change of control assignment provision

Don’t Confuse Change of Control and Assignment Terms

• David Tollen
• September 11, 2020

An assignment clause governs whether and when a party can transfer the contract to someone else. Often, it covers what happens in a change of control: whether a party can assign the contract to its buyer if it gets merged into a company or completely bought out. But that doesn’t make it a change of control clause. Change of control terms don’t address assignment. They say whether a party can terminate if the other party goes through a merger or other change of control. And they sometimes address other change of control consequences.

Don’t confuse the two. In a contract about software or other IT, you should think through the issues raised by each. (Also, don’t confuse assignment of contracts with assignment of IP .)

Here’s an assignment clause:

Assignment. Neither party may assign this Agreement or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the other’s express written consent, except that either party may assign this Agreement to the surviving party in a merger of that party into another entity or in an acquisition of all or substantially all its assets. No assignment becomes effective unless and until the assignee agrees in writing to be bound by all the assigning party’s obligations in this Agreement. Except to the extent forbidden in this Section __, this Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties’ respective successors and assigns.

As you can see, that clause says no assignment is allowed, with one exception:

• Assignment to Surviving Entity in M&A: Under the clause above, a party can assign the contract to its buyer — the “surviving entity” — if it gets merged into another company or otherwise bought — in other words, if it ceases to exist through an M&A deal (or becomes an irrelevant shell company).

Consider the following additional issues for assignment clauses:

• Assignment to Affiliates: Can a party assign the contract to its sister companies, parents, and/or subs — a.k.a. its “Affiliates”?
• Assignment to Divested Entities: If a party spins off its key department or other business unit involved in the contract, can it assign the contract to that spun-off company — a.k.a. the “divested entity”? That’s particularly important in technology outsourcing deals and similar contracts. They often leave a customer department highly dependent on the provider’s services. If the customer can’t assign the contract to the divested entity, the spin-off won’t work; the new/divested company won’t be viable.
• Assignment to Competitors: If a party does get any assignment rights, can it assign to the other party’s competitors ? (If so, you’ve got to define “Competitor,” since the word alone can refer to almost any company.)
• All Assignments or None: The contract should usually say something about assignments. Otherwise, the law might allow all assignments. (Check your jurisdiction.) If so, your contracting partner could assign your agreement to someone totally unacceptable. (Most likely, though, your contracting partner would remain liable.) If none of the assignments suggested above fits, forbid all assignments.

Change of Control

Here’s a change of control clause:

Change of Control. If a party undergoes a Change of Control, the other party may terminate this Agreement on 30 days’ written notice. (“Change of Control” means a transaction or series of transactions by which more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the target company or beneficial ownership thereof are acquired within a 1-year period, other than by a person or entity that owned or had beneficial ownership of more than 50% of such outstanding shares before the close of such transactions(s).)

• Termination on Change of Control: A party can terminate if controlling ownership of the other party changes hands.

Change of control and assignment terms actually address opposite ownership changes. If an assignment clause addresses change of control, it says what happens if a party goes through an M&A deal and no longer exists (or becomes a shell company). A change of control clause, on the other hand, matters when the party subject to M&A does still exist . That party just has new owners (shareholders, etc.).

Consider the following additional issues for change of control clauses:

• Smaller Change of Ownership: The clause above defines “Change of Control” as any 50%-plus ownership shift. Does that set the bar too high? Should a 25% change authorize termination by the other party, or even less? In public companies and some private ones, new bosses can take control by acquiring far less than half the stock.
• No Right to Terminate: Should a change of control give any right to terminate, and if so, why? (Keep in mind, all that’s changed is the party’s owners — possibly irrelevant shareholders.)
• Divested Entity Rights: What if, again, a party spins off the department or business until involved in the deal? If that party can’t assign the contract to the divested entity, per the above, can it at least “sublicense” its rights to products or service, if it’s the customer? Or can it subcontract its performance obligations to the divested entity, if it’s the provider? Or maybe the contract should require that the other party sign an identical contract with the divested entity, at least for a short term.

Some of this text comes from the 3rd edition of The Tech Contracts Handbook , available to order (and review) from Amazon  here , or purchase directly from its publisher, the American Bar Association, here.

Want to do tech contracts better, faster, and with more confidence? Check out our training offerings here: https://www.techcontracts.com/training/ . Tech Contracts Academy has  options to fit every need and schedule: Comprehensive Tech Contracts M aster Classes™ (four on-line classes, two hours each), topical webinars (typically about an hour), customized in-house training (for just your team).   David Tollen is the founder of Tech Contracts Academy and our primary trainer. An attorney and also the founder of Sycamore Legal, P.C. , a boutique IT, IP, and privacy law firm in the San Francisco Bay Area, he also serves as an expert witness in litigation about software licenses, cloud computing agreements, and other IT contracts.

© 2020, 2022 by Tech Contracts Academy, LLC. All rights reserved.

Thank you to  Pixabay.com  for great, free stock images!

Related Posts

Next live master class series dates announced.

We’re happy to announce our next live Tech Contracts Master Class™ series: Master Class #1 – September 17, 10 AM-12 PM PT: Prime Clauses: License, Subscription, IP Transfer,

David Tollen’s Live Webinars About Technology Contracting – April 16, May 21

Join Tech Contracts Academy’s two remaining live webinars this spring: April 16 – The Indeminar: Indemnities in Contracts about Software, the Cloud, and AI May 21 – IP

Educational videos partnership with Briefly

Tech Contracts Academy and David Tollen have partnered with Adam Stofsky and Briefly Inc. to create a series of short, concise videos, covering contract basics. The videos are

Don’t grant a fault-based indemnity

I think it’s a mistake to indemnify against claims resulting from indemnitor negligence or other wrongdoing. Indemnities against 3rd party claims usually specify the claims

• 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

Experienced and business-oriented attorney with a great depth of contract experience including vendor contracts, service contracts, employment, licenses, operating agreements and other corporate compliance documents.

I have over 25 years' experience representing individual and company clients, large and small, in transactions such as mergers and acquisitions, private offerings of securities, commercial loans and commercial endeavors (supply contracts, manufacturing agreements, joint ventures, intellectual property licenses, etc.). My particular specialty is in complex and novel drafting.

With over 24 years of practice, Chet uses his vast experiences to assist his clients in the most efficient manner possible. Chet is a magna cum laude graduate of University of Miami School of Law with an extensive background in Business Law, Commercial Real Estate, Corporate Law, Leasing Law and Telecommunications Law. Chet's prior experience includes 5 years at two of the top law firms in Georgia and 16 years of operating his own private practice.

Steve Clark has been practicing law in DFW since 1980. He is licensed in both Texas and Louisiana state and federal courts. He concentrates his practice on business clients and their needs. He has been a SuperLawyer in Texas since 2011, and is Lead Counsel rated in Business Law. He is also a Bet the Company litigator in Texas.

I am a top-performing bi-lingual legal services professional with a proven record of success. Reputation of assessing and evaluating client’s needs and providing individualized solutions in line with those needs while efficiently handling multiple tasks simultaneously. Able to create a collaborative work environment ensuring business objectives are consistently met. Seeking an attorney role within a legal setting to apply skills in critical thinking, executive communications, and client advocacy.

I run a small law firm in Pasadena, CA. I have been practicing for almost 10 years and the other attorneys at my firm each have 12+ years of experience. We focus on business and employment law, protecting and defending business owners. While my clients are all sizes, I particularly enjoy helping smaller companies and individuals manage their legal needs without the high price tag.

Find the best lawyer for your project

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

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

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

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Business immigration
• Civil Fraud
• Data protection & privacy
• Dispute resolution
• Employment & HRLaw
• Financial services regulatory
• Intellectual property
• Internal investigations
• International
• International Arbitration
• Partnerships & LLPs
• Real estate
• Regulatory & white-collar defence
• Securities Litigation
• Tax & incentives
• Technology & online
• Financial services
• Professional services
• Publishing & digital media

Home / Insights

Change of Control Provisions

• News & deals
• Webinars on demand
• opens a new window

A key goal of a buyer’s due diligence investigation during the course of an M&A deal will be to satisfy itself that on completion of the deal, the buyer will receive the benefit of contracts that the acquired entity ( “TargetCo” ) has with third parties (i.e. suppliers, customers, etc).

Where third party contracts contain a change of control provision, one potential consequence is that following the purchase of TargetCo, the supplier or customer chooses to terminate the contract and will no longer be required to perform its obligations under the said contract. This can cause disruption in terms of trading and/or even reduce the value of TargetCo (i.e. where it applies to a top revenue-generating customer of TargetCo). This will obviously be of great concern to the buyer.

Change of control provisions are only relevant for share purchase acquisitions. On asset purchase acquisitions, there is no change of legal ownership in TargetCo, as instead the assets themselves are transferring to the buyer. As such, the contracts will need to be assigned or novated, and the buyer will be concerned with securing the consent of the relevant third parties to effect this.

But what exactly are change of control provisions, and how should they be dealt with?

Common change of control provisions

Simply put, a change of control provision is a clause in a contract which gives the counterparty a specific right or entitlement (and sometimes a get-out-of-jail-free card) with respect to the contract with TargetCo, in the event that there is a change in the ownership of TargetCo. This may include, for example:

• an entitlement for the counterparty to receive notice from TargetCo in the event of a change of control; and/or
• a right for the counterparty to terminate the contract upon the sale and purchase of TargetCo. 

Where (2.) applies, the contract does not usually terminate automatically, but rather there is a right to terminate. Alternatively, the customer or supplier may make use of its right to terminate by attempting to re-negotiate the existing terms and conditions of the contract with TargetCo, to reach a position where it feels more comfortable with the incoming buyer.

The rationale behind such a change of control provision is to protect the supplier or customer from unwanted changes to the ownership of TargetCo. Its new owner may install a new and unfamiliar management team, or it may change the way TargetCo carries out its business. Alternatively, the new owner may turn out to be a competitor of the customer or supplier.

What constitutes a change of control will ultimately depend on how the provision is defined in that particular contract. There are a few common types of change of control provisions, which are outlined below.

• Direct – This is the most straightforward type of change of control provision, and it will generally be triggered where there is any change in the controlling interest of TargetCo. 
• Indirect – If TargetCo has a subsidiary, any change in the controlling interest of TargetCo may trigger a change of control clause in a contract between that subsidiary and a third party. This is because the ownership of the entity which ultimately controls the subsidiary (i.e. TargetCo) has changed.
• Contingent – Whether or not there is a change of control will be contingent on a specific triggering condition, e.g. where the controlling interest in TargetCo has been transferred to a competitor of the counterparty.

How to deal with change of control provisions

During the due diligence phase of the transaction, buyers should pay close attention to any change of control provisions contained in contracts between TargetCo and its major customers and suppliers. Where change of control provisions are spotted in contracts with major customers or suppliers of TargetCo, it would be prudent to obtain consent from the counterparty in question to the change of control, or seek a waiver of the counterparty’s right to terminate the contract prior to the purchase of TargetCo.

Timing will also be an issue to be considered, as the parties will not want to disclose the potential purchase of TargetCo to major customers or suppliers too early (i.e. in case the deal doesn’t go through, for reasons of confidentiality, etc). Ideally, third party consents/waivers should be obtained as close as possible to the exchange of contracts, and once the other terms of the deal have been agreed.

Follow us online

• linkedin - opens a new window
• twitter - opens a new window
• youtube - opens a new window

Popular insights

A key goal of a buyer’s due diligence investigation during the course of an M&A deal will be to satisfy itself that...

Data subject access requests – what about employees’ personal mobiles?

Introduction Employers can be forgiven for groaning every time an employee data subject access request (DSAR) lands on t...

Direct(or) responsibility: 10 ways a director could be held personally liable in 2022

A recently published case has shone a new light on the well-known fact of English company law – that a company has its o...

Related legal expertise

Need more information about the above people and legal expertise? Talk to one of our lawyers: +44 (0)20 7628 2000

Privacy Overview

Difference Between Assignment, Novation and a Change of Control Clause

By Stephanie Mee Lawyer

Updated on October 14, 2022 Reading time: 5 minutes

This article meets our strict editorial principles. Our lawyers, experienced writers and legally trained editorial team put every effort into ensuring the information published on our website is accurate. We encourage you to seek independent legal advice. Learn more .

What is the Right of Assignment?

What is novation.

• What is a “Change of Control”?

How Do They Differ?

Key takeaways, frequently asked questions.

Contractual rights, obligations and performance are all essential factors of any contract landscape. Identifying the parties and their responsibilities are the key building blocks of any commercial arrangement. As a result, the rights of assignment, novation and what to do in the case of a change of control all influence the architecture of your contract. 

As a business owner entering commercial contracts, knowing what these terms mean is vital. This article will explore the differences between e ach clause and their impact on your contract.

The right of assignment arises as a boilerplate clause in most contracts. This means that it is generally included as standard wording and is not usually subject to much rewording. 

Typically, the right of assignment will look like the following:

A Party must not assign or deal with the whole or any part of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party (such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld).

The effect is that you can assign certain rights under the contract to someone else with written consent. For example, the right to be paid a debt owed could be assigned to a third party, perhaps if that third party was wronged (such as in the case where the third party’s intellectual property rights were infringed). 

However, assignment is limited in that only rights can be assigned, not responsibilities . For example, you cannot assign another party the actual obligation to perform the contract. 

On the other hand, the right to novation allows for the transfer of responsibility or liability. That is, if you no longer wish to or are no longer able to perform the contract, you could novate it to a third party. 

Imagine that you are being replaced by a third party, cut out of the contract and a third party put in your place with access to your rights and burdens. Even though novation only needs to deal with the burdens of a contract, it will typically handle the whole arrangement.

As a result, novation does not occur only between two parties. A ll three parties subject to this change must be involved and sign off on the change. Typically, y ou will use a deed , and all three parties to the change must sign and acknowledge that one party is stepping out, allowing another to step in. 

What is a “Change of Control”?

A ‘change of control’ is another clause that affects who is a party to a contract and who has responsibilities for its rights and obligations. It is common to find this kind of clause in your contracts as a boilerplate or a general mention . 

A change of control refers to the make-up of a contracting party. It looks at the ownership structure of the other business contracting with you and states that if there is a significant change in the legal ownership and control of that party, you can legally exit the contract. 

It may look something like this: 

We shall have the right to terminate, without prejudice to our other rights and remedies, with 30 days written notice to you if there is a Change of Control. 

Your business might find this clause beneficial if you are seeking to:

• preserve and recognise an existing close business relationship with the other party;
• avoid the outcome where a competitor or potential competitor comes into ownership of the other party; 
• avoid specific risks that may be posed by certain companies or groups. 

Notably, not just any change to a counterparty constitutes a change of control. In contracts, a change of control will often be defined with reference to the Corporations Act . In this legislation, a change of control has occurred when another entity has the capacity to determine the outcomes of decisions for the counterparty, particularly financial and operating decisions. Other contracts will specify that there has to be a change of 50% of the counterparty’s board or ownership. 

Both assignment and novation deal with how rights and obligations under a contract are transferred. A change of control addresses changes to the parties themselves, even as they remain linked to the rights and obligations. 

In broad terms: 

• assignment deals with transferring a benefit or right to another party; 
• novation deals with transferring a burden (and often everything else in the contract) to another party; and
• change of control deals with who the counterparty is and whether you feel comfortable continuing your commercial relationship with them, even if their ownership or leadership changes. 

Before sending electronic messages, learn how your business can comply with the Spam Act with our free Spam Consent Factsheet.

A contract is built on several key building blocks, including who the parties are and t heir responsib ilities . The rights of assignment, novation and a change of control aim to address changes to these key building blocks. They a im to give boundaries to who can be a party to the contract and t heir obligations.  

For more information about your commercial contract, our experienced contract lawyers can assist you as part of our LegalVision membership. For a low monthly fee, you will have unlimited access to lawyers to answer your questions and draft and review your documents. Call us today on 1300 544 755 or visit our membership page .

Before you assign or novate, you will want to consider whether the new party can properly benefit from whatever you assign to them, or perform the obligations you intend to novate. You may also want to consider the work that has already been completed and who will be liable for that prior work. Likewise, think about how you will manage other agreements attached to the contract.

Generally, this is interpreted broadly and given a common-sense meaning. It will very much depend on the particular arrangement, the nature of the contract and the benefit being assigned. A consideration of what is reasonable may also look to defaults in obligations or solvency issues of the assignee.

We appreciate your feedback – your submission has been successfully received.

Register for our free webinars

Accc enforcement and priorities: key takeaways for in-house counsel, sponsoring overseas workers for your hospitality business, safeguarding vulnerable clients: mandatory ndis & in-home aged care reporting, tips for sponsoring overseas workers for ndis and aged care, contact us now.

Fill out the form and we will contact you within one business day

Related articles

What Tenants Need to Know About Change in Control Provisions

Penalties for Unfair Contract Terms 

What is a Deed of Variation?

Can I Sign Contracts Electronically During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

We’re an award-winning law firm

2023 Fast Firms - Australasian Lawyer

2022 Law Firm of the Year - Australasian Law Awards

2021 Law Firm of the Year - Australasian Law Awards

2020 Excellence in Technology & Innovation Finalist - Australasian Law Awards

2020 Employer of Choice Winner - Australasian Lawyer

Why and How to Add a Change of Control Clause to Contracts

Contracts are inherently risky, and a number of things  can go wrong that may result in a costly contract dispute . Of course, there may be a change in circumstances that is not even addressed in a contract, and thus contesting any such unwanted change is not even a possibility, or perhaps there is only a remote chance of success in the courtroom. One rather significant change that is quite likely to occur and yet not often addressed in contracts is a change in the structure or ownership of one of the parties to the contract. Companies are bought, sold, and merged all of the time, but contracts are often silent as to the impact that such a change should or will have on the existing contract. This is obviously a mistake as a change in ownership may cause changes, both intentional or inadvertent, to the established arrangement. For example, a newly formed entity may change vendors or subcontract with new parties, situations in which the nature, quality, or timing of contractual obligations is altered.

But, this potential scenario is easily avoided by simply including a provision in a contract that explicitly details how the contract must be treated in the event of a change in control. For example, a company may wish to render the contract void if the other party to the deal undergoes a change in ownership. This may be an extreme choice, but there has to be predetermined options clearly written into the agreement. Here is how to include a change of control clause in business contracts:

Identify Problematic Changes

The first step is to identify the types of changes that your company may consider problematic to a contract as it stands. For some companies, a change in ownership may not be a big deal. However, in some instances, the contract may be very specific or address a unique product or service, and thus it may be difficult to replicate the terms with a new entity. Of course, some companies simply may not want to deal with the hassle of getting to know new leaders if one of its contracting partners is acquired or take the risk that the new management will not be a good fit. Ultimately, when a company enters into a contract with another firm, it must determine the circumstances under which it would not want to continue the contract as originally negotiated and drafted.

Differentiate Between an Assignment and Change of Control

A lot of contracts forbid an assignment, which prevents one or both parties from assigning its rights and obligations under the contract to a new party. This may seem like it covers a change of control, but it does not as an assignment is a specific action taken. A change in control clause must specifically address how the contract is to be handled if or when the other party to the agreement undergoes a specific type of change to its structure and/or ownership. A robust contract will include distinct yet detailed clauses with respect to both assignments and changes of control.

Negotiate Requirements

It is always possible that the change of control issue will not even come to fruition. Thus, rather than get bogged down in trying to avoid this situation, it may be possible to negotiate some requirements in the event that it does in fact occur. For example, your company may seek to include some kind of permission process during which the other side seeks consent to make the change and maintain the contract or provide some form of payment as compensation for the change. Obviously, retaining the right to terminate the contract affords the most protection, but whether this is needed really depends on the type of agreement at stake. 

Take full control of your contract portfolio end-to-end with ContractWorks contract lifecycle management software . 

The Buyer's Guide to Contract Management Software

Identify the solutions you need effectively manage contracts and reduce risk.

Most read articles:

Ready to take control of your contracts.

Subscribe to The Official ContractWorks Blog

Get the latest contract management news, tips, and more

Get in Touch

866 636 6429

UK & Europe:

+44 (0)20 3983 5330

[email protected]

United States:

866 700 7975

International:

+1 866 700 7975

[email protected]

Head Office

1360 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2200 Houston, TX 77056

• Partner Program
• Resources Library
• Help Center
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 All rights reserved.

• Practical Law

Change of Control Clause

Practical law glossary item 0-382-3325  (approx. 3 pages).

• United States

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

Private Equity

Watch your inbox.

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

Change of Control Clause Commercial Contract

A change of control clause commercial contract is needed when a buyer wants to buy a company. 4 min read updated on February 01, 2023

A change of control clause commercial contract is needed when a buyer wants to buy a company. Boilerplate clauses are usually found at the bottom of a contract. These clauses are often viewed as dry, basic, and legalistic, but they are extremely important. In fact, for large companies, the boilerplate clause in an IP contract is essential to the company's valuation. The two clauses in a boilerplate that are of the utmost value are the change of control and the assignment clauses.

When Will a Change of Control Clause Be Needed?

It is not uncommon for new technology companies to run out of money before they hit success. Because of this, these companies need to have the ability to react quickly to opportunities that allow them to partner with corporate companies. Such opportunities may include:

• Trade sales,
• Joint ventures,
• Stock market flotations,
• Acquisitions .

When these opportunities become available, the startup will need to prove its market value. The value of a startup is normally based on its products. The two main assets of the company will be its intellectual property and any contracts that impact the development of its intellectual property licenses.

When a corporate transaction takes place and the IP contract does not survive, then the value of the transaction for the acquirer is zero. This is often seen during acquisitions. When the IP contract is paramount to the value of a company, this could indicate that the company has little to no value. The acquirer will have a lawyer, and this professional will conduct due diligence to scrutinize the value of the contracts.

Why Are Assignment Clauses Important?

When there is an assignment clause in a contract, this indicates whether one of the parties has the right to delegate a part of the contract to a third party. In some instances, the contract will state that one party can transfer part of the contract to someone who wants to buy the business; this is always preferred by someone who is wanting to take part in an asset sale. When this part of the contract is missing, the ability to transfer the contract to a purchaser may not be possible.

Commercial contracts often include some type of assignment clause. It's also important to include a change of control clause in a commercial contract. This clause will determine whether or not a third party can terminate the contract in the event that there is a change of control regarding who owns the company, or if there is a change in who has control of the company.

Much of the time, deal lawyers will explain their services to clients as being mergers and acquisitions . However, when a deal takes place, it is usually structured as an asset sale.

When an equity sale takes place, this means the person buying the equity is taking over the equity from the owner. When it is a corporation, the purchaser is taking over the stock. When it is a limited liability company, the purchaser is taking over the membership interests of the company. When a new person takes control of a company, the company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary. The status of the company is not usually changed in the eyes of the public.

What Is an Asset Sale?

When an asset sale takes place, only certain assets are transferred to the buyer. If all assets are going to be transferred, this must be stated in the contract. Much of the time, equity in the company will still remain owned by its equity holders. In some instances, though, some of the liabilities of the company will be switched over to be controlled by the new owner.

It is not uncommon for contracts to include an anti-assignment provision or clause. It is always important for a buyer to read through an entire contract before signing it. A lot of the time, if there are provisions or clauses that the buyer does not agree with, the buyer and seller can come together to work on some type of negotiation.

What Happens When There Is No Change of Control Clause?

When a seller doesn't include a change of control clause, a buyer will usually refuse to sign the contract. The buyer wants to know how they can delegate control of the company and whether or not they can sell it at a future time. Without a change of control clause, the buyer will normally alert the seller that they need to renegotiate the terms of the contract.

If you need help with a change of control clause commercial contract, you can post your legal need (or post your job) 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

• Common Contract Clauses
• Boilerplate Clauses In Commercial Contracts
• Contract Clause Examples
• What is a Clause in a Contract
• Contract Clauses Explained
• Contract Clause Template
• Standard Clauses In A Contract
• Entire Contract Clause
• Boilerplate Legal Documents
• Change of Control Provision

• 610.820.5450 Se habla español
• Contact Us For Consultation
• Make a Payment

Including a “Change of Control” Clause in Business Contracts

You’ve searched for the right business partner and have finally found the one you think will be right. You are prepared to promise a term of 6 years with 2 optional renewal periods of 1 year each. What could go wrong? For one thing, the people who run or own the business can change. Even after diligently researching and evaluating the party to which you are obligating your business by contract, you may risk having to deal with another party in the future. The “counter-party,” may transfer all or some of its assets or stock in the business to a third-party, leaving you to deal with a new partner, who you don’t know, or who might potentially even be a competitor of yours. What can you do?

Many contracts contain an anti-assignment clause, which prohibits the parties from assigning their rights or obligations under the contract to another party. In addition, contracts should, but often do not, have a “Change of Control” clause, allowing you to have recourse (even termination) if the partner that you’re doing business with changes in ownership or structure. In the case of an asset sale by that party, for example, you might not want to be doing business with a shell of a company that has sold a dramatic portion of its assets or those parts of its business that are most important to you. Having the right to terminate the contract in the event of a sale of particular assets, a particular percentage of assets, or a particular line of business, protects your interests. Stock sales, which can occur without your knowledge, can result in ownership of the business being altered dramatically; the transfer of the business could even be made to one of your competitors. It’s important for you to know of such proposed transactions in advance and take steps to protect your business.

For this reason, among others, contract drafters will include a Change-of-Control provision which allows a party to determine if and how he would like to continue to do business in the event of a change of ownership, change of management, or change in the assets of the other party. This can stand alone or be a part of the assignability section. When drafting a Change of Control provision, make sure you:

• Address assignability.
• Define the kind of change that you fear the most.   Is it the transfer by a counter-party of a certain percentage of ownership or interest? The sale of “all or substantially all of the assets” of the counter-party? Maybe a change in the make-up of the governing board?  This is a good time to examine and define the affiliates of your counter-party. Depending on how much ownership they have in common with the original party to the agreement, changes of control involving affiliates may not affect operations significantly.
• Determine the type of control you require.  Should you require your counter-party to obtain your consent? Provide payment? Give you the right to terminate the contract if you decide you do not want to do business with the third-party.

For more information about particular contract clauses that help you protect your business interests, contact us today.

About the authors:

Attorney Paul McGinley practices business and commercial law , counseling small and large business clients in a variety of industries.

Attorney Nicole O’Hara regularly negotiates contracts for the commercialization of intellectual property and other business agreements.

The content found in this resource is for informational reference use only and is not considered legal advice. Laws at all levels of government change frequently and the information found here may be or become outdated. It is recommended to consult your attorney for the most up-to-date information regarding current laws and legal matters.

Samuel Cohen Recognized at Lehigh Valley Finest Under Forty Honoree Reception

Updates to Pennsylvania UCC Part II

Copyright © 2021 Gross McGinley LLP. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy/Disclaimer and Terms of Use   |   Secure File Share   | Benefits | Sitemap

Change of Control Clause

Practical law glossary item 0-382-3325  (approx. 3 pages).

• USA (National/Federal)

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

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

Introduction.

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

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

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

Understanding Anti-Assignment Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

i) Asset Purchases

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

ii) Share Purchases

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

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

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

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

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

Assignments by Operation of Law

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

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

Difference Between Mergers and Amalgamations

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5] MTA Canada Royalty Corp .

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

Jeffrey K. Merk

• [email protected]
• T 416.865.7768
• C 416.722.7988

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

Liam Tracey-Raymont

• [email protected]
• T 416.865.3964

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

Gary Volman

• [email protected]
• T 647.426.2799

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

Christian Nianiaris

• [email protected]
• T 647.426.2810

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

Joshua Ward

• [email protected]
• T 416.863.1500

Related Areas of Expertise

• Capital Markets
• Mergers & Acquisitions
• International Transactions

Related publications

Creditors rejoice: ontario court of appeal confirms summary judgment is ‘tailor-made’ to enforce liquidated claims, know the limit, play within it: restrictive covenants in canada, budget 2024: capital gains inclusion rate to increase.

Guides & Studies

Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions

Learn from Kira’s team of over 25 veteran lawyers, working with the cutting-edge of legal tech. This 40-page guide will help you understand:

• What change of control and assignment provisions are
• How they apply to different transactional structures
• How notice provisions apply in relation to these clauses
• How to effectively deal with issues stemming from these provisions
• What to include in a diligence chart
• Sample clauses

Sign up for your free download

By submitting this request, you agree to Litera and Kira Systems using your contact information to communicate information about Kira Systems’ solutions and Litera services and offerings. We will likely need to transfer your data to locations outside the jurisdiction in which you provide it or where you are viewing our website. You may review our privacy policy or opt-out by contacting Kira Systems.

Change of control and assignment provisions are not always heavily negotiated, but the importance of reviewing and analyzing them carefully during due diligence cannot be overstated. Early identification of critical target company contracts and careful analysis of these clauses are essential so that the parties can develop effective strategies for addressing any issues that could put at risk the intended value or timing of a transaction.

This eBook aims to facilitate this process by describing the major variations in these provisions, the rationales behind their construction, and how they operate under different transaction structures (e.g., asset sales, stock sales, mergers, spinoffs).

Kira’s team of veteran lawyers present this comprehensive and practical guide to the critical process of reviewing change of control and assignment provisions in due diligence.

Trusted by the world's largest Law, Commercial, IT and Professional Service firms

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 .

• 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

Change in Control Contract Clauses (3,258)

Grouped into 90 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

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

US poised to ease restrictions on marijuana in historic shift, but it’ll remain controlled substance

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple effects across the country.

FILE - In this Friday, March 22, 2019, file photo, a marijuana plant is visible at Compassionate Care Foundation’s medical marijuana dispensary in Egg Harbor Township, N.J. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple-effects across the country. The DEA’s proposal still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, The Associated Press has learned, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple effects across the country.

The proposal, which still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. However, it would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use.

The agency’s move, confirmed to the AP on Tuesday by five people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive regulatory review, clears the last significant regulatory hurdle before the agency’s biggest policy change in more than 50 years can take effect.

Once OMB signs off, the DEA will take public comment on the plan to move marijuana from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD. It moves pot to Schedule III, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids, following a recommendation from the federal Health and Human Services Department. After the public comment period and a review by an administrative judge, the agency would eventually publish the final rule.

“Today, the Attorney General circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III,” Justice Department director of public affairs Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement. The DEA is a component of the Department of Justice. “Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s signature throws the full weight of the Justice Department behind the move and appears to signal its importance to the Biden administration.

It comes after President Joe Biden called for a review of federal marijuana law in October 2022 and moved to pardon thousands of Americans convicted federally of simple possession of the drug. He has also called on governors and local leaders to take similar steps to erase marijuana convictions.

“Criminal records for marijuana use and possession have imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities,” Biden said in December. “Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It’s time that we right these wrongs.”

The election year announcement could help Biden, a Democrat, boost flagging support, particularly among younger voters .

Biden and a growing number of lawmakers from both major political parties have been pushing for the DEA decision as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted, particularly by younger people. A Gallup poll last fall found 70% of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly 30% who backed it in 2000.

The DEA didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

Schedule III drugs are still controlled substances and subject to rules and regulations, and people who traffic in them without permission could still face federal criminal prosecution.

Some critics argue the DEA shouldn’t change course on marijuana, saying rescheduling isn’t necessary and could lead to harmful side effects.

Jack Riley, a former deputy administrator of the DEA, said he had concerns about the proposed change because he thinks marijuana remains a possible “gateway drug,” one that may lead to the use of other drugs.

“But in terms of us getting clear to use our resources to combat other major drugs, that’s a positive,” Riley said, noting that fentanyl alone accounts for more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. a year.

On the other end of the spectrum, others argue marijuana should be treated the way alcohol is.

“While this rescheduling announcement is a historic step forward, I remain strongly committed to continuing to work on legislation like the SAFER Banking Act as well as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which federally deschedules cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act,” Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said in a statement. “Congress must do everything we can to end the federal prohibition on cannabis and address longstanding harms caused by the War on Drugs.”

Federal drug policy has lagged behind many states in recent years, with 38 having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use .

That’s helped fuel fast growth in the marijuana industry, with an estimated worth of nearly $30 billion. Easing federal regulations could reduce the tax burden that can be 70% or more for businesses, according to industry groups. It could also make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances.

The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation’s criminal justice system would likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years.

But loosening restrictions could carry a host of unintended consequences in the drug war and beyond.

Critics point out that as a Schedule III drug, marijuana would remain regulated by the DEA. That means the roughly 15,000 cannabis dispensaries in the U.S. would have to register with the DEA like regular pharmacies and fulfill strict reporting requirements, something that they are loath to do and that the DEA is ill equipped to handle.

Then there’s the United States’ international treaty obligations, chief among them the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which requires the criminalization of cannabis. In 2016, during the Obama administration, the DEA cited the U.S.’ international obligations and the findings of a federal court of appeals in Washington in denying a similar request to reschedule marijuana.

Goodman reported from Miami, Mustian from New Orleans. AP writer Colleen Long contributed.