Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX)

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

by Charles B. Koerth, Catherine Chlebowski, and Grace Glover, Gray Reed & McGraw LLP, with Practical Law

Commercial Transactions

A Practice Note examining Texas law relating to the transferability of commercial contracts, including a

party's legal ability to assign its rights and delegate its performance obligations under a contract that is

silent on transferability, and the construction and enforceability of contractual anti-

assignment and anti-

delegation clauses. It also includes applications to different types of

commercial contracts and

transactions, and discusses key drafting considerations for anti-

assignment and anti-delegation

provisions.

Contracts are a form of intangible property. Like other property owners, parties to commercial

contracts often desire to transfer their property to a third party. With a contract, transfer involves the

assignment of some or all of a party's rights or the delegation of some or all of a party's performance, or

both, to a non-party to the agreement.

Situations in which a party may desire voluntarily to transfer contractual rights or performance, or both,

include:

The manufacturer that sells its accounts receivable to a third party (known as a factor).

The borrower that grants a security interest in its assets to its lender.

Situations that may require a party to transfer contractual rights or performance, or both, include:

The company that divests some or all of its business in an asset sale.

The business conglomerate that undergoes an internal corporate restructuring.

The contractor that subcontracts its work under certain projects (in this situation it is important to

distinguish an assignment from an agency or subcontracting agreement).

In each of these cases, the non-transferring party may object to

assignment or delegation for reasons

that include:

The desire to select the party with which it conducts its business.

Concern that a different obligor or obligee may adversely affect the non-transferring party's ability to

receive its benefit of the contractual bargain.

The transferring party (sometimes referred to as the transferor) must look to applicable law and the

express language of the

contract to determine whether it can validly complete the intended transfer

without obtaining the non-transferring party's consent. If consent is required and is not obtained, the

Law stated as at 20 Mar 2019

• Texas

Region:

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

transferring party risks:

Breaching the contract, including an express covenant or default legal rule against assignment,

which may result in either:

liability to the non-transferring party for money damages;

discharge of the non-transferring party's duties under the contract; or

both.

(See, for example, Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. v. McKinnon, 688 S.W.2d 612, 615 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).)

Making an ineffective and invalid transfer, which may result in liability to either:

the transferee for money damages;

the non-transferring party for non-performance; or

both.

(See, for example, Jetall Companies v. Four Seasons Food Distributors, Inc., 474 S.W.3d 780, 783

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).)

This Note examines the key issues to consider when analyzing

contract transferability or drafting a

contractual anti-assignment and anti-delegation provision under Texas law, including:

Definitions of assignment and delegation.

The general rules governing assignment and delegation, including key exceptions.

Contractual anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses.

Applications to some major commercial contract types and business situations.

All references to the UCC refer to the Texas

Uniform Commercial Code enacted under Texas law

(Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 1.101 et seq.) and not the model UCC.

This Note uses the terms:

"Assign" and "assignment" to refer to the transfer of a party's contractual rights.

"Delegate" and "delegation" to refer to the transfer of a party's contractual performance.

"Transfer" to refer to a transfer that is an assignment, a delegation, or both, depending on the facts.

Assignment and Delegation Defined

Each party to a contract is an:

Obligee regarding its rights under the contract.

Obligor regarding its performance obligations under the contract.

Contracting parties and practitioners often refer to "assignability" of

contracts. While in some instances

they are specifically addressing the assignment of a party's rights under the contract, in many cases

they use the term "

assignment" to refer to both:

The assignment of rights to receive performance.

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

The delegation of duties to perform.

However,

assignment and delegation are two distinct legal concepts that must be separately addressed

because they may have different consequences (see General Rules Governing

Assignment and

Delegation).

When parties refer to "assigning a

contract" or permitting "assignment of the contract," most courts

hold that they are both assigning rights and delegating performance unless the language or the

circumstances indicate to the contrary (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.210(e) and Restatement

(Second) of

Contracts § 328(1)).

Conversely, when parties are restricting

assignment, language generally prohibiting "assignment of the

contract" only restricts the delegation of performance and not the assignment of rights (Tex. Bus. &

Com. Code Ann. § 2.210(d) and Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 322(1)). For more information on

anti-

assignment and anti-delegation clauses, see Contractual Anti-Assignment and Anti-Delegation

Clauses.

Assignment Definition

Assignment is the transfer by an obligee (assignor) of some or all of its rights to receive performance

under the

contract typically, but not always, to a non-party (assignee) (see Pain Control Institute, Inc. v.

GEICO General Insurance Company, 447 S.W.3d 893, 898 (Tex.App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.); Brown v.

Mesa Distributors, Inc., 414 S.W.3d 279, 285 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); and Pagosa

Oil and Gas, L.L.C. v. Marrs and Smith Partnership, 323 S.W.3d 203, 210-11 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2010,

pet. denied); see also Restatement (Second) of

Contracts § 317(1)). For clarity purposes, this Note

assumes the assignee to be a non-party but the rights and obligations of the parties discussed apply

equally to an assignee who is also a party to the agreement.

When these rights are assigned, the assignor is no longer entitled to receive any benefits of the

assigned rights, all of which are transferred to the assignee. However, even though the assignor is

divested of its

contract rights, assignment does not reduce or eliminate the assignor's obligations of

performance to the non-assigning party (see Delegation Definition). Therefore, while the non-assigning

party to the

contract is relieved of its obligations to perform for the assignor (although not for the

assignee), the non-assigning party retains:

The right to receive performance from the assignor.

Its remedies against the assignor for any failure to perform.

For an

assignment to be effective, it must include a clear, present intent to transfer the assigned rights

without requiring any further action by the assignee. This means that a promise to assign in the future is

ineffective as an actual transfer (see

Commercial Structures and Interiors, Inc. v. Liberty Educ.

Ministries, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 827, 833-34 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.)). In Texas, an existing

right is a precondition for a valid

assignment (Pain Control Institute, 447 S.W.3d at 899). Otherwise, no

specific language is required to draft an effective

assignment, including no requirement to use the word

"assign." More commonly, a party encounters an agreement that purports to transfer "all rights and

interests" to a third party.

For a sample

assignment provision, see Standard Document, Assignment and Assumption Agreement

and Optional Novation (TX): Section 1.1.

Delegation Definition

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Delegation is the transfer by an obligor (delegating party) of some or all of its performance obligations (or

conditions requiring performance) under the contract typically, but not always, to a non-party

(delegatee) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.210(a); see also Restatement (Second) of

Contracts §

318(1)). For clarity purposes, this Note assumes the delegatee to be a non-party but the rights and

obligations of the parties discussed apply equally to a delegatee who is also a party to the agreement.

The delegating party must consider whether:

The express language of the contract or applicable law limits or conditions the delegation.

The delegating party is liable to the delegatee for an invalid delegation.

The delegating party would remain liable to the non-delegating party if the delegatee fails to

perform.

For a delegation to be effective, the delegatee must agree to assume the delegated performance (Lone

Star Gas Co., a Div. of Enserch Corp. v. Mexia Oil & Gas, Inc., 833 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex. App.—Dallas

1992, no writ.)). However, the delegating party remains liable for the delegated performance, whether or

not it has also assigned its

contract rights, unless the non-delegating party has agreed to a novation

(see Novation) (Restatement (Second) of

Contracts § 318(3) (1981); see also Honeycutt v. Billingsley,

992 S.W.2d 570, 579 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)).

This differs from an

assignment of rights where, on assignment, the assignor relinquishes its

contractual entitlements (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.210(b); see also University of Texas Medical

Branch at Galveston v. Allan, 777 S.W.2d 450, 452-53 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1989, no writ)). Even

if the delegating party can effectively delegate its actual performance to the delegatee (so that the

delegatee's actual performance discharges the delegating party's duty), the delegating party cannot be

relieved of its obligation to perform and its liability for non-performance unless the non-delegating party

has agreed to a novation.

Like the

assignment of rights, there is no required language to create an effective delegation in Texas.

When performance is effectively delegated, the delegatee assumes liability for the delegating party's

performance obligations (under an assumption agreement) even though, absent a novation, the

delegating party retains its liability to the non-delegating party for failure by the delegatee to adequately

perform the delegated obligations.

Unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, courts commonly hold that the delegatee's liability is

primary and the delegating party remains secondarily liable. The delegating party may itself have

recourse against the delegatee under the assumption agreement, often addressed through a contractual

indemnification right (see Standard Document, Assignment and Assumption Agreement and Optional

Novation (TX): Section 6).

Novation

If the delegating party desires to fully extricate itself from liability for non-performance, it must obtain the

consent of the non-delegating party to the

contract (novation). In most novations, the delegating party,

the delegatee, and the non-delegating party agree that:

The delegatee is substituted for the delegating party as a party to the contract.

The delegating party is no longer liable for performance under the contract.

The delegatee is directly and solely liable for the delegating party's performance under the contract.

(Honeycutt, 992 S.W.2d at 576.)

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Specifically, four essential elements are necessary to form a novation in Texas:

A previously valid obligation.

Agreement of all parties to a new contract.

Extinguishment of the old contract.

A valid new contract.

(New York Party Shuttle, LLC v. Bilello, 414 S.W.3d 206, 214 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet.

denied).)

Individually in a novation:

The assigning party is released from all of its obligations and duties to perform under the assigned

contract.

The assuming party is deemed substituted for the assigning party as a party to the assigned

contract.

(See Honeycutt, 992 S.W.2d at 576-77.)

Without a novation, the assigning party remains liable to the remaining party if the assuming party does

not perform the delegated obligations (see Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d

342, 346-47 (Tex. 2006)).

For a sample novation provision, see Standard Documents, Novation Agreement (Short Form) (TX) and

Assignment and Assumption Agreement and Optional Novation (TX): Section 2. For information on the

differences between a novation and an

assignment, see Practice Note, Novation, Accord and

Satisfaction, and Substituted Contracts: Novation Versus Assignment.

Voluntary and Involuntary Transfers

It is often clear that a contracting party has voluntarily transferred some or all of its contractual rights,

obligations, or both to an assignee or delegatee. For example:

In connection with a business transfer structured as an asset sale or a discrete transaction relating

solely to a particular contract, a transferring party enters into a written assignment and assumption

agreement with an assignee and delegatee.

A non-party to the agreement renders certain performance or exercises certain rights, even though

the

contract has not been formally transferred to that non-party.

However, a

contract is not always directly and voluntarily transferred to an assignee or delegatee by

one of the parties. Instead, it may be indirectly transferred, often in conjunction with a corporate

reorganization or a business sale structured as a merger or as the result of a court order. With these

types of transfers, which are often characterized as occurring by operation of law, it may be more difficult

to determine whether:

A contractual anti-assignment and anti-delegation clause applies to a specific type of transfer.

The transfer is permissible, with or without a contractual anti-assignment and anti-delegation

provision.

The parties must look to Texas's general

contract law or business entity law, or both, to determine

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

whether the transfer is permissible. The result may differ depending on whether the transferred contract

has an anti-assignment and anti-delegation provision and the precise language of that provision (see

Drafting Anti-

Assignment and Anti-Delegation Clauses). For more information on transfers by operation

of law in Texas, see Box, Transfers by Operation of Law.

Certain

commercial transactions and matters, such as business sales, corporate reorganizations, and

bankruptcies, often require special considerations when determining contract transferability (see

Assignment Issues in Certain Commercial Contexts).

Change of Control

A change of control (or change in control) refers to a significant change in the equity ownership or

management of a business entity (often defined as a sale of more than 50% of a party's stock or a

change in a majority of the board members of a party, or both) (see, for example, Fairfield Indus., Inc. v.

EP Energy E&P Co., L.P., 531 S.W.3d 234, 242-44 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. filed)).

While a change of control does not involve the actual transfer of assets held by the affected business

entity, contracting parties sometimes assume that a change of ownership or management triggers an

impermissible transfer of contractual rights or obligations that are non-assignable or non-delegable

under the

contract or by applicable law (see General Rules Governing Assignment and Delegation).

However, the general rule acknowledges the technical distinction, and courts commonly hold that a

change of control does not implicate any legal or contractual restrictions on the transferability of a

particular

contract unless the contract either:

Contains anti-assignment and anti-delegation language that expressly restricts a change of control.

States that a change in the management or equity ownership of the contracting party is deemed to

be an

assignment (which is subject to restrictions in the contract's anti-assignment and anti-

delegation clause).

Commercial real estate leases often include these types of provisions (see Commercial Real Estate

Leases). In other situations (for example, in supply agreements), restrictions on a change of control are

more commonly addressed in a different clause, often by including a contractual termination right in

favor of one or both parties if the other party undergoes a change of control (see, for example, Standard

Document, Manufacturing Supply Agreement (Pro-Seller): Section 6.3(f)).

General Rules Governing Assignment and Delegation

The modern rule generally favors free transferability of all types of property, including contracts. It

broadly permits:

Most assignments of contractual rights.

Many delegations of contractual performance.

In general, a contracting party can assign its contractual rights to:

Receive money.

Receive non-monetary performance.

Pursue contract remedies.

In many cases, a party may delegate its contractual obligations to:

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Pay money.

Deliver goods.

Perform services that are not personal in nature (often requiring specialized skill or discretion).

The major exceptions to free transferability include:

Contracts with anti-assignment or anti-delegation clauses (see Contractual Anti-Assignment and

Anti-Delegation Clauses).

Assignments and delegations that violate public policy or law (see Ability to Assign Rights).

Assignments of rights or delegations of performance that are personal in nature (see Ability to

Assign Rights and Ability to Delegate Performance).

The general rules of

contract transferability are codified in the UCC, which applies to contracts for the

sale of goods (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.210), and the Restatement (Second) of

Contracts,

which applies generally to all types of

contracts (Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 317-323). For

a discussion about the transferability of some major types of contracts, including intellectual property

licenses and distribution and franchise agreements, see Applications to Some Major Types of

Contracts.

Ability to Assign Rights

Most contract rights are assignable. Aside from where the parties have agreed contractually to restrict

assignment of rights, the legal bases for limiting assignment protect the non-assigning party against

any significant adverse consequences of a particular transfer. When ruling on assignability, courts focus

on the particular facts and circumstances of the

assignment at issue.

Most states, like Texas, rely on the Restatement (Second) of

Contracts § 317(2), which, along with case

law, provides that a contractual right is assignable unless:

Transferring the right to the assignee would materially:

change the duty of the non-assigning obligor;

increase the burden or risk imposed on the non-assigning obligor;

impair the non-assigning obligor's chances of obtaining return performance; or

reduce the value to the non-assigning obligor of return performance.

(See, for example, Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Mktg on Hold Inc., 308 S.W.3d 909, 916 (Tex. 2010).)

The assignment is prohibited by statute or on public policy grounds (see Statutory and Public

Policy Exceptions).

The right is personal in nature (see, for example, In re FH Partners, L.L.C., 335 S.W.3d 752, 762-63

(Tex.App.—Austin 2011, no pet.)).

The parties have validly restricted assignment by contract (see, for example, Reuben H.

Donnelley, 688 S.W.2d at 615; see also Texas Dev. Co. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 119 S.W.3d 875, 881

(Tex.App.—Eastland 2003, no pet.)).

The UCC follows a similar principle and includes similar exceptions (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §

2.210(b); see also

Contracts for the Sale of Goods).

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Even if parties have agreed to restrict the assignment of their contract rights, either party may assign

its right to receive damages for non-performance (Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 322(2)(a) and

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.210(b)).

In addition, contractual anti-

assignment provisions are ineffective to prohibit a party from granting a

security interest to a secured party (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 9.406(d); see also Secured

Transactions).

Statutory and Public Policy Exceptions

Examples of statutory restrictions on the free assignability of contractual rights include:

The Federal Assignment of Claims Act and its implementing regulations generally limit the

assignment of rights under government contracts (31 U.S.C. § 3727 and 41 U.S.C. § 6305; 48

C.F.R. § 32.800 - 32.806).

The UCC prohibits the assignment of the right to draw funds under a letter of credit in certain cases

(Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 5.112).

The Texas Insurance Code prohibits the assignment of a contract between an insurer and its

manager (Tex. Ins. Code. Ann. § 4152.206).

Examples of

assignments that are commonly held to be inoperative because of public policy reasons

include those made for consideration that is illegal, as well as assignments of:

Standing to assert a due-process claim (American Homeowner Preservation Fund, LP v. Pirkle, 475

S.W.3d 507, 517-19 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2015, pet. denied)).

A cause of action for a legal malpractice claim (see, for example, Zuniga v. Groce, Locke & Hebdon,

878 S.W.2d 313, 315-17 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1994, writ, ref'd); see also Vinson & Elkins v.

Moran, 946 S.W.2d 381, 389 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ dism'd by agr.)).

Claims for personal injuries and other tort claims as part of a settlement agreement (International

Proteins Corp. v. Ralston-Purina Co., 744 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex. 1988)).

Rights that are considered inherently personal, such as those granted under a non-compete

provision or a covenant not to sue.

(Restatement (Second) of

Contracts § 317(2)(b); see also In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d

124, 129 & n. 11 (Tex. 2004) (stating that parties have the right to

contract as they see fit provided their

agreement does not violate the law or public policy) and State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gandy, 925

S.W.2d 696, 707-19 (Tex. 1996) (listing cases invalidating

assignments).)

Ability to Delegate Performance

The general rule is that a party may delegate its performance obligations. However, in practice, the

delegation of performance is more often restricted than the assignment of rights. To delegate a duty,

the delegatee must assume the duty, typically by using express promissory words (see, for example,

Lone Star Gas Co., 833 S.W.2d at 201). Conceptually, the exceptions to delegation are similar to those

applicable to the

assignment of rights. While worded differently, both sets of exceptions focus on the

likely effect of the transfer on the non-transferring party. With delegation, this effect is often more

significant.

The Restatement (Second) of

Contracts § 318 permits delegation of performance to a third party

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

unless:

Delegation is against public policy.

The parties have agreed contractually to restrict delegation.

The non-delegating obligee has a substantial interest in having the delegating party perform or

control performance of the delegated acts (which includes duties that are personal in nature

because the original obligor has special skill, talent, or ability to perform) (see, for example, Kelley v.

Marlin, 714 S.W.2d 303, 308 (Tex. 1986); In re Martin, 117 B.R. 243, 249 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1990);

and McKinnie v. Milford, 597 S.W.2d 953, 957 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.)).

The UCC similarly includes the exceptions listed in the second and third bullet points (Tex. Bus. & Com.

Code Ann. § 2.210(a)).

When a

contract is silent on the obligor's right to delegate performance, enforceability concerns

commonly relate to the ability of the delegatee to adequately meet the expectations of the obligee when

performing the delegated obligations (see, for example, Honeycutt, 992 S.W.2d at 579).

When Performance is Personal

Some contractual obligations can be performed consistently by many different obligors (for example, the

obligation to make payment, construct a building, or deliver fungible goods). Not only is the product of

performance objectively measurable, the delegating party remains secondarily liable for performing the

delegated obligations (see McKinnie, 597 S.W.2d at 957). However, other types of performance are

more subjective, either:

Involving a special relationship of trust or confidence between the parties.

Requiring:

special types or levels of talent, skill, training, or knowledge;

taste or discretion;

character; or

reputation.

(See, for example, McKinnie, 597 S.W.2d at 957 and Bolin Oil Co. v. Staples, 496 S.W.2d 167, 176-

77 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.).)

In these situations, both rendering and measuring performance is less objective and more personal. If

performance from a substitute obligor would materially alter the benefit bargained for by the non-

delegating obligee, courts often hold that:

Performance is personal.

The duties are non-delegable.

(In re FH Partners, L.L.C., 335 S.W.3d at 762-63.)

The courts consider the facts and circumstances to make this determination. There is no specific legal

test. Obligations under personal services

contracts often fall into this category of non-delegable duties

(see Personal Services

Contracts), but obligations of a business entity under some types of

professional services agreements (notably those that rely on the services of particular employees or

contractors, for example, a film production agreement or an architectural design

contract) may be

treated similarly.

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Contractual Anti-Assignment and Anti-Delegation Clauses

Instead of relying on a somewhat ambiguous legal structure, most parties to commercial contracts

choose to address issues of transferability in the written agreement. Therefore, most commercial

contracts contain a negative covenant (an anti-assignment and anti-delegation clause or an

assignment and delegation clause) that limits either party's or both parties' rights of assignment and

delegation.

These clauses often also contain express exceptions permitting one or more of the parties to assign and

delegate rights and obligations, usually to specified non-parties such as affiliates and successors-in-

interest to the transferring party's business.

Because Texas courts favor the rights of parties to freely

contract, they commonly enforce

anti-

assignment and anti-delegation clauses, unless they infringe an applicable statute (see Johnson v.

Structured Asset Services, LLC, 148 S.W.3d 711, 721 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.); see also Texas

Dev. Co., 119 S.W.3d at 881). However, Texas law also favors the free alienability of property (see

Randolph v. Terrell, 768 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1987, writ denied); see also Proctor v. Foxmeyer

Drug Co., 884 S.W.2d 853, 861 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1994, no writ)). Therefore, courts generally construe

these provisions narrowly (see Rumbin v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 254 Conn. 259, 268-77 (2000)).

Parties should draft anti-

assignment and anti-delegations carefully to support their intended result (see

Drafting Anti-Assignment and Anti-Delegation Clauses).

Drafting Anti-Assignment and Anti-Delegation Clauses

When drafting or negotiating an anti-assignment and anti-delegation clause, there are several key

points that the parties should consider, including:

Directly addressing assignment of rights and delegation of performance (see Directly Addressing

Assignment and Delegation).

Clarifying the universe of restricted transfers (see Clarifying the Universe of Restricted Transfers).

Designating the non-transferring party's consent rights (see Designating the Non-Transferring

Party's Consent Rights).

Specifying exceptions to non-transferability (see Specifying Exceptions to Non-Transferability).

Requiring notification of a permitted transfer (see Requiring Notification of a Permitted Transfer).

Including a declaration that impermissible transfers are void (see Including a Declaration That

Impermissible Transfers Are Void).

Adding a novation to the anti-assignment and anti-delegation provision (see Adding a Novation to

the Anti-

Assignment and Anti-Delegation Provision).

For more information on drafting and negotiating anti-

assignment and anti-delegation clauses, see

Standard Clause, General

Contract Clauses: Assignment and Delegation (TX). For more information

on subcontracting, see Standard Clauses, General

Contract Clauses: Subcontracting.

Directly Addressing Assignment and Delegation

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Contractual language prohibiting "assignment of the contract" (instead of specifically addressing

assignment of rights, delegation of obligations, or both) is commonly considered by courts to prohibit

only the delegation of performance and not the assignment of rights (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §

2.210(d) and Restatement (Second) of

Contracts § 322).

However, contractual language expressly permitting "

assignment of the contract" is commonly

construed to permit the

assignment of rights and the delegation of performance (Tex. Bus. & Com.

Code Ann. § 2.210(e) and Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 328(1)). For clarity, the

non-

assignment and non-delegation clause should not address assignment of the contract generally.

Instead, it should specifically reference

assignment of rights and delegation of performance.

Clarifying the Universe of Restricted Transfers

Some anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses do not include general restrictions against

transferability, and instead state the types of transfers that are permissible. However, this formulation is

ambiguous for any non-specified transfers that are not generally restricted by law. To avoid ambiguity,

parties should include a comprehensive restriction, followed by any exceptions to the general prohibition

(see Specifying Exceptions to Non-Transferability).

In addition, the language of the general prohibition should:

Specify whether it is limited to voluntary transfers or includes involuntary transfers.

Identify the particular types of transactions (for example, mergers and dissolutions) that qualify as

involuntary transfers.

Parties should avoid generally referencing involuntary transfers as "transfers by operation of law"

because courts construe this term inconsistently (see Transfers by Operation of Law).

If a change of control is intended to be treated as an

assignment for purposes of this provision, the

parties should precisely define "change of control," including whether it is limited to a direct change in

that party's ownership or management or also applies indirectly if there is a change in the ownership or

management of a direct or indirect controlling parent company (see, for example, Tenneco Inc. v.

Enterprise Products Co., 925 S.W.2d 640, 646 (Tex. 1996)).

Designating the Non-Transferring Party's Consent Rights

If the non-assigning or non-delegating party's consent is required for some or all transfers, the clause

should specify if:

The consenting party has complete discretion or must not unreasonably withhold its consent.

Consent must be in writing.

Consent must be obtained before making the transfer.

Obtaining consent is a contractual obligation or a condition precedent to the right to make the

transfer.

For a sample form of request for consent to the

assignment of a commercial contract, see Standard

Document, Request for Consent to

Assignment of Contract (TX).

Specifying Exceptions to Non-Transferability

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

The clause should also clearly address whether exceptions for permitted transfers are either:

Broadly applicable, allowing the designated party to assign or delegate freely to any non-party.

Limited to specified categories of non-parties (such as affiliates and acquirors of all or a significant

portion of the transferor's assets). The parties should also consider whether any temporal modifiers

are necessary. For example, without temporal modifiers, past or future affiliates could be

unintentionally excluded as permitted transferees (see WesternGeco, L.L.C. v. Input/Output, Inc.,

246 S.W.3d 776, 786 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) ("future affiliate" did not include

company that was not in existence at the time the

contract was entered into); see also Ellington v.

EMI Music, Inc., 24 N.Y.3d 239, 246 (2014) (holding the use of the term "affiliates" in a

contract

includes only those affiliates in existence at the time contract was executed, absent clear and

unambiguous language indicating that the parties intended to bind future affiliated parties to the

underlying contractual obligations)).

The parties should specify each type of transfer that is excluded from the general prohibition.

Requiring Notification of a Permitted Transfer

Consider whether circumstances support adding a requirement for the transferring party to notify the

non-transferring party of any permitted transfer that is made. If included, the provision should specify

whether the required notice is a contractual obligation or a condition subsequent to the right to make the

transfer.

Even if the

contract does not impose a notification requirement, the assignee is usually concerned

about ensuring that notice of an assignment is promptly given to the non-transferring party. While the

law does not formally require written notice of an

assignment, an assignee takes the assignment

subject to all defenses of the non-transferring obligor as against the assignor that arise before effective

notice of the

assignment (Robert Parker's Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc. v. Speer, 722 S.W.2d 45, 48

(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ)).

If the non-transferring party delivers payment to the assignor instead of the assignee, it is not liable to

the assignee if it did not have reason to know of the

assignment. Upon receipt of notice, the non-

transferring party is required to direct payment to the assignee (see Buffalo Pipeline Co. v. Bell, 694

S.W.2d 592, 596 (Tex. App. 1985) (any payment by the debtor to the original creditor (assignor) is

effective against an assignee if the debtor makes the payment in good faith, without notice of the

assignment)).

Therefore, it is in the assignee's best interest to notify the non-transferring party of any permitted

assignment as quickly as possible. The assignee may separately obligate the assignor to deliver this

notice or instead notify the non-transferring party itself. For a sample notice of assignment, see

Standard Document, Notice of

Assignment (TX).

Including a Declaration That Impermissible Transfers Are Void

Because anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses are typically construed narrowly, many Texas

courts have held that language prohibiting

assignment or delegation triggers a breach but does not to

make the transfer invalid. This means that the non-transferring party may claim that the transferring party

has breached the

contract by making the transfer but cannot attack the validity of the transfer itself (see

Reuben H. Donnelley, 688 S.W.2d at 615 (citing Restatement (Second) of

Contracts § 322(2)(b) (1981);

see also Gips v. Red Robin Corp., 366 S.W.2d 853, 857 (Tex.App.—Houston 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.)).

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

However, other courts in Texas have held that if a contract includes an anti-assignment clause, any

non-conforming

assignment made will be void or invalid (see Texas Dev. Co., 119 S.W.3d at 881).

Notwithstanding the differing opinions of the Texas courts, the non-assigning or non-delegating party

often prefers to limit the other party's power to transfer, not merely its right to transfer. Therefore, parties

should consider including both:

A negative covenant restricting transfer.

A declaration that a prohibited transfer is invalid.

This formulation:

Provides the non-assigning or non-delegating party with a claim for breach if a restriction is violated.

Renders the prohibited assignment or delegation ineffective.

Adding a Novation to the Anti-Assignment and Anti-Delegation Provision

When a non-assignment and non-delegation clause includes exceptions for permitted transfers, a party

with sufficient negotiating leverage should consider trying to include novation language in the

anti-

assignment and anti-delegation provision. This language, which is not commonly included in most

anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses, provides that when a permitted transfer is made:

The transferee is deemed substituted for the transferor as a party to the agreement.

The transferor is released from all of its obligations and duties to perform under the agreement.

Without a novation, the transferor remains liable to the remaining party if the transferee does not perform

the delegated obligations.

For more information on novation, see Novation and Standard Document, Novation Agreement (Short

Form) (TX).

Applications to Some Major Types of Contracts

Many types of commercial contracts routinely include a contractual anti-assignment and anti-

delegation clause. If not, transferability depends on the subject matter of the

contract and the nature of

the rights and obligations that are to be transferred. This Note discusses applications to the following

major types of

contracts:

Contracts for the sale of goods (see Contracts for the Sale of Goods).

Distribution and franchise agreements (see Distribution and Franchise Agreements).

Personal services contracts (see Personal Services Contracts).

Intellectual property licenses (see Intellectual Property Licenses).

Commercial real estate leases (see Commercial Real Estate Leases).

Commercial real estate sale agreements (see Commercial Real Estate Sale Agreements).

Merger and acquisition agreements (see Merger and Acquisition Agreements).

Construction contracts (see Construction Contracts).

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Loan agreements (see Loan Agreements).

Insurance contracts (see Insurance Contracts).

Contracts for the Sale of Goods

Rights and obligations under contracts for the sale of goods generally are assignable and delegable.

Exceptions may include, for example, an exclusive requirements or output

contract, or a contract for a

particularly unique product. Otherwise, most supply contracts do not involve the type of performance

that courts view as non-transferable (see Ability to Assign Rights and Ability to Delegate Performance for

the approach taken under the UCC).

The UCC provides that if performance is delegated, the non-delegating obligee may treat delegation as

reasonable grounds for insecurity and demand adequate assurances of performance from the

delegatee. Failure to give that assurance acts as a repudiation of the

contract by the delegating party.

(Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 2.609 and 2.210(f) and see Practice Note, Anticipatory Repudiation

and Adequate Assurances of Future Performance.)

Many supply agreements contain express anti-

assignment and anti-delegation clauses, often with

exceptions for transfers to affiliates and successors-in-interest to all or a significant portion of the party's

business. However, even if a supply agreement includes a restrictive anti-

assignment and anti-

delegation provision, parties should note that the UCC:

Permits a party to assign its right to sue for breach of the contract despite the restriction (Tex. Bus.

& Com. Code Ann. § 2.210(b)).

Invalidates a contractual provision that prohibits assignment of an account, which includes the

right to receive payment under the contract (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 9.406). This means, for

example, that an anti-

assignment provision cannot prevent a seller from:

using its receivables as collateral when it borrows money from an asset-based lender; or

factoring its receivables.

Distribution and Franchise Agreements

Distribution and franchise agreements are often considered more personal than sale of goods

contracts. Selection of a distributor or franchisee is based on many individual factors and, in both

situations, the counterparty is marketing and selling:

The manufacturer's or franchisor's products.

Products or services under the franchisor's or manufacturer's trademarks.

In many cases,

assignment or delegation by the distributor or franchisee can be harmful to the

supplier's or franchisor's business if the transferee is not as capable and financially secure as the

transferor, which is a particular concern for the franchisor. In addition, the non-transferring party is often

concerned that the distributor or franchisee may transfer the

contract to a competitor of the non-

transferring party.

Therefore, franchisors and parties supplying goods to distributors typically insist on unilaterally limiting

the franchisee's or distributor's transferability rights in a contractual anti-

assignment and anti-delegation

clause (see, for example, Walner v. Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co., 514 F. Supp. 1028, 1030 (N.D. Tex.

1981)). These clauses often:

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Restrict the identity or categories of permitted transferees.

Specify the terms that must be included in any assignment and delegation agreement.

Reserve the non-transferring party's right to review and approve the proposed transferee and

related deal terms.

In a franchise agreement, require the transferring franchisee to make a transfer payment to the

franchisor.

For more information on transferability of franchise agreements, see Drafting and Negotiating a

Franchise Agreement Checklist.

Personal Services Contracts

Personal services contracts, including employment agreements, are often considered sufficiently

personal in nature that they are held to be non-transferable without obtaining the consent of the non-

transferring party. While the classic case typically concerns the delegation of obligations by the service

provider, many courts similarly restrict

assignment of the service recipient's rights in certain

circumstances.

Service providers are often unconcerned about the identity of the party that is responsible for paying for

the services rendered (noting that the original obligor remains secondarily liable for performance).

However, in some situations, the nature of the services is sufficiently personal that public policy interests

protect the service provider against being obligated to perform for a substitute obligee, especially where

performance is guided by the discretion of the service recipient (see, for example, American Biomedical

Corp. v. Anderson, 546 S.W.2d 112, 116 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1977, no writ) and Spengler v. Pitluk,

261 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1953, writ dism'd) (both cases holding that an executory

contract for personal services cannot be assigned by the employer without the consent of the

employee)).

Therefore, in Texas the general rule is that most personal services

contracts are not transferable

without the non-transferring party's consent (see American Biomedical Corp., 546 S.W.2d at 116; see

also Spengler, 261 S.W.2d 470).

Many personal services

contracts contain an express anti-assignment and anti-delegation clause that

addresses each party's transferability rights and restrictions. These provisions often permit the services

recipient (but usually not the service provider) to both assign rights and delegate duties, commonly

limited to that party's affiliates and to successors-in-interest to all or a material portion of the transferring

party's business.

Intellectual Property Licenses

Transferability of intellectual property (IP) licenses often depends on:

Whether the transferor is the licensor or the licensee.

The type of IP covered by the license.

Whether the license is exclusive or non-exclusive.

Note that federal law may apply to the transferability of intellectual property licenses.

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Licensor

Unless an IP license contains an anti-

assignment or anti-delegation provision, licensors can generally

assign rights and delegate performance (while remaining secondarily liable) under the license

agreement (see IP Innovation L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 661 F. Supp. 2d 659, 664 (E.D. Tex. 2009)).

Licensee

However, even if the IP license does not restrict transferability by the licensee, the policy interest in

permitting the licensor to control the use of its IP often supports non-transferability by the licensee.

Therefore, as a general rule, non-exclusive IP licenses are not transferable by the licensee without the

licensor's consent (see SuperSpeed, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 952, 963 (S.D. Tex. 2014)).

The rule regarding exclusive licenses varies, depending on the type of IP that is being transferred.

While courts often hold that exclusive

patent and trademark licenses are non-transferable by the

licensee, exclusive copyright licenses, which are treated under the federal Copyright Act as exclusive

transfers of ownership, are usually transferable by the licensee (see Guzman v. Hacienda Records, L.P.,

2015 WL 789113, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2015) (stating the requirements for a transfer of copyright

ownership)).

Most courts will enforce contractual provisions that expressly permit or restrict transferability.

For more information on contractual restrictions, see Practice Note, IP Licenses: Restrictions on

Assignment and Change of Control. For information on when a licensor's consent may be required in

connection with an M&A transaction, see IP Licenses: Restrictions on

Assignment and Change of

Control Flowchart.

Commercial Real Estate Leases

In Texas, absent a provision in a commercial real estate lease stating otherwise, tenants cannot sublet

or assign without the landlord's prior consent (Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 91.005; see also 718 Associates,

Ltd. v. Sunwest N.O.P., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. denied)). Case law

interprets § 91.005 to apply to both

assignments and subleases (718 Assocs., Ltd., 1 S.W.3d at 362).

Additionally, Texas courts have held that there is no implied covenant by the landlord to act reasonably

in withholding its consent (Reynolds v. McCullough, 739 S.W. 2d 424, 429 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

1987, writ denied)).

In Texas, an

assignment of lease does not release the tenant or assignor from future liability under the

lease, absent a provision stating otherwise (Twelve Oaks Tower I, Ltd. v. Premier Allergy, Inc., 938

S.W.2d 102, 114 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist. 1996, no writ)). An original lessee that assigns its

interest in a lease, unless expressly released by the original lessor, becomes a surety or guarantor of the

rental payments and remains liable therefor to the original lessor (Dameron Oil Co., Inc. v. Majeed, 2004

WL 1211620, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 2, 2004, pet. denied). A lessee is not released from his

obligation to pay rent by the fact that it has assigned the lease with the lessor's consent (Martinez v. Ball,

721 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1986, no writ)).

The tenant's right to assign or sublease is typically a key issue when negotiating a

commercial real

estate lease. Parties often negotiate whether assignment provisions in leases also expressly define an

assignment to include a change of control (whether direct or indirect). Another commonly negotiated

aspect of the

assignment clause is whether the landlord can withhold its consent in its sole discretion or

whether the landlord must not unreasonably withhold, condition, or delay consent.

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Tenants often try to negotiate for certain exemptions to the landlord's consent requirement for an

assignment. For example, a landlord's consent may not be required when the tenant:

Sells all or substantially all of its business assets.

Undergoes a merger or consolidation.

Transfers the lease to a wholly owned subsidiary or affiliate of the original tenant.

In a

commercial lease, these actions by the tenant are often referred to as "permitted transfers" and

they reduce the landlord's ability to get involved with the tenant's merging or consolidating businesses.

For more information on lease

assignment, see Standard Documents:

Landlord Consent to Assignment of Lease.

Standard Document, Assignment and Assumption of Leases (Commercial Real Estate Purchase

and Sale) (TX).

Assignment and Assumption of Leasehold Interest in Corporate Transactions (Short Form).

To analyze the interpretation of

assignment clauses across Texas and multiple states, see:

State Q&A: Real Estate Leasing: Texas: Questions 13-17.

State Q&A: Managing Commercial Real Estate Leases: Texas: Question 16.

Real Estate Leasing: State Q&A Tool: Questions 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

Managing Commercial Real Leases: State Q&A Tool: Question 16.

For further information, see Practice Note,

Assignment and Subleasing: Leasing Fundamentals.

Commercial Real Estate Sale Agreements

A contract for the sale of real property is generally transferable unless the purchase agreement

expressly restricts transferability. However, many purchase agreements include anti-assignment and

anti-delegation clauses prohibiting the purchaser from transferring the

contract, often subject to

standard exceptions for affiliates and successors-in-interest to the purchaser's assets.

Many

commercial lenders providing acquisition funding for a real property purchase require the

purchaser to create a

special purpose entity (SPE) to own the purchased property. If the SPE has not

been formed before the purchase agreement is executed, the purchaser must ensure that the agreement

does not prohibit transfer of the sales

contract to the newly formed entity. A commonly negotiated

aspect of a purchase agreement is whether the purchaser may assign the agreement to the SPE without

the seller's consent. Alternatively, the purchaser may want to negotiate that the seller may not

unreasonably withhold, condition, or delay consent.

For more information on

commercial real estate agreements, see Purchase and Sale Agreement

(

Commercial Real Estate) (Pro-Seller Short Form) (TX): Section 14.08.

Merger and Acquisition Agreements

Merger and acquisition agreements typically include an anti-assignment and anti-delegation provision

restricting each party from assigning its rights or delegating its obligations under the

contract to a non-

party without obtaining the non-transferring party's prior written consent. Buyers commonly try to

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

negotiate an exception to this restriction that would permit transfer of the agreement to a subsidiary

when they intend to have a different entity purchase the stock or assets from the seller (or, with a

merger, to use a different entity in the merger transaction).

For sample anti-

assignment provisions used in merger and acquisition agreements, see Standard

Documents, Stock Purchase Agreement (Pro-Buyer Long Form): Section 10.07 and Merger Agreement

(All-Cash, Pro-Buyer): Section 8.11.

For information on

contract transferability issues that may arise in the context of M&A transactions, see

Sale of a Business.

Construction Contracts

Construction contracts are generally transferable unless the parties agree otherwise. Similar to the sale

of goods, these agreements are considered less personal than other types of service

contracts.

However, parties often enter into a construction

contract intending to work with a specific owner or

contractor and each party desires to preserve the identity of the original contracting party. Therefore, in

practice, most construction

contracts contain anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses that restrict

transfer of the agreement without obtaining the other party's consent. These provisions often include

standard exceptions that permit transfer by:

Either party to its affiliates and successors-in-interest to its assets.

The owner to a purchaser of the owner's interest in the construction project before completion.

Construction

contracts also commonly address:

The contractor's rights and restrictions regarding subcontracting, and whether the owner's consent

is required.

Requirements regarding the terms of any permitted subcontracting agreements.

Loan Agreements

Commercial loan agreements typically include complex anti-assignment and anti-delegation provisions

that:

Restrict the borrower from transferring any of its rights or obligations under the loan agreement

without obtaining the consent of each lender.

Address the terms and conditions under which lenders may:

transfer all or part of the loan to another lender (commonly referred to as an assignment even

though it includes a full transfer of rights and obligations, and a novation where one lender is

substituted for another and the loan agreement is amended to include the assignee as a party);

sell an interest in the loan (known as a participation) to another lender that does not become a

party to the loan agreement, and who

contracts and interacts solely with the lead lender.

Participations typically do not require the borrower's consent. However, because loan

assignments

involve a novation, the borrower's consent is usually required, except under certain circumstances (such

as the existence of a default or for

assignments to other lenders or their affiliates). Some syndicated

loan

agreements include language providing that the borrower is deemed to have consented to the

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

assignment if it does not object to it within a stated period of time.

For more information on loan transfers, see Practice Note,

Assignments and Participations of Loans

and Standard Clauses, Loan Agreement:

Assignment and Participation Clauses.

Insurance Contracts

Insurance contracts are generally transferable unless they contain express transferability restrictions.

Most insurers want to restrict the insured from transferring the

contract because a different insured may

present a different risk profile and increase the insurer's liability exposure. Therefore, insurance policies

typically contain anti-

assignment and anti-delegation restrictions that prohibit transfer by the insured

without the insurer's consent.

Many courts distinguish between transfer of the policy and transfer of claims under the policy. They often

limit application of contractual anti-

assignment and anti-delegation provisions to prohibit transfer of the

contract itself, but not of claims for covered losses insured under the contract. Once a loss occurs, the

only

contract right involved is the right to receive proceeds for covered losses, which does not impact

the insurer's liability exposure.

Assignment Issues in Certain Commercial Contexts

Certain types of commercial transactions and matters present unique considerations relating to

contract transferability. These include:

Assignability of contracts in the sale of a business (see Sale of a Business).

Internal corporate reorganizations that involve the merger, consolidation, or conversion of a

contracting party (see Corporate Reorganizations).

A borrower's grant of a security interest in its accounts and general intangibles (see Secured

Transactions).

Debtors' rights to assign contracts in bankruptcy (see Bankruptcy).

Sale of a Business

In the sale of a business, the structure of the sales transaction determines whether any contract

transferability issues are implicated. As a technical matter, some types of sales (for example, a stock

sale) do not involve actual asset transfers (see Change of Control), while other types of sales (for

example, asset sales) do involve an asset transfer.

In general,

contract assignment and delegation issues arise if the transaction is structured as:

An asset sale.

A forward merger or forward triangular merger.

If an asset transfer occurs, anti-

assignment clauses in the target's business contracts may trigger a

breach or prevent the assignment of the applicable contracts, or both, unless the non-assigning parties

to the

contracts consent to the transfer (for more information on acquisition structures, see Practice

Note, Private Acquisition Structures).

To address this issue, sellers are typically required to obtain the necessary consents before closing.

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Non-assignable contracts (where consents are not obtained) are excluded from the transaction (see, for

example, Standard Document, Asset Purchase Agreement (Pro-Buyer Long Form): Section 2.02). For a

sample form of request for consent to the

assignment of a commercial contract, see Standard

Document, Request for Consent to Assignment of Contract (TX).

The result usually differs for a transaction structured either as a stock sale or a

reverse triangular

merger. Typically, neither of these structures involves a technical transfer of the contracting party's

assets, and in many jurisdictions, including Delaware, generally they do not implicate anti-

assignment

or anti-delegation clauses (see Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 62 A.3d 62,

88 (Del. Ch. 2013) and Legal Update, Delaware Court of Chancery Holds that Reverse Triangular

Mergers Do Not Trigger "

Assignment by Operation of Law" Provisions).

Texas courts have not directly addressed whether a stock acquisition triggers an anti-

assignment

provision. The Texas Supreme Court, however, held that a stock acquisition was not a sale or

assignment that would trigger a right of first refusal provision where the parties failed to include "change

of control" language (see Tenneco, 925 S.W.2d at 646). In the context of an anti-assignment clause,

this approach is consistent with Delaware law that a stock acquisition generally does not trigger an

anti-

assignment and anti-delegation provision (see Baxter Pharm. Products, Inc. v ESI Lederle Inc.,

1999 WL 160148, at *5 (Del. Ch. 1999)).

Merger-based transactions may or may not implicate anti-

assignment and anti-delegation restrictions,

depending on the type of merger involved and applicable state law. Under Texas law, however, in a

corporate merger of any type, generally:

All rights, title, and interests of a merging party are vested in the surviving entity (or the new entity

created by the merger).

No transfer or assignment occurs.

(Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 10.008(a)(2).)

Although Texas courts have not specifically ruled on the effect of an anti-

assignment and anti-

delegation provision on a reverse triangular merger, like most jurisdictions, they are unlikely to find that a

reverse triangular merger triggers a simple anti-

assignment and anti-delegation clause (see TXO Prod.

Co. v. M.D. Mark, Inc., 999 S.W.2d 137, 143 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)

(holding that a merger of a subsidiary into its parent did not violate an anti-

assignment clause); see also

Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 10.008(a)(2)).

Although an equity purchase or reverse triangular merger generally does not trigger anti-

assignment

provisions, counsel should carefully review applicable contracts for change of control provisions that

may be triggered by the transaction.

In light of § 10.008(a)(2), it is unlikely that a forward or forward triangular merger would trigger a simple

anti-

assignment provision. However, a forward or forward triangular merger might trigger a specifically

worded anti-

assignment and anti-delegation provision that expressly addresses this type of merger or

that contains change of control language. Otherwise, a prohibited transfer is not implied by merger under

Texas law unless the agreement specifically provides that merger violates an anti-

assignment provision

(see M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Nuevo Energy Co., 988 S.W.2d 463, 465 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no

pet.) and TXO Prod. Co., 999 S.W.2d at 143).

Parties should be aware that certain anti-

assignment and anti-delegation provisions may be drafted

broadly to:

Restrict all forms of mergers (including reverse triangular mergers).

Deem a change of control to be an assignment for purposes of the anti-assignment provision.

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Not all states follow the general rule that a reverse triangular merger does not result in an assignment

of assets by operation of law. For example, one California federal district court found that an

assignment or transfer of rights does occur through a change in the legal form of ownership of a

business (see SQL Solutions, Inc. v. Oracle Corp. (N.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 1991) 1991 WL 626458, at *3).

However, another California federal court addressing the issue began from the presumption that a

reverse triangular merger does not effect a transfer of rights (see Florey Institute of Neuroscience and

Mental Health v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (N.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2013) 2013 WL 5402093, at *4-

5).

Corporate Reorganizations

When a company reorganizes its corporate structure, it faces the same transferability issues applicable

to the sale of a business if either or both:

Assets are distributed.

The contracting entity merges into or consolidates with a different entity.

In each of these cases, assets, including

contracts, are transferred as a technical matter, and the law in

some states may treat the underlying event as triggering a transfer (for a discussion of the treatment of

asset transfers and mergers in Texas, see Sale of a Business). Therefore, depending on the details of

the transaction, a

contract transfer may be impermissible, especially if the transferred contract contains

a broadly drafted anti-

assignment and anti-delegation clause (see Box, Transfers by Operation of Law).

An exception may apply, however, when a legal entity converts from one type of business entity into

another type of business entity (for example, when a

limited liability company (LLC) converts into a

corporation).

An increasing number of states, including Texas, have enacted statutes that permit an existing business

entity (typically, a corporation, LLC, or limited partnership) to convert into a different type of business

entity (also typically a corporation, LLC, or limited partnership) (Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 10.101).

While state conversion statutes often differ in their scope (including, for example, whether they apply

equally to domestic and foreign corporations), many conversion statutes deem that:

The original entity's existence continues. (Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 10.106(1)).

No assignment of the converting entity's assets occurs. (Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 10.106(2)

(C)).

Some statutes even include language that expressly states that a converted entity is for all purposes the

same entity that it was before the conversion (see, for example, Del. Code. Ann. tit. 8, § 265).

If a party undertaking a corporate reorganization is concerned about running into

contract transferability

restrictions, it may be able to use a conversion to avoid triggering a restricted asset transfer during the

reorganization process. However, broadly drafted anti-

assignment and anti-delegation language in a

loan agreement, for example, may be triggered even by a conversion and make it necessary to obtain

consent before the conversion can occur (see Loan Agreements). Parties contemplating conversion

should do careful diligence to confirm that their business

contracts will not require prior consent.

For more information on entity conversions, see Entity Conversion Checklist (TX).

Secured Transactions

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

The grant of a security interest to a secured party includes an assignment of the grantor's rights in the

collateral (but not a delegation of obligations). Under UCC Article 9, many commercial contracts that

give one party the right to receive payment of a monetary obligation are likely to be considered accounts

or payment intangibles (a subcategory of

general intangibles). Borrowers and other parties that grant

security interests to lenders and other secured parties may be concerned that the lien granted to the

secured party violates any anti-

assignment clauses in its contracts.

UCC Article 9 eliminates this concern. Under the UCC, an anti-

assignment clause is rendered

ineffective if it attempts to restrict or prevent the grant of a security interest in an account or a general

intangible (Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Ann. §§ 9.406(d) and 9.408(a)).

Therefore, the UCC permits the lender to take a security interest in the asset despite the terms of the

agreement between the grantor and non-assigning party to the

contract. However, while this right to

take a security interest may allow the secured party receive the proceeds of the asset, it may not allow

the secured party to "step into the shoes" of the grantor without the consent of the non-assigning party.

For more information on secured transactions, see Practice Note, UCC Creation, Perfection, and Priority

of Security Interests.

Bankruptcy

Under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor has the power to assume, assign (a term of art that

covers both

assignment and delegation), or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases.

Technically, any transfer to a non-party violates a contractual anti-

assignment and anti-delegation

provision. However, the Bankruptcy Code invalidates contractual anti-assignment clauses in this

context (11 U.S.C. § 365(f)(1)).

While assignability is the general rule,

contracts that are non-transferable without consent under non-

bankruptcy statutory or common law (for example, personal services agreements) are also non-

assignable under bankruptcy law. In these cases, the general rules of assignability apply, even if the

contract does not contain a specific anti-assignment and anti-delegation provision, unless the non-

debtor party consents to the transfer.

For more information on assignability under bankruptcy law, see Practice Note, Executory

Contracts

and Leases: Overview: Anti-

Assignment Clauses.

Transfers by Operation of Law

The law of contract transferability is often more permissive in its treatment of involuntary

transfers, including those transfers categorized as occurring by operation of law. This distinction

is particularly relevant when a

contract has an anti-assignment and anti-delegation clause,

which, for involuntary transfers, is more narrowly construed (see If the Contract Has an

Anti-

Assignment and Anti-Delegation Clause).

Examples of transfers that are generally considered to occur by operation of law include:

Testamentary dispositions.

Court-ordered asset assignments in bankruptcy proceedings (see, for example, B & L

Farms Co. v. United States, 368 F.2d 571, 572 (5th Cir. 1966)).

Court-ordered transfers in divorce proceedings.

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

Assets transferred when a business entity is merged into another business entity.

However, courts do not universally construe this term or consistently rule on whether a particular

transfer by operation of law is permissible. Therefore, to make this determination, the parties

must look to:

State corporate and business entity law.

State contract law.

The precise language of any contractual anti-assignment or anti-delegation provision.

If the Contract is Silent on Transferability

If a transfer has occurred and the contract does not restrict transferability, the general rule

permitting transferability usually applies (see General Rules Governing Assignment and

Delegation). Similar to other types of transfers, courts typically consider the effect of the transfer

on the non-transferring party. This is often a fact-intensive inquiry.

In the business merger context, courts often hold that the transfer is permissible if a merger or

other consolidation or dissolution does not result in a change of beneficial ownership or a change

in the management or affairs of the transferred business, and should therefore not adversely

affect or prejudice the non-transferring party. For a discussion of the treatment of mergers under

Texas law, see Sale of a Business.

For resources addressing the transferability of IP assets in M&A transactions, see Intellectual

Property in M&A Transactions Toolkit.

If the Contract Has an Anti-Assignment and Anti-Delegation Clause

The fact that a contract contains an anti-assignment and anti-delegation clause is not always

determinative. Because courts construe anti-

assignment and anti-delegation clauses narrowly,

many courts permit involuntary transfer of contracts by operation of law, even if the contract

includes a general transfer restriction. In some states, there is no general rule regarding

permissibility of involuntary transfers and the courts take various fact-based approaches. The

leading approaches focus on:

The intent of the parties. Many courts look to the intent of the parties when determining

whether a general transferability restriction covers a particular transfer. Some courts have

held that a general transfer restriction does not indicate the intent to include transfers by

operation of law and only applies to voluntary transfers.

The effect on the non-transferring party. Some courts focus primarily on whether the non-

transferring party was adversely affected by the transfer. If the non-transferring party is not

adversely affected or prejudiced by the

assignment, many courts permit the transfer despite

the presence of the contractual restriction.

Even if a contractual restriction expressly prohibits transfers made by operation of law, the result

may differ, depending on:

The particular type of transaction.

Whether the clause specifies the types of transactions that qualify as occurring by operation

of law.

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) | Practical Law

Assignability of Commercial Contracts (TX) _ Practical Law.html[4/9/2019 3:03:50 PM]

If the anti-assignment and anti-delegation clause expressly restricts a particular type of transfer,

most courts enforce that restriction as the stated intent of the parties. However, when the clause

is left unspecified, results vary for different types of transactions and within different states. In

particular, judicial decisions are inconsistent about whether mergers and other types of

consolidations are voluntary transfers or involuntary transfers by operation of law. While some

courts have addressed this question directly, others apply the same general approach used to

determine whether a general transferability restriction applies (often focusing on the intent of the

parties or the effect on the non-transferring party). For a discussion of the treatment of mergers

under Texas law, see Sale of a Business.

Parties must review appropriate state law to determine the general rule applicable to their

situation. To avoid uncertainty, when drafting and negotiating a contractual anti-

assignment and

anti-delegation clause, they should consider including comprehensive and explicit language to

address this issue. If the clause specifically lists the types of prohibited transfers and permitted

transfers (as exceptions to a general prohibition), courts are more likely to honor the parties'

actual intent (see Drafting Anti-

Assignment and Anti-Delegation Clauses).

RESOURCE ID W-015-5513 DOCUMENT TYPE Practice notes

PRODUCTS

PLC US Commercial Transactions, PLC US Law Department

END OF DOCUMENT

Top