligations under this agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any assignment or delegation that violates this provision shall be void.”

Note that you will not be able to prevent assignments resulting from court orders or by operation of law, such as those ordered through a bankruptcy hearing.

When you enter a contractual relationship, make sure to clearly determine your rights and obligations, as well as those of the other party. If it may be important for your business to have the right to assign all or parts of the contract, negotiate for the removal of the anti-assignment clause, or request changes to it to provide sufficient flexibility for you to assign.

Learn how to tackle Due Diligence projects more efficiently and free up your (and your associates’) time more effectively!

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 .

No assignment or delegation

No assignment or delegation clause samples

14.6     No Assignment or Delegation. No party may assign any right or delegate any obligation hereunder, including by merger, consolidation, operation of law, or otherwise, without the written consent of the other parties hereto; provided, that such assignment shall not prevent or impede the Acquisition Merger from qualifying for the Intended Tax Treatment. Any purported assignment or delegation that does not comply with the immediately preceding sentence shall be void, in addition to constituting a material breach of this Agreement.

09/10/2020 (Chelsea Worldwide Inc.)

Section 5.12 No Assignment or Delegation. No Party may assign any right or delegate any obligation hereunder, including by merger, consolidation, operation of law, or otherwise, without the written consent of the all of the other Parties and any purported assignment or delegation without such consent shall be void, in addition to constituting a material breach of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on the permitted successors and assigns of the Parties.

11/01/2019 (Lone Star Value Management LLC)

Section9. Binding Effect; No Assignment or Delegation. This Pledge Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Pledgor, the Pledgee and their respective successors and assigns, except that the Pledgor may not assign or transfer its rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the Pledgee (which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld). Each duty or obligation of the Pledgor to the Pledgee pursuant to the provisions of this Pledge Agreement shall be performed in favor of any person or entity designated by the Pledgee, and any duty or obligation of the Pledgee to the Pledgor may be performed by any other person or entity designated by the Pledgee.

06/06/2016 (Ottawa Bancorp Inc)

Section 10.16 No Assignment or Delegation. No Party may assign any right or delegate any obligation hereunder, including by merger, consolidation, operation of law, or otherwise, without the written consent of the all of the other Parties and any purported assignment or delegation without such consent shall be void, in addition to constituting a material breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding this restriction, the Buyer may assign this Agreement to an affiliate that effectuates the Roll-Up Transactions (the “Permitted Assignee”). In the event of any assignment to the Permitted Assignee, the capitalization of the Assignee shall be identical to the capitalization of the Buyer as provided for in this Agreement (only with such changes as are not adverse to the Sellers and do not diminish any rights to which the Sellers were otherwise entitled) and all other representations and warranties of the Buyer shall be true and correct as they apply to the Permitted Assignee, and the Buyer shall continue to be bound by the terms of this Agreement as a primary obligor hereunder such that should the Permitted Assignee fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, the Sellers and Sellers’ Representative shall be entitled to pursue performance against the Buyer. This Agreement shall be binding on the permitted successors and assigns of the Parties; provided, however, no such assignment will relieve any Party of their obligations under this Agreement.

11/05/2020 (HARVEST HEALTH & RECREATION INC.)

Cut contract prep time in half for free

Build document automations that allow you, your staff, and your clients to auto-populate contract templates.

“ I've found it very easy to use. It allows me to work quickly, get something straight from my head and out into the public.”

Partner, Siskind Susser PC

2500 Executive Parkway Suite 300 Lehi, Utah 84043 (866) 638-3627

Level 11, 1 Margaret Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 2 8310 4319

8th Floor South Reading Bridge House George Street Reading RG1 8LS +44 20 3129 9324

Latin America

Mexico +52 55 5985 3005

Brazil +55 21 4040 4623

• How to Successfully Switch Your DMS
• DocuSign + NetDocuments
• How Ice Miller Adopted the Cloud Completely Remote
• Case Studies
• Resource Library
• Partner Integrations
• App Directory
• Locate a Partner
• Partner Portal
• Become a Partner

© NetDocuments Software, Inc.

• Terms of Use
• Privacy policy
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy for california residents

• Assignment Clause

Get free proposals from vetted lawyers in our marketplace.

Contract Clauses

• Acceleration Clause
• Arbitration Clause
• Cancellation Clause
• Choice of Law Clause
• Confidentiality Clause
• Consideration Clause
• Definitions Clause
• Dispute Resolution Clause
• Entire Agreement Clause
• Escalation Clause
• Exclusivity Clause
• Exculpatory Clause
• Force Majeure Clause
• Governing Law Clause
• Indemnification Clause
• Indemnity Clause
• Insurance Clause
• Integration Clause
• Merger Clause
• Non-Competition Clause
• Non-Disparagement Clause
• Non-Exclusivity Clause
• Non-Solicitation Clause
• Privacy Clause
• Release Clause
• Severability Clause
• Subordination Clause
• Subrogation Clause
• Survival Clause
• Termination Clause
• Time of Essence Clause

Jump to Section

Assignment clause defined.

Assignment clauses are legally binding provisions in contracts that give a party the chance to engage in a transfer of ownership or assign their contractual obligations and rights to a different contracting party.

In other words, an assignment clause can reassign contracts to another party. They can commonly be seen in contracts related to business purchases.

Here’s an article about assignment clauses.

Assignment Clause Explained

Assignment contracts are helpful when you need to maintain an ongoing obligation regardless of ownership. Some agreements have limitations or prohibitions on assignments, while other parties can freely enter into them.

Here’s another article about assignment clauses.

Purpose of Assignment Clause

The purpose of assignment clauses is to establish the terms around transferring contractual obligations. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) permits the enforceability of assignment clauses.

Assignment Clause Examples

Examples of assignment clauses include:

• Example 1 . A business closing or a change of control occurs
• Example 2 . New services providers taking over existing customer contracts
• Example 3 . Unique real estate obligations transferring to a new property owner as a condition of sale
• Example 4 . Many mergers and acquisitions transactions, such as insurance companies taking over customer policies during a merger

Here’s an article about the different types of assignment clauses.

Assignment Clause Samples

Sample 1 – sales contract.

Assignment; Survival .  Neither party shall assign all or any portion of the Contract without the other party’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided, however, that either party may, without such consent, assign this Agreement, in whole or in part, in connection with the transfer or sale of all or substantially all of the assets or business of such Party relating to the product(s) to which this Agreement relates. The Contract shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of the respective parties. Any assignment or transfer not in accordance with this Contract shall be void. In order that the parties may fully exercise their rights and perform their obligations arising under the Contract, any provisions of the Contract that are required to ensure such exercise or performance (including any obligation accrued as of the termination date) shall survive the termination of the Contract.

Reference :

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-10.29 3 dex1029.htm SALES CONTRACT , Viewed May 10, 2021, <  https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1492426/000119312510226984/dex1029.htm >.

Sample 2 – Purchase and Sale Agreement

Assignment . Purchaser shall not assign this Agreement or any interest therein to any Person, without the prior written consent of Seller, which consent may be withheld in Seller’s sole discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon prior written notice to Seller, Purchaser may designate any Affiliate as its nominee to receive title to the Property, or assign all of its right, title and interest in this Agreement to any Affiliate of Purchaser by providing written notice to Seller no later than five (5) Business Days prior to the Closing; provided, however, that (a) such Affiliate remains an Affiliate of Purchaser, (b) Purchaser shall not be released from any of its liabilities and obligations under this Agreement by reason of such designation or assignment, (c) such designation or assignment shall not be effective until Purchaser has provided Seller with a fully executed copy of such designation or assignment and assumption instrument, which shall (i) provide that Purchaser and such designee or assignee shall be jointly and severally liable for all liabilities and obligations of Purchaser under this Agreement, (ii) provide that Purchaser and its designee or assignee agree to pay any additional transfer tax as a result of such designation or assignment, (iii) include a representation and warranty in favor of Seller that all representations and warranties made by Purchaser in this Agreement are true and correct with respect to such designee or assignee as of the date of such designation or assignment, and will be true and correct as of the Closing, and (iv) otherwise be in form and substance satisfactory to Seller and (d) such Assignee is approved by Manager as an assignee of the Management Agreement under Article X of the Management Agreement. For purposes of this Section 16.4, “Affiliate” shall include any direct or indirect member or shareholder of the Person in question, in addition to any Person that would be deemed an Affiliate pursuant to the definition of “Affiliate” under Section 1.1 hereof and not by way of limitation of such definition.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-10.8 3 dex108.htm PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT , Viewed May 10, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490985/000119312510160407/dex108.htm >.

Sample 3 – Share Purchase Agreement

Assignment . Neither this Agreement nor any right or obligation hereunder may be assigned by any Party without the prior written consent of the other Parties, and any attempted assignment without the required consents shall be void.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-4.12 3 dex412.htm SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT , Viewed May 10, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329394/000119312507148404/dex412.htm >.

Sample 4 – Asset Purchase Agreement

Assignment . This Agreement and any of the rights, interests, or obligations incurred hereunder, in part or as a whole, at any time after the Closing, are freely assignable by Buyer. This Agreement and any of the rights, interests, or obligations incurred hereunder, in part or as a whole, are assignable by Seller only upon the prior written consent of Buyer, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-2.1 2 dex21.htm ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT , Viewed May 10, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1428669/000119312510013625/dex21.htm >.

Sample 5 – Asset Purchase Agreement

Assignment; Binding Effect; Severability

This Agreement may not be assigned by any party hereto without the other party’s written consent; provided, that Buyer may transfer or assign in whole or in part to one or more Buyer Designee its right to purchase all or a portion of the Purchased Assets, but no such transfer or assignment will relieve Buyer of its obligations hereunder. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the successors, legal representatives and permitted assigns of each party hereto. The provisions of this Agreement are severable, and in the event that any one or more provisions are deemed illegal or unenforceable the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect unless the deletion of such provision shall cause this Agreement to become materially adverse to either party, in which event the parties shall use reasonable commercial efforts to arrive at an accommodation that best preserves for the parties the benefits and obligations of the offending provision.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-2.4 2 dex24.htm ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT , Viewed May 10, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1002047/000119312511171858/dex24.htm >.

Common Contracts with Assignment Clauses

Common contracts with assignment clauses include:

• Real estate contracts
• Sales contract
• Asset purchase agreement
• Purchase and sale agreement
• Bill of sale
• Assignment and transaction financing agreement

Assignment Clause FAQs

Assignment clauses are powerful when used correctly. Check out the assignment clause FAQs below to learn more:

What is an assignment clause in real estate?

Assignment clauses in real estate transfer legal obligations from one owner to another party. They also allow house flippers to engage in a contract negotiation with a seller and then assign the real estate to the buyer while collecting a fee for their services. Real estate lawyers assist in the drafting of assignment clauses in real estate transactions.

What does no assignment clause mean?

No assignment clauses prohibit the transfer or assignment of contract obligations from one part to another.

What’s the purpose of the transfer and assignment clause in the purchase agreement?

The purpose of the transfer and assignment clause in the purchase agreement is to protect all involved parties’ rights and ensure that assignments are not to be unreasonably withheld. Contract lawyers can help you avoid legal mistakes when drafting your business contracts’ transfer and assignment clauses.

Meet some of our Lawyers

Legal services cost too much, and are often of low quality. I have devoted my law practice to providing the best work at the most affordable price—in everything from defending small businesses against patent trolls to advising multinational corporations on regulatory compliance to steering couples through a divorce.

Jo Ann has been practicing for over 20 years, working primarily with high growth companies from inception through exit and all points in between. She is skilled in Mergers & Acquisitions, Contractual Agreements (including founders agreements, voting agreements, licensing agreements, terms of service, privacy policies, stockholder agreements, operating agreements, equity incentive plans, employment agreements, vendor agreements and other commercial agreements), Corporate Governance and Due Diligence.

Jeremiah C.

Creative, results driven business & technology executive with 24 years of experience (15+ as a business/corporate lawyer). A problem solver with a passion for business, technology, and law. I bring a thorough understanding of the intersection of the law and business needs to any endeavor, having founded multiple startups myself with successful exits. I provide professional business and legal consulting. Throughout my career I've represented a number large corporations (including some of the top Fortune 500 companies) but the vast majority of my clients these days are startups and small businesses. Having represented hundreds of successful crowdfunded startups, I'm one of the most well known attorneys for startups seeking CF funds. I hold a Juris Doctor degree with a focus on Business/Corporate Law, a Master of Business Administration degree in Entrepreneurship, A Master of Education degree and dual Bachelor of Science degrees. I look forward to working with any parties that have a need for my skill sets.

Texas licensed attorney specializing for 22 years in Business and Contract law with a focus on construction law and business operations. My services include General Business Law Advisement; Contract Review and Drafting; Legal Research and Writing; Business Formation; Articles or Instructive Writing; and more. I am able to draft and review contracts, and have experience with, contract law and business formation in any state. For more insight into my skills and experience, please feel free to visit my LinkedIn profile or contact me with any questions.

I am a licensed attorney and a member of the California Bar. I graduated from the University of Dayton School of Law's Program in Law and Technology. I love IP, tech transfers, licensing, and how the internet and developing technology is changing the legal landscape. I've interned at both corporations and boutique firms, and I've taken extensive specialized classes in intellectual property and technology law.

Charlotte L.

I hold a B.S. in Accounting and a B.A. in Philosophy from Virginia Tech (2009). I received my J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2012. I am an associate member of the Virginia Bar and an active member of the DC bar. Currently, I am working as a self-employed legal consultant and attorney. Primarily my clients are start-up companies for which I perform various types of legal work, including negotiating and drafting settlement, preparing operating agreements and partnership agreements, assisting in moving companies to incorporate in new states and setting up companies to become registered in a state, assisting with employment matters, drafting non-disclosure agreements, assisting with private placement offerings, and researching issues on intellectual property, local regulations, privacy laws, corporate governance, and many other facets of the law, as the need arises. I have previously practiced as an attorney at a small DC securities law firm and worked at Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLC. My work experience is dynamic and includes many short-term and long term experience that span across areas such as maintaining my own blog, freelance writing, and dog walking. My diverse background has provided me with a stong skill set that can be easily adapted for new areas of work and indicates my ability to quickly learn for a wide array of clients.

Find the best lawyer for your project

Contract lawyers by city.

• Atlanta Contract Lawyers
• Austin Contract Lawyers
• Boston Contract Lawyers
• Chicago Contract Lawyers
• Dallas Contract Lawyers
• Denver Contract Lawyers
• Fort Lauderdale Contract Lawyers
• Houston Contract Lawyers
• Las Vegas Contract Lawyers
• Los Angeles Contract Lawyers
• Memphis Contract Lawyers
• Miami Contract Lawyers
• New York Contract Lawyers
• Oklahoma City Contract Lawyers
• Orlando Contract Lawyers
• Philadelphia Contract Lawyers
• Phoenix Contract Lawyers
• Richmond Contract Lawyers
• Salt Lake City Contract Lawyers
• San Antonio Contract Lawyers
• San Diego Contract Lawyers
• San Francisco Contract Lawyers
• Seattle Contract Lawyers
• Tampa Contract Lawyers

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

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

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

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

How It Works

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

Case review: non-assignment clauses and transferring the right to arbitrate by operation of law (Court of Appeal decision)

Global |  Publication |  January 2024

Introduction

Factual background, the high court’s decision, the court of appeal’s decision, key takeaways.

Does a non-assignment clause that prohibits assignments “by any party to any third party, for any reason whatsoever” prevent an assignment (akin to subrogation) to an insurer where such assignment takes effect by operation of law? The Court of Appeal had to consider this question in the recent case of Dassault [2024] EWCA Civ 5 . 

Overturning the High Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal found that the assignment in question did not fall foul of the non-assignment clause as the assignment had not been effected “by” a party because the transfer had occurred by operation of law. That being said, the judgment does not establish a general principle as to the relationship between non-assignment clauses and assignments arising by operation of law; rather the Court of Appeal’s decision was heavily focussed on the interpretation and the wording of the non-assignment clause in the contract.

Dassault Aviation SA (“ Dassault ”) had entered into an English law sale contract with Mitsui Bussan Aerospace Co., Ltd (“ MBA ”) for the sale of two maritime surveillance aircraft (the “ Sale Contract ”). MBA had agreed to onward sell those aircraft to the Japanese Coast Guard pursuant to a Japanese law governed contract (the “ Sub-Sale Contract ”). 

The Sub-Sale Contract provided for liquidated damages in case of delayed delivery of the aircraft to the Japanese Coast Guard. MBA had entered into a Japanese law contract of insurance with its insurer (the “ Insurer ”) to insure the risk of MBA being held liable to the Japanese Coast Guard for such late delivery (the “ Insurance Contract ”). 

The aircraft were delivered late by Dassault to MBA, which led to a consequent late delivery of the aircraft by MBA to the Japanese Coast Guard. MBA was therefore liable to pay liquidated damages to the Japanese Coast Guard under the Sub-Sale Contract. Following the payment of such damages, MBA claimed against the Insurer under the Insurance Contract and the Insurer paid out the insured amount to MBA. 

Under Japanese law (the law of the Insurance Contract), when an insurer pays out an insurance claim it is automatically assigned, by operation of statutory law, the assured’s rights of recovery against third parties in respect of that claim. Having been assigned MBA’s rights, the Insurer accordingly commenced (in its own name) ICC proceedings against Dassault, pursuant to the arbitration agreement found in the Sale Contract. 

Dassault challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the Insurer’s claim. It argued that the assignment to the Insurer was in breach of the non-assignment clause found in the Sale Contract, and that as a result the assignment was null and void. Accordingly, the Insurer was not entitled to rely on the arbitration agreement to bring its claim and the Tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction. In response, the Insurer contended that the non-assignment clause did not on its proper construction apply to an assignment effected by operation of law. Since the Insurer’s rights arose by operation of law, the Insurer contended that it was not an assignment caught by the non-assignment clause. 

The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional issue as a preliminary issue and the majority (Lord Collins of Mapesbury and Joe Smouha KC) found in the Insurer’s favour (Mr Crookdenden KC dissenting). Dassault challenged the Tribunal’s decision pursuant to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, bringing proceedings before the High Court. 

The High Court found in Dassault’s favour and ruled that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the Insurer’s claim. Mrs Justice Cockerill (the “ Judge ”) reached this decision by considering the two following issues: 

• Was there a general rule/presumption under English law that transfers “by operation of law” would not fall foul of a prohibition on assignment clause (the “ First Issue ”)?
• If there was no such rule, as a matter of interpretation of the Sale Contract, did the non-assignment clause prohibit the assignment of MBA’s rights to the Insurer, notwithstanding this was an assignment to an insurer akin to subrogation (the “ Second Issue ”)?

On the First Issue, the Judge took the view that the caselaw did not support the proposition that an assignment by “operation of law” would be outside the scope of a non-assignment clause. Instead, the Judge noted that the authorities (mainly old insolvency cases) supported a narrower distinction between transfers which can be said to be willing/voluntary (in the sense of consented to/ within the control of the transferor) and those which were truly unwilling/involuntary. On that basis, the Judge considered that a non-assignment clause could apply to an assignment with the sufficient “taint of voluntariness”. 

Turning to the Second Issue, the Judge noted that an iterative process of interpretation had to be followed that gave due weight to the words and commercial purpose of the non-assignment clause, as well as the factual matrix and commercial common sense. The Judge noted that the wording of the non-assignment clause was intentionally broad with the only limitation imposed being the following words which required the assignment to be: “ by any party to any third party” (emphasis added). That wording, the Judge reasoned, invited one to consider the cause of the assignment rather than the mechanism by which it took place – this, the Judge said, was in line with the approach outlined by the authorities. 

Since MBA had, amongst other things, chosen of its own volition to take out insurance, to do so under a system of non-English law which provided for assignment instead of subrogation, and to make a claim under that insurance, the Judge concluded that MBA had voluntarily caused the assignment, thereby falling provisionally within the scope of the wording of the non-assignment clause. 

The Judge then considered the context/commercial purpose indications. Whilst accepting the logic of the Insurer’s argument – that if an English subrogation is not caught by a non-assignment clause then it is inherently unlikely that the parties intended for the subrogation-equivalent of another legal system to be caught by such clause (not least because the only difference would be the name of the claimant on the arbitration documents) – she ultimately concluded that the context/commercial purpose indications were not weighty enough to displace the position indicated by a consideration of the words. 

The Judge accordingly held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the Insurer’s claim, but did so with an “unusual degree of hesitation”. The Insurer appealed the Judge’s findings on both issues.

Overturning the Judge’s decision, the Court of Appeal (consisting of Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Phillips) unanimously held that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear the Insurer’s claim. 

On the First Issue, following a close consideration of the authorities, the Court found that “the old insolvency cases d[id] not enunciate a general principle applicable to the interpretation of non-assignment clauses in commercial contracts.” Those cases simply turned on the nature of the insolvency under which the transfer in question took place. 

Turning to the Second Issue, that of interpretation, the Court noted that the words of the non-assignment clause were clear and unambiguous. The key words that had to be considered were the words: “by any party”. The Court of Appeal rejected the causal analysis taken by the High Court and Dassault, and noted that “[t]he correct question was whether the transfer was made by MBA, not whether the transfer was caused as a consequence of certain actions taken by MBA.” 

The Court of Appeal found that the non-assignment clause therefore prevented any assignment which was effected by a party to the sale contract, but not a transfer that was effected by operation of law. As it was common ground between the parties (and had been unanimously decided by the Tribunal) that MBA’s claims against Dassault had been assigned to the Insurer pursuant to Japanese statutory law, that was an assignment by operation of law and not within the scope of the non-assignment clause. 

The Court of Appeal considered that the meaning of the non-assignment clause was clear and unambiguous and that the High Court had erred in thinking that there were two possible meanings to the non-assignment clause. As such, it was not “necessary to consider whether the commercial matrix of fact points in favour of one of two possible meanings of [the clause]”, but the Court did note in obiter that it was “far from clear” that the non-assignment clause was intended to “catch transfers arising from insurance payouts, by whatever law those insurance contracts might be governed”. 

The Court of Appeal accordingly allowed the appeal and reinstated the Tribunal’s award. 

Dassault has sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal’s decision should bring some comfort to insurers that an assignment to an insurer by operation of law is unlikely to fall foul of a prohibition on assignment clause. However, the Court did not go so far as to say that there is a general principle to that effect. Parties will therefore be well advised to closely scrutinise any non-assignment clauses and to ensure that they have been drafted in as clear terms as possible (given the Court of Appeal’s emphasis on the interpretation and wording of the individual clause).

Where the parties envisage insurance being taken out, an express carve out, if possible, should be provided in the non-assignment clause in favour of insurers. Furthermore, when insuring under a non-English law and seeking to rely on subrogation or analogous rights, parties should make enquiries as to the mechanism of transfer under that non-English law to ensure it does not fall foul of any non-assignment/transfer clause. 

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal’s rejection of the Judge’s causal analysis (voluntary vs involuntary) and its application to non-assignment clauses in commercial contracts is welcomed as it avoids an approach that would be replete with practical difficulties.  

The Appellant was represented by Zayba Drabu, Cloudesley Long, and Yiannis Charalambous of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP together with Chris Smith KC and Benjamin Joseph of Quadrant Chambers.

Back to Legalflyer

Practice area:

Recent publications

Publication

Enhancing Protective Orders To Address Generative AI

Artificial Intelligence may be the hottest two words in business right now and that is as true in law, litigation and discovery as well.

United States | April 09, 2024

Federal Circuit clarifies the application of WesternGeco to foreign damages

On March 27, 2024, the Federal Circuit clarified the impact of the damages framework set forth in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U.S. 407 (2018).

United States | April 08, 2024

Doing Business in Brazil: Guidelines for foreign investment

This Doing Business in Brazil presentation provides an overview and guidance on FDI in Brazil.

Global | April 08, 2024

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

What Is an Assignment Clause?

An assignment clause spells out which contractual obligations, rights, and duties may be transferred from one of the contractual parties to another party. 3 min read updated on February 01, 2023

Updated October 29, 2020:

An assignment clause spells out which contractual obligations, rights, and duties may be transferred from one of the contractual parties to another party. The assignment may be in whole or in part, and the clause also details the conditions under which a party can assign these duties.

U.S. law dictates that most contractual rights can be freely assigned or delegated, unless an agreement states otherwise.

The assignment clause often overlaps with two other clauses:

• Parties in Interest
• Successors and Assigns

These control who assumes contractual rights and obligations.

Legal Background and Freely Assignable Rights

When one party in a contract “assigns” the agreement to someone else, this means the first party — the assignor — transfers its contractual rights and obligations to the second party — the assignee.

In some instances, one party will not want the other contractual party to freely assign its duties. Contracts will then include language that states this.

One exception to the general assignability rule is intellectual property licenses . Legally, a licensor must first give consent before an IP licensee can assign or delegate its rights or obligations, even in the case where the license agreement is silent.

Requirements for Assignment Consent

There are different ways to say the same thing in a contract. Some people prefer lengthier statements, and others like to keep things brief. The following are various ways to make the same points.

• One contractual party isn't allowed to assign its agreement to another person without prior written consent of the other contractual party, except as provided for in the contract. If an assignment is made without this consent, it won't be considered valid.
• One party may not assign any interest or right arising out of this contract — in whole or in part — without prior consent.
• To keep all doubts at bay, no consent is required for an assignment — including collateral, absolute, or other — for a contractual right to payment.

These are the takeaways from these stipulations:

• This type of requirement for an assignment clause can create obstacles for the non-assigning party in corporate reorganizations or future mergers.
• The party that's being asked to consent to an assignment clause requirement may want to negotiate its position. For instance, it may find negotiations helpful in a situation when the assignment involves a substantial sale.

A Party May Not Unreasonably Withhold or Delay Consent

It's not permissible to hold up consent to unreasonable delays.

Other ways to state this include:

• To avoid doubt, a party that suffers damage due to the unreasonable delay or withholding of consent by the other party can treat them as direct damages.
• To avoid doubt, damages that arise to one party from the unreasonable delay or withholding of consent by the other party aren't excluded from remedies.

Even when these provisions aren't in place, the law may still impose a reasonableness requirement. This requirement may not hold a lot of practical value, whether it's implied by the law or contractual. A reasonableness requirement can't guarantee that the non-assigning party will give consent when the assigning party wants it. By the time a case has worked its way through the court system to a decision, the deal that the assigning party was working on could have fallen through or otherwise be negated or moot.

However, this provision for unreasonable withholding should get the non-assigning party to carefully consider taking too much time due to the prospect of being held liable for damages. This can result in costly consequences.

On the other hand, having an unreasonable delay provision could create conflict with the provision concerning material breach of contract.

When you enter into a contract, it's important that you know what your rights and obligations are, as well as the other party's rights and obligations. If you don't want certain outcomes — assignment of duties, for instance — you must usually make it clear in the agreement. Getting help from a legal professional in the contract law field is a good idea when writing up a contract . That way, you increase the chances of covering everything you want covered, from the finer points to the bigger ones.

If you need help with contracts, 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

• Legal Assignment
• Assignment Law
• Consent to Assignment
• Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
• Assignment of Rights Example
• Assignment Contract Law
• Assignability Of Contracts
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Assignment Legal Definition
• Delegation vs Assignment

• MyNewMarkets.com
• Claims Journal
• Insurance Journal TV
• Academy of Insurance
• Carrier Management

Featured Stories

• AM Best Downgrades State Farm General
• Viewpoint: Florida Insurance Market on the Mend

Current Magazine

• Read Online

Post-Loss Assignments of Claims Under Insurance Policies

In the settlement of lawsuits involving insured claims, it is not uncommon that one condition of the settlement is that the defendant assign his or her claims under all applicable insurance policies to the party that filed suit.

Indeed, it is frequently the case that the defendant, particularly when the defendant is an individual, has a limited ability to pay a judgment and insurance coverage offers the best opportunity for a recovery by the suing party. Usually, such settlements are made without any serious thought being given to whether the defendant’s claim against its insurer is assignable; the assumption being that it is assignable.

However, insurance policies generally have anti-assignment clauses which prohibit the assignment of the policy, or an interest in the policy, without the insurer’s consent. These clauses come into play in determining the validity or enforceability of the assignment of a claim under an insurance policy and should be considered when such an assignment is part of a settlement.

When considering the enforceability of anti-assignment clauses in insurance policies, the courts generally draw a distinction between an assignment made prior to the occurrence of a covered loss (a “pre-loss” assignment) and an assignment made after the occurrence of a covered loss (a “post-loss” assignment).

In analyzing pre-loss assignments, the courts recognize that requiring an insurer to provide coverage to an assignee of its policy prior to the occurrence of a covered loss would place the insurer in the position of covering a party with whom it had not contracted nor been allowed to properly underwrite to assess the risks posed by that potential insured, and, accordingly, determine the appropriate premium to charge for the risks being undertaken or choose to decline coverage.

Post-loss assignments, on the other hand, take place after the insurer’s obligations under its policy have become fixed by the occurrence of a covered loss, thus the risk factors applicable to the assignee are irrelevant with regard to the covered loss in question. For these reasons, the majority of the courts enforce anti-assignment clauses to prohibit or restrict pre-loss assignments, but refuse to enforce anti-assignment clauses to prohibit or restrict post-loss assignments.

Katrina Cases

The Louisiana Supreme Court, which had not previously addressed the enforceability of anti-assignment clauses for post-loss assignments, was recently confronted with this issue in the In re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, litigation involving consolidated cases arising out of Hurricane Katrina. The issue arose as a result of a lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana as the assignee of claims under numerous insurance policies as part of the “Road Home” Program. The Road Home Program was set up following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to distribute federal funds to homeowners suffering damage from the hurricanes. In return for receiving a grant of up to $150,000, homeowners were required to execute a Limited Subrogation/Assignment agreement, which provided in pertinent part:

Pursuant to these Limited Subrogation/Assignments, the State of Louisiana brought suit against more than 200 insurance companies to recover funds dispensed under the Road Home Program. The suit was removed to Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act and the insurers filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the assignments to the State of Louisiana were invalid under the anti-assignment clauses in the homeowner policies at issue.

On appeal, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to the Louisiana Supreme Court: “Does an anti-assignment clause in a homeowner’s insurance policy, which by its plain terms purports to bar any assignment of the policy or an interest therein without the insurer’s consent, bar an insured’s post-loss assignment of the insured’s claims under the policy when such an assignment transfers contractual obligations, not just the right to money due?”

In answering this question, the Louisiana Supreme Court began by noting that, as a general matter, contractual rights are assignable unless the law, the contract terms or the nature of the contract preclude assignment. Specific to the certified question, Louisiana Civil Code article 2653 provides that a right “cannot be assigned when the contract from which it arises prohibits the assignment of that right.” The Louisiana Supreme Court observed that the language of article 2653 is broad and, on its face, applies to all assignments, including post-loss assignments of insurance claims. The Court, therefore, construed the issue confronting it as whether Louisiana public policy would enforce an anti-assignment clause to preclude post-loss assignments of claims under insurance policies.

In addressing the public policy question, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the distinction between pre-loss assignments and post-loss assignments discussed by courts from other states and noted that the prevailing view was that anti-assignment clauses were invalid and/or unenforceable when applied to post-loss assignments. Notwithstanding this weight of authority, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated:

“[W]hile the Louisiana legislature has clearly indicated an intent to allow parties freedom to assign contractual rights, by enacting La. C.C. art. 2653, it has also clearly indicated an intent to allow parties freedom to contractually prohibit assignment of rights. We recognize the vast amount of national jurisprudence distinguishing between pre-loss and post-loss assignments and rejecting restrictions on post-loss assignments, however we find no public policy in Louisiana favoring assignability of claims over freedom of contract.”

Thus, Court refused to invalidate the enforceability of the anti-assignment clauses to the post-loss assignments before it based on public policy, adding that public policy determinations are better suited to the legislature.

Nonetheless, after having recognized the general enforceability of anti-assignment clauses to post-loss assignments, the Court immediately placed limits on when those clauses would be applicable, stating that to be applicable, they “must clearly and unambiguously express that the non-assignment clause applies to post-loss assignments.” The Court refused “to formulate a test consisting of specific terms or words,” which would satisfy this condition and remanded the case to the federal courts to determine whether the individual anti-assignment clauses in the various policies were sufficiently clear and explicit to be enforced with respect to post-loss assignments at issue.

A Broad Application

It should be noted that the Court’s opinion appears to apply broadly to all post-loss assignments irrespective of what specific rights are being assigned, despite the fact that the certified question was narrower and asked only about the applicability of a post-loss assignment where the assignment “transfers contractual obligations, not just the right to money due.”

In a footnote at the beginning of its opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court observed that in certifying the question to it, the Fifth Circuit “disclaimed any intent” that the Court “confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the legal questions certified.” The footnote indicates that the Court’s opinion was not intended to be limited to only those post-loss assignments involving the assignment of contractual obligations.

Louisiana has departed from the majority view in holding that as a matter of general law, anti-assignment clauses are not inherently void with regard to post-loss assignments. However, it may be that in practical application, the results of individual cases may well be consistent with the majority rule of not enforcing anti-assignment clauses with regard to post-loss assignments because Louisiana courts may be reluctant to find that the anti-assignment clauses are sufficiently “clear and explicit” unless they specifically state that they apply to post-loss assignments, notwithstanding the Louisiana Supreme Court’s unwillingness to “formulate a test consisting of specific terms or words.”

Topics Lawsuits Carriers Claims Profit Loss Louisiana Hurricane Homeowners

Was this article valuable?

Thank you! Please tell us what we can do to improve this article.

Thank you! % of people found this article valuable. Please tell us what you liked about it.

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

Written By Robert Redfearn, Jr.

From this issue.

Excess, Surplus & Specialty Markets Directory Vol. II – The Industry’s Leading Coverage Placement Directory

Interested in carriers .

Get automatic alerts for this topic.

• Categories: Legal Beat
• Have a hot lead? Email us at [email protected]

Insurance Jobs

• Senior Director, Software Engineering - Saint Paul, MN
• Outside Property Claim Representative Trainee – Portland, OR - Lake Oswego, OR
• Field Auto Adjuster – Lincoln, NE - Lincoln, NE
• Head of US Broker Sales – Neuron - New York, NY
• Head of Website Conversion Response Optimization - Fort Lee, NJ

• Squeezed from All Sides: Restaurants Pressured by Labor, Food, Insurance Costs
• Extreme Weather, Cyber Risks Top Concerns When Insuring Farms
• 3 Areas for Agents to Focus Growth Efforts in 2024 As the Hard Market Continues
• Majority of Underwriters Predict Cyber Risks Grow 'Greatly' in 2024: Survey
• What's to Come in 2024: AI Expansion, More Catastrophes, Network Consolidation

• Report: Autonomous Vehicle Jobs to Exceed 110k in U.S.
• Tennessee High Court Rules Employers Can't Use Vicarious Liability to Block Negligence Claims
• Poll: Consumers OK with AI in P/C Insurance, but Not So Much for Claims and Underwriting
• Norfolk Southern to Pay $600 Million to Settle Ohio Spill Case
• Inflation Contributes to Rising Loss Costs for US Commercial P/C Insurers: Fitch

• April 11 (Free) Artificial Intelligence and Insurance Agents - Panic or Promise?
• April 18 Waiting on the Grand Reopening: Business Income Essentials
• April 25 Getting Back to Work: Workers' Comp and the Social Determinants of Health
• May 2 Rules of Engagement in Selling

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Non‐Assignability Contract Clauses (409)

Grouped into 24 collections of similar clauses from business contracts.

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials