ban on assignment clause

Secured Transactions Law Reform Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNDERSTANDING THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS

Contracts, generally, are freely assignable i.e., either party can freely transfer one’s obligations or rights to a third party. This is what an assignment clause signifies. An assignment is a transfer of

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

FORMS OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

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

It may take the following forms-

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

IMPORTANCE OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

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

SCOPE OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

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

Examples of the use of the Anti-Assignment Clause

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

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

ENFORCEABILITY OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

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

MERITS OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

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

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

DEMERITS OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

• 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.

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

• Events & Webinars
• News & Insights
• GCs & In-house
• International
• Diversity & Inclusion
• The Environment
• Wider Society

Our Clients

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

Receivables Finance: the prohibition on assignment is now in force

18th January 2019

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

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

The main areas of concern were that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical application

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Government restricts bans on assignment

United Kingdom |  Publication |  November 2018

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

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

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

What types of contracts do the Regulations apply to?

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

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

What is the effect of the Regulations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Financial institutions

Practice area:

• Banking and finance

Recent publications

Publication

Taiwan: Competition law fact sheet

Main features of the law - Prohibition on restrictive agreements, concerted practices, abuses of a dominant position, unfair trade practices and M&A activities that restrict competition in Taiwan.

Global | August 30, 2024

Keeping your dawn raid guidance current

Unannounced inspections or ‘dawn raids’ are used by antitrust authorities to obtain evidence when there are suspicions that individuals or businesses have infringed the antitrust rules.

Global | August 29, 2024

Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd - Proportionate liability in arbitration

In this legal update, we offer our top three key takeaways following this decision, including important questions to be considered when negotiating dispute resolution clauses, especially where the nature of the transaction is likely to result in multi-party disputes.

Australia | August 29, 2024

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

© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023

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

Are Anti-Assignment Clauses Enforceable?

Written by: Brittainy Boessel

July 22, 2020

8 minute read

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

What Is Assignment?

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

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

What is an Anti-Assignment Clause?

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

Anti-Assignment Language to Look for in a Contract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In general, assignment is not enforceable when:

• The contract prohibits and voids assignment

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

• The assignment materially changes the contract

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

• The assignment violates the law

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

• The assignment violates public policy

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

Negotiating Anti-Assignment Clauses

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

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

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

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

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

• Require consent always

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

• Don’t require consent for affiliates or successors

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

• Require consent to be given reasonably

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

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

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

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

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more about what we do with these cookies in our privacy policy .

Ban on assignment clauses: views from the coalface

• September 2015

• The University of Warwick
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• Carlotta Rinaldo
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Related Content

• practice notes (4)

Ban on assignment definition

What does ban on assignment mean.

Clause in a contract of sale which prohibits a client from assigning the performance of the contract or just the right to receive payment.

View the related practice notes about Ban on assignment

Small business, enterprise and employment act 2015 (sbeea 2015) for finance lawyers [archived].

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not updated. It is for background information only.IntroductionDespite its name, the provisions of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (SBEEA 2015) are of general application to companies in the UK and not only to small-to-medium enterprises. While the SBEEA 2015 relates mostly to corporate matters and companies' administration, some provisions may impact on certain aspects of financing transactions, which finance practitioners should be aware of. These include:•the abolition of bearer shares•empowering provisions to nullify any ban on invoice assignment•varying the powers of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD)•changes to the powers of administrators and liquidators which may have an effect on insolvency and restructuring practices•streamlining public procurement practices, and•changes to company administrationThe SBEEA 2015 received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015 and will be implemented in various stages. For a full timetable of the dates on which various provisions are coming into force, see Practice Note: The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act—company law reforms [Archived].Bearer sharesBearer shares (or...

Key concepts and terminology in receivables finance and asset-based lending

Key concepts and terminology in receivables finance and asset-based lending This Practice Note explains the key concepts and terminology used in receivables finance and asset-based lending. It covers: • the terminology surrounding the key parties in receivables finance and asset-based lending • the types of facility and documentation used in receivables finance and asset-based lending transactions • the key terminology in receivables finance and asset-based lending • the key legal concepts in receivables finance and asset-based lending being assignment, fixed and floating charges, retention of title and cross border issues, and • the key cases which are relevant to taking security over receivables Parties—terminology In the UK, a receivables facility is typically structured as a receivables purchase facility which can either take the form of an invoice discounting facility or a factoring facility (see Practice Note: Invoice discounting and factoring). It is also possible to provide a loan secured against the value of receivables but this is much less common in the UK. There are fundamental differences...

Discover our 4 Practice Notes on Ban on assignment

View the related News about Ban on assignment

The business contract terms (assignment of receivables) regulations 2018 and the construction industry.

Construction analysis: Stephen Rockhill, partner in the construction and engineering team at Stevens & Bolton, considers what impact the Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018 (the Regulations) could have on the construction industry if passed into law.

Invoice finance—nullifying the ban on invoice assignment contract clauses

Commercial analysis: Following a recent consultation, the government is to ban invoice assignment clauses in business-to-business contracts, whereby large businesses can exclude mainly small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) suppliers who use the alternative finance tool to manage their cashflow. Jeff Longhurst, chief executive officer of the Asset Based Finance Association (ABFA), examines the background to the consultation and the future legislative reforms.

Read the latest 6 News articles on Ban on assignment

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Access this content for free with a 7 day trial of LexisNexis and benefit from:

• Instant clarification on points of law
• Smart search
• Workflow tools
• 41 practice areas

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

"It gives us a really broad coverage of the law, as well as the specialist areas we have to deal with: contracting, procurement, employment law, governance. I've found some fairly obscure case law on LexisLibrary, very quickly."

Walsall Council

Access all documents on Ban on assignment

0330 161 1234

• International Sales(Includes Middle East)
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Philippines
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• United States

Popular Links

• Supplier Payment Terms
• Partner Alliance Programme

HELP & SUPPORT

• Legal Help and Support
• Tolley Tax Help and Support

LEGAL SOLUTIONS

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

• Browse by Year
• Browse by Subject
• Advanced Search

Ban on assignment clauses: views from the coalface

Beale, Hugh , Gullifer, Louise and Paterson, Sarah (2015) Ban on assignment clauses: views from the coalface. Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, 30 (8). pp. 463-466. ISSN 0269-2694

Summarises the findings of two qualitative studies assessing the effect of ban on assignment (BoA) clauses in trade receivables financing. Reviews the law applicable to the assignment of receivables to a financier, noting uncertainty over the effect of a BoA clause. Considers whether BoAs in supply contracts adversely affect the availability of finance to small businesses and result in the use of workarounds, thereby increasing the cost of finance

Actions (login required)

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Invoice finance: nullifying the ban on invoice assignment contract clauses

Read the full outcome, government response: nullification of ban on invoice assignment clauses.

Ref: BIS/15/441

PDF , 209 KB , 3 pages

Detail of outcome

We plan to stop bans on invoice assignment clauses in business to business contracts. These powers are granted to us through the Small Business, Employment and Enterprise Act 2015 .

Feedback received

Summary of responses to the nullification of ban on invoice assignment clauses.

PDF , 201 KB , 13 pages

Detail of feedback received

We received 20 responses to the consultation. These mainly came from:

• business representative bodies
• invoice financiers and law practitioners

We also had some responses from large businesses in the retail and construction industry. A full list of respondents is available in Annex A of the summary of responses.

Original consultation

We’re asking for views on our proposals to nullify bans on invoice assignment terms in business to business commercial contracts.

This consultation ran from 9am on 6 December 2014 to 11:45pm on 11 February 2015

Consultation description

Invoice finance allows a business to give the right to future payment to a finance provider in exchange for a loan up to the full value of the invoice. It can provide a vital source of finance if a business has to wait a long time between completing a job and receiving payment.

The ban on invoice assignment is often part of a more general ban on an assignment clause in the contract to stop a supplier from sub-contracting. As a result, a business’ access to invoice finance is often unintentionally restricted.

In December 2013, we published our discussion paper Building a responsible payment culture . This asked whether removing contractual barriers to selling invoices would be helpful to small businesses by increasing their access to different finance options. The majority of respondents agreed that it would be helpful.

We announced in the government response that we would legislate to remove these barriers to financing. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill provide the broad legislative power to do this.

We propose to introduce a regulation that would nullify any bans on invoice assignment terms in business to business commercial contracts. We want to know your views on our proposals, the draft regulations and the costs and benefits of the measure on both companies and the invoice finance market.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill: nullification of ban on invoice assignment clauses

Ref: BIS/14/1232

PDF , 240 KB , 19 pages

Draft Statutory Instrument: Business Contract Terms (Restrictions on Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2015

Ref: BIS/14/1232/AN1

PDF , 181 KB , 2 pages

Measure to nullify ban on assignment clauses in a debtors terms of sale: impact assessment

Ref: BIS/14/1233

PDF , 982 KB , 47 pages

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

• Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Updates to this page

Added government response.

A summary of public responses has been added.

Consultation closing date corrected (from 16 to 11 Feb 2015).

First published.

Sign up for emails or print this page

Related content, is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

• BOOK NOW - The Complete Recruiter Course in just 28 days
• SHARE THIS: The Complete Resourcer Course in just 14 days
• Do you recognise these Recruitment Ethics Champions?

Banning “Ban on Assignment” clauses

Recruitment Business directors, you find me on the verge of getting professionally excited again

Newsdesk Legal News , Friday 07 June 2019 Jump to Comments (1) 564 Views

Yes, this draft bill proposes that ban on assignment clauses become ineffective. This can only be good news to agency recruiters, RPOs, clients, solicitors, and Invoice Discounters.

For anyone out there who hasn’t had the delight of reviewing one of these clauses in a client contract for agency recruitment, it currently means that if the Recruitment Business uses an Invoice Discounting (“ID”) facility, any invoice raised as a consequence of a contract with a ban on assignment clause in it won’t be assigned to their ID facility provider.

The big RPOs are the worst culprits for using ban on assignment clauses. Most of the time the requirement for these clauses is passed down from the client, which can determine how negotiable they are. If the RPO and/or the end client won’t remove the clause, it can mean the Recruitment Business can’t raise finance against any invoices raised under that contract.

Obviously this will impact on cash flow if the Recruitment Business has to pay the contractor before the client has paid the RPO who has paid the Recruitment Business. Add a “pay when paid” clause into that mix and you’re in for a whole lot more fun, but that’s the subject of another blog on another day.

Recently I’ve reviewed some pretty reasonable clauses that do ban assignment but not to the extent that assignment of the invoices is to an ID provider. I thought that was pretty progressive, but this bit of proposed legislation is going to make life so much easier. It will be one less thing for Recruitment Businesses to push back on in what is, let’s face it, a very typical way of funding agency contracting.

So watch this space, & I’ll let you know as soon as ban on assignment clauses are banned.

By Lucy Tarrant

Recruiters love this COMPLETE set of Accredited Recruitment & HR Training – View Training Brochure

Related Articles

The rise of technology and its impact on personal injury law

How settlement agreements can be reached in an amicable way that suits both parties

Recruiting international employees: our top tips

Comment on this story cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Send this to a friend

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Publications
• Research Centres
• Institute of Criminology
• Computer Office
• Squire Law Library
• Faculty of Law
• About overview
• History of the Faculty
• Equality, diversity & inclusion overview
• Athena SWAN
• Diversifying the Law: Postgraduate research poster exhibition
• Equal opportunities
• Dignity at work
• Societies overview
• Graduate Law Society (CUGLS)
• Public media collections
• Cambridge LawLink newsletter overview
• LawLink July 2024
• LawLink April 2024
• LawLink January 2024
• LawLink October 2023
• LawLink July 2023
• LawLink April 2023
• LawLink January 2023
• LawLink October 2022
• LawLink July 2022
• LawLink April 2022
• LawLink January 2022
• LawLink October 2021
• LawLink July 2021
• LawLink May 2021
• LawLink January 2021
• LawLink October 2020
• LawLink July 2020
• LawLink May 2020
• LawLink January 2020
• LawLink October 2019
• LawLink July 2019
• LawLink April 2019
• LawLink January 2019
• LawLink October 2018
• LawLink July 2018
• LawLink April 2018
• LawLink January 2018
• LawLink October 2017
• LawLink July 2017
• LawLink April 2017
• LawLink January 2017
• LawLink October 2016
• LawLink July 2016
• LawLink April 2016
• LawLink January 2016
• LawLink October 2015
• LawLink August 2015
• LawLink April 2015
• LawLink January 2015
• LawLink October 2014
• LawLink July 2014
• LawLink April 2014
• Publications from the Faculty
• How to find us
• People overview
• University and College Teaching Officers in Law Faculty Officers University Teaching Officers in the Institute of Criminology University Teaching Officers in the Department of Land Economy Affiliated Lecturers Retired and honorary members Research Staff Research Students Development and Communications Administrative Staff Computing Staff Squire Library Staff
• Directors of Studies and College Teaching Affiliates
• College Research Fellows in Law
• Human Resources
• Courses overview
• Research overview
• Current research grants
• Faculty Centres, Networks and Groups overview
• Network of Empirical Labour Law Scholars (NELLS)
• Cambridge Socio-Legal Group
• Criminal Jurisprudence and Philosophy Group (CrimJur)
• Cambridge Legal Theory Discussion Group (CLTDG)
• Cambridge Law Club
• Financial support for research
• International Research Groups and Networks
• Research ethics
• Research highlights
• Research with impact
• SSRN Legal Studies Research Paper Series
• Cambridge Law Eminent Scholars Archive
• International links overview
• Faculty academic visitors
• Exchange schemes
• Access & outreach overview
• Why study law?
• How do I become a lawyer?
• Outreach initiatives
• Exploring Law Course: Studying Law at University
• Exploring Law Conference overview
• Attending the conference
• Testimonials
• Exploring Legal Futures Webinars
• Student recruitment events
• #getincambridge
• Life at Cambridge/Applying
• Finding out more: Helpful links
• Alumni & development overview
• Alumni events overview
• Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) overview
• Statement of aims and objectives
• CWIL Advisory Board
• CWIL mailing list
• Our benefactors
• Ways to give overview
• Squire Law Library appeal

'Ban on Assignment Clauses: Views from the Coalface

• International links
• Access & outreach
• Alumni & development

Professor Louise Gullifer

November 2015

'Ban on Assignment Clauses: Views from the Coalface (2015) 30 Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 463

H Beale, S Paterson

Search all publications

The Faculty of Law The David Williams Building 10 West Road Cambridge CB3 9DZ United Kingdom

Telephone: +44 1223 330033 Email: [email protected]

Terms and Conditions

Connect with us.

Quick links

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...