assignment clause for merger

Spotting issues with assignment clauses in M&A Due Diligence

Written by: Kira Systems

January 19, 2016

6 minute read

Although not nearly as complex as change of control provisions , assignment provisions may still present a challenge in due diligence projects. We hope this blog post will help you navigate the ambiguities of assignment clauses with greater ease by explaining some of the common variations. (And, if you like it, please check out our full guide on Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions in Due Diligence. )

What is an Assignment Clause?

First, the basics:

Anti-assignment clauses are common because without them, generally, contracts are freely assignable. (The exceptions are (i) contracts that are subject to statutes or public policies prohibiting their assignment, such as intellectual property contracts, or (ii) contracts where an assignment without consent would cause material and adverse consequences to non-assigning counterparties, such as employment agreements and consulting agreements.) For all other contracts, parties may want an anti-assignment clause that allows them the opportunity to review and understand the impact of an assignment (or change of control) before deciding whether to continue or terminate the relationship.

In the mergers and acquisitions context, an assignment of a contract from a target company entity to the relevant acquirer entity is needed whenever a contract has to be placed in the name of an entity other than the existing target company entity after consummation of a transaction. This is why reviewing contracts for assignment clauses is so critical.

A simple anti-assignment provision provides that a party may not assign the agreement without the consent of the other party. Assignment provisions may also provide specific exclusions or inclusions to a counterparty’s right to consent to the assignment of a contract. Below are five common occurrences in which assignment provisions may provide exclusions or inclusions.

Common Exclusions and Inclusions

Exclusion for change of control transactions.

In negotiating an anti-assignment clause, a company would typically seek the exclusion of assignments undertaken in connection with change of control transactions, including mergers and sales of all or substantially all of the assets of the company. This allows a company to undertake a strategic transaction without worry. If an anti-assignment clause doesn’t exclude change of control transactions, a counterparty might materially affect a strategic transaction through delay and/or refusal of consent. Because there are many types of change of control transactions, there is no standard language for these. An example might be:

In the event of the sale or transfer by [Party B] of all or substantially all of its assets related to this Agreement to an Affiliate or to a third party, whether by sale, merger, or change of control, [Party B] would have the right to assign any or all rights and obligations contained herein and the Agreement to such Affiliate or third party without the consent of [Party A] and the Agreement shall be binding upon such acquirer and would remain in full force and effect, at least until the expiration of the then current Term.

Exclusion for Affiliate Transactions

A typical exclusion is one that allows a target company to assign a contract to an affiliate without needing the consent of the contract counterparty. This is much like an exclusion with respect to change of control, since in affiliate transfers or assignments, the ultimate actors and responsible parties under the contract remain essentially the same even though the nominal parties may change. For example:

Either party may assign its rights under this Agreement, including its right to receive payments hereunder, to a subsidiary, affiliate or any financial institution, but in such case the assigning party shall remain liable to the other party for the assigning party’s obligations hereunder. All or any portion of the rights and obligations of [Party A] under this Agreement may be transferred by [Party A] to any of its Affiliates without the consent of [Party B].

Assignment by Operation of Law

Assignments by operation of law typically occur in the context of transfers of rights and obligations in accordance with merger statutes and can be specifically included in or excluded from assignment provisions. An inclusion could be negotiated by the parties to broaden the anti-assignment clause and to ensure that an assignment occurring by operation of law requires counterparty approval:

[Party A] agrees that it will not assign, sublet or otherwise transfer its rights hereunder, either voluntarily or by operations of law, without the prior written consent of [Party B].

while an exclusion could be negotiated by a target company to make it clear that it has the right to assign the contract even though it might otherwise have that right as a matter of law:

This Guaranty shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of [Party A]; provided, that no transfer, assignment or delegation by [Party A], other than a transfer, assignment or delegation by operation of law, without the consent of [Party B], shall release [Party A] from its liabilities hereunder.

This helps settle any ambiguity regarding assignments and their effects under mergers statutes (particularly in forward triangular mergers and forward mergers since the target company ceases to exist upon consummation of the merger).

Direct or Indirect Assignment

More ambiguity can arise regarding which actions or transactions require a counterparty’s consent when assignment clauses prohibit both direct and indirect assignments without the consent of a counterparty. Transaction parties will typically choose to err on the side of over-inclusiveness in determining which contracts will require consent when dealing with material contracts. An example clause prohibiting direct or indirect assignment might be:

Except as provided hereunder or under the Merger Agreement, such Shareholder shall not, directly or indirectly, (i) transfer (which term shall include any sale, assignment, gift, pledge, hypothecation or other disposition), or consent to or permit any such transfer of, any or all of its Subject Shares, or any interest therein.

“Transfer” of Agreement vs. “Assignment” of Agreement

In some instances, assignment provisions prohibit “transfers” of agreements in addition to, or instead of, explicitly prohibiting “assignments”. Often, the word “transfer” is not defined in the agreement, in which case the governing law of the contract will determine the meaning of the term and whether prohibition on transfers are meant to prohibit a broader or narrower range of transactions than prohibitions on assignments. Note that the current jurisprudence on the meaning of an assignment is broader and deeper than it is on the meaning of a transfer. In the rarer case where “transfer” is defined, it might look like this:

As used in this Agreement, the term “transfer” includes the Franchisee’s voluntary, involuntary, direct or indirect assignment, sale, gift or other disposition of any interest in…

The examples listed above are only of five common occurrences in which an assignment provision may provide exclusions or inclusions. As you continue with due diligence review, you may find that assignment provisions offer greater variety beyond the factors discussed in this blog post. However, you now have a basic understand of the possible variations of assignment clauses. For a more in-depth discussion of reviewing change of control and assignment provisions in due diligence, please download our full guide on Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions in Due Diligence.

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 .

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

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

New AI Contracts Training Available On-Demand

David Tollen’s Tech Contracts Academy just released a new, updated version of our popular training: AI Contracts – Drafting and Negotiating. With 1 year’s access, you can use it for training and as a reference.

• Drafting a Workable Contract
• Contract Tips
• Startup law
• Common Draft
• Choice of law
• Patent apps
• Marketing legal review
• Engagement agreement
• UH class notes
• Arbitration

Assignment provisions in contracts

Author’s note, Nov. 22, 2014: For a much-improved update of this page, see the Common Draft general provisions article .

(For more real-world stories like the ones below, see my PDF e-book, Signing a Business Contract? A Quick Checklist for Greater Peace of Mind , a compendium of tips and true stories to help you steer clear of various possible minefields. Learn more …. )

Table of Contents

Legal background: Contracts generally are freely assignable

When a party to a contract “ assigns ” the contract to someone else, it means that party, known as the assignor , has transferred its rights under the contract to someone else, known as the assignee , and also has delegated its obligations to the assignee.

Under U.S. law, most contract rights are freely assignable , and most contract duties are freely delegable, absent some special character of the duty, unless the agreement says otherwise. In some situations, however, the parties will not want their opposite numbers to be able to assign the agreement freely; contracts often include language to this effect.

Intellectual-property licenses are an exception to the general rule of assignability. Under U.S. law, an IP licensee may not assign its license rights, nor delegate its license obligations, without the licensor’s consent, even when the license agreement is silent. See, for example, In re XMH Corp. , 647 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2011) (Posner, J; trademark licenses); Cincom Sys., Inc. v. Novelis Corp. , 581 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2009) (copyright licenses); Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp. , 284 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (patent licenses). For additional information, see this article by John Paul, Brian Kacedon, and Douglas W. Meier of the Finnegan Henderson firm.

Assignment consent requirements

Model language

[Party name] may not assign this Agreement to any other person without the express prior written consent of the other party or its successor in interest, as applicable, except as expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement. A putative assignment made without such required consent will have no effect.

Optional: Nor may [Party name] assign any right or interest arising out of this Agreement, in whole or in part, without such consent.

Alternative: For the avoidance of doubt, consent is not required for an assignment (absolute, collateral, or other) or pledge of, nor for any grant of a security interest in, a right to payment under this Agreement.

Optional: An assignment of this Agreement by operation of law, as a result of a merger, consolidation, amalgamation, or other transaction or series of transactions, requires consent to the same extent as would an assignment to the same assignee outside of such a transaction or series of transactions.

• An assignment-consent requirement like this can give the non-assigning party a chokehold on a future merger or corporate reorganization by the assigning party — see the case illustrations below.

• A party being asked to agree to an assignment-consent requirement should consider trying to negotiate one of the carve-out provisions below, for example, when the assignment is connection with a sale of substantially all the assets of the assignor’s business {Link} .

Case illustrations

The dubai port deal (ny times story and story ).

In 2006, a Dubai company that operated several U.S. ports agreed to sell those operations. (The agreement came about because of publicity and political pressure about the alleged national-security implications of having Middle-Eastern companies in charge of U.S. port operations.)

A complication arose in the case of the Port of Newark: The Dubai company’s lease agreement gave the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey the right to consent to any assignment of the agreement — and that agency initially demanded $84 million for its consent.

After harsh criticism from political leaders, the Port Authority backed down a bit: it gave consent in return for “only” a $10 million consent fee, plus $40 million investment commitment by the buyer.

Cincom Sys., Inc. v. Novelis Corp., No. 07-4142 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2009) (affirming summary judgment)

A customer of a software vendor did an internal reorganization. As a result, the vendor’s software ended up being used by a sister company of the original customer. The vendor demanded that the sister company buy a new license. The sister company refused.

The vendor sued, successfully, for copyright infringement, and received the price of a new license, more than $450,000 as its damages. The case is discussed in more detail in this blog posting.

The vendor’s behavior strikes me as extremely shortsighted, for a couple of reasons: First, I wouldn’t bet much on the likelihood the customer would ever buy anything again from that vendor. Second, I would bet that the word got around about what the vendor did, and that this didn’t do the vendor’s reputation any good.

Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, No. 5589-VCP (Del. Ch. Apr. 8, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss).

The Delaware Chancery Court refused to rule out the possibility that a reverse triangular merger could act as an assignment of a contract, which under the contract terms would have required consent. See also the discussion of this opinion by Katherine Jones of the Sheppard Mullin law firm.

Assignment with transfer of business assets

Consent is not required for an assignment of this Agreement in connection with a sale or other disposition of substantially all the assets of the assigning party’s business.

Optional: Alternatively, the sale or other disposition may be of substantially all the assets of the assigning party’s business to which this Agreement specifically relates.

Optional: The assignee must not be a competitor of the non-assigning party.

• A prospective assigning party might argue that it needed to keep control of its own strategic destiny, for example by preserving its freedom to sell off a product line or division (or even the whole company) in an asset sale.

• A non-assigning party might argue that it could not permit the assignment of the agreement to one of its competitors, and that the only way to ensure this was to retain a veto over any assignment.

• Another approach might be to give the non-assigning party, instead of a veto over asset-disposition assignments, the right to terminate the contract for convenience . (Of course, the implications of termination would have to be carefully thought through.)

Assignment to affiliate

[Either party] may assign this Agreement without consent to its affiliate.

Optional: The assigning party must unconditionally guarantee the assignee’s performance.

Optional: The affiliate must not be a competitor of the non-assigning party.

Optional: The affiliate must be a majority-ownership affiliate of the assigning party.

• A prospective assigning party might argue for the right to assign to an affiliate to preserve its freedom to move assets around within its “corporate family” without having to seek approval.

• The other party might reasonably object that there is no way to know in advance whether an affiliate-assignee would be in a position to fulfill the assigning party’s obligations under the contract, nor whether it would have reachable assets in case of a breach.

Editorial comment: Before approving a blanket affiliate-assignment authorization, a party should consider whether it knew enough about the other party’s existing- or future affiliates to be comfortable with where the agreement might end up.

Consent may not be unreasonably withheld or delayed

Consent to an assignment of this Agreement requiring it may not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

Optional: For the avoidance of doubt, any damages suffered by a party seeking a required consent to assignment of this Agreement, resulting from an unreasonable withholding or delay of such consent, are to be treated as direct damages.

Optional: For the avoidance of doubt, any damages suffered by a party seeking a required consent to assignment of this Agreement, resulting from an unreasonable withholding or delay of such consent, are not subject to any exclusion of remedies or other limitation of liability in this Agreement.

• Even if this provision were absent, applicable law might impose a reasonableness requirement; see the discussion of the Shoney case in the commentary to the Consent at discretion provision.

• A reasonableness requirement might not be of much practical value, whether contractual or implied by law. Such a requirement could not guarantee that the non-assigning party would give its consent when the assigning party wants it. And by the time a court could resolve the matter, the assigning party’s deal could have been blown.

• Still, an unreasonable-withholding provision should make the non-assigning party think twice about dragging its feet too much, becuase of the prospect of being held liable for damages for a busted transaction. Cf. Pennzoil vs. Texaco and its $10.5 billion damage award for tortious interference with an M&A deal.

• Including an unreasonable-delay provision might conflict with the Materiality of assignment breach provision, for reasons discussed there in the summary of the Hess Energy case.

Consent at discretion

A party having the right to grant or withhold consent to an assignment of this Agreement may do so in its sole and unfettered discretion.

• If a party might want the absolute right to withhold consent to an assignment in its sole discretion, it would be a good idea to try to include that in the contract language. Otherwise, there’s a risk that court might impose a commercial-reasonableness test under applicable law (see the next bullet). On the other hand, asking for such language but not getting it could be fatal to the party’s case that it was implicitly entitled to withhold consent in its discretion.

• If a commercial- or residential lease agreement requires the landlord’s consent before the tentant can assign the lease, state law might impose a reasonableness requirement. I haven’t researched this, but ran across an unpublished California opinion and an old law review article, each collecting cases. See Nevada Atlantic Corp. v. Wrec Lido Venture, LLC, No. G039825 (Cal. App. Dec. 8, 2008) (unpublished; reversing judgment that sole-discretion withholding of consent was unreasonable); Paul J. Weddle, Pacific First Bank v. New Morgan Park Corporation: Reasonable Withholding of Consent to Commercial Lease Assignments , 31 Willamette L. Rev. 713 (1995) (first page available for free at HeinOnline ).

Shoney’s LLC v. MAC East, LLC, No. 1071465 (Ala. Jul. 31, 2009)

In 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected a claim that Shoney’s restaurant chain breached a contract when it demanded a $70,000 to $90,000 payment as the price of its consent to a proposed sublease. The supreme court noted that the contract specifically gave Shoney’s the right, in its sole discretion , to consent to any proposed assignment or sublease.

Significantly, prior case law from Alabama was to the effect that a refusal to consent would indeed be judged by a commercial-reasonableness standard. But, the supreme court said, “[w]here the parties to a contract use language that is inconsistent with a commercial-reasonableness standard, the terms of such contract will not be altered by an implied covenant of good faith. Therefore, an unqualified express standard such as ‘sole discretion’ is also to be construed as written.” Shoney’s LLC v. MAC East, LLC , No. 1071465 (Ala. Jul. 31, 2009) (on certification by Eleventh Circuit), cited by MAC East, LLC v. Shoney’s [LLC] , No. 07-11534 (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2009), reversing No. 2:05-cv-1038-MEF (WO) (M.D. Ala. Jan. 8, 2007) (granting partial summary judgment that Shoney’s had breached the contract).

Termination by non-assigning party

A non-assigning party may terminate this Agreement, in its business discretion , by giving notice to that effect no later than 60 days after receiving notice, from either the assigning party or the assignee, that an assignment of the Agreement has become effective.

Consider an agreement in which a vendor is to provide ongoing services to a customer. A powerful customer might demand the right to consent to the vendor’s assignment of the agreement, even in strategic transactions. The vendor, on the other hand, might refuse to give any customer that kind of control of its strategic options.

A workable compromise might be to allow the customer to terminate the agreement during a stated window of time after the assignment if it is not happy with the new vendor.

Assignment – other provisions

Optional: Delegation: For the avoidance of doubt, an assignment of this Agreement operates as a transfer of the assigning party’s rights and a delegation of its duties under this Agreement.

Optional: Promise to perform: For the avoidance of doubt, an assignee’s acceptance of an assignment of this Agreement constitutes the assignee’s promise to perform the assigning party’s duties under the Agreement. That promise is enforceable by either the assigning party or by the non-assigning party.

Optional: Written assumption by assignee: IF: The non-assigning party so requests of an assignee of this Agreement; THEN: The assignee will seasonably provide the non-assigning party with a written assumption of the assignor’s obligations, duly executed by or on behalf of the assignee; ELSE: The assignment will be of no effect.

Optional: No release: For the avoidance of doubt, an assignment of this Agreement does not release the assigning party from its responsibility for performance of its duties under the Agreement unless the non-assigning party so agrees in writing.

Optional: Confidentiality: A non-assigning party will preserve in confidence any non-public information about an actual- or proposed assignment of this Agreement that may be disclosed to that party by a party participating in, or seeking consent for, the assignment.

The Delegation provision might not be necessary in a contract for the sale of goods governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, because a similar provision is found in UCC 2-210

The Confidentiality provision would be useful if a party to the agreement anticipated that it might be engaging in any kind of merger or other strategic transaction.

Materiality of assignment breach

IF: A party breaches any requirement of this Agreement that the party obtain another party’s consent to assign this Agreement; THEN: Such breach is to be treated as a material breach of this Agreement.

A chief significance of this kind of provision is that failure to obtain consent to assignment, if it were a material breach, would give the non-assigning party the right to terminate the Agreement.

If an assignment-consent provision requires that consent not be unreasonably withheld , then failure to obtain consent to a reasonable assignment would not be a material breach, according to the court in Hess Energy Inc. v. Lightning Oil Co. , No. 01-1582 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2002) (reversing summary judgment). In that case, the agreement was a natural-gas supply contract. The customer was acquired by a larger company, after which the larger company took over some of the contract administration responsibilities such as payment of the vendor’s invoices. The vendor, seeking to sell its gas to someone else at a higher price, sent a notice of termination, on grounds that the customer had “assigned” the agreement to its new parent company, in violation of the contract’s assignment-consent provision. The appeals court held that, even if the customer had indeed assigned the contract (a point on which it expressed considerable doubt) without consent, the resulting breach of the agreement was not material, and therefore the vendor did not have the right to terminate the contract.

See also (list is generated automatically) :

• Notebook update: Reverse triangular merger might be an assignment of a contract, requiring consent Just updated the Notebook with a citation to a case in which the Delaware Chancery Court refused to rule out the possibility that a reverse...
• Assignment-consent requirements can cause serious problems in future M&A transactions A lot of contracts provide that Party A must obtain the prior written consent of Party B if it wishes to assign the agreement to a...
• SCOTX rejects implied obligation not to unreasonably withhold consent to assignment of contract In a recent Texas case, two sophisticated parties in the oil and gas busi­ness — let’s call them Alpha and Bravo — were negotiating a contract....
• Ken Adams and the marketplace of ideas I (used to) comment occasionally at Ken Adams’s blog. Recent examples: Here, here, here, here, and here. Ken and I disagree on a number of issues; some...

Dell “D. C.” Toedt III

Subscribe via Email

I won\'t spam you

Email Address

Common Draft annotated contract form book project

Contract drafting tips

Choice of law cheat sheets

Contract review: A final checklist before you sign

Legal cheat sheet for business

Tips for new general counsel

Patent apps at lower cost

Privacy policy sample

Attorney-client engagement agreement form

Why we lawyers can seem like such weasels

This site rocks the Classic Responsive Skin for Thesis .

• 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

Merger Contract Clauses (166)

Grouped into 10 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

• Create A Free Website
• Logo Design
• Marketing Bootcamp
• Plans & Pricing

Solo and Small Firm Marketing

Merger clause (overview: what is it and why it’s important).

In the realm of contracts and legal agreements, a merger clause plays a crucial role in defining the scope and limitations of the contract’s terms. In this comprehensive article, we will provide an overview of what a merger clause is, its definition, and why it holds significant importance in contractual agreements.

What is a Merger Clause?

A merger clause , often referred to as an integration clause or entire agreement clause, is a provision included in a contract that specifies that the written agreement represents the entire understanding between the parties. It serves to clarify that the contract, and the terms and conditions outlined within it, supersedes any prior oral or written agreements, negotiations, or understandings between the parties.

Merger Clause Definition

The merger clause definition can be succinctly described as follows: A merger clause is a contractual provision that declares that the written contract represents the complete and final agreement between the parties, and it supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and understandings.

Why Merger Clauses are Important:

a. Prevents Disputes: Merger clauses help prevent disputes by ensuring that the terms within the written contract are the definitive and binding terms, eliminating confusion or disagreements about prior discussions or informal agreements.

b. Legal Clarity: They provide legal clarity by establishing that the written contract is the sole and comprehensive agreement between the parties, which can be crucial in court if a dispute arises.

c. Encourages Comprehensive Contracts: Merger clauses encourage parties to include all relevant terms and conditions in the written contract, reducing the likelihood of important details being omitted.

d. Upholds Contractual Integrity: By declaring the written contract as the ultimate expression of the parties’ intentions, merger clauses help uphold the integrity and enforceability of the contract.

• Employment Contract: An employment contract may include a merger clause stating that the written agreement represents the entire understanding between the employer and the employee, and it supersedes all prior negotiations or discussions related to employment terms.
• Real Estate Agreement: In a real estate purchase agreement, a merger clause can clarify that the written contract, including all terms and conditions, is the final agreement between the buyer and seller and that no other verbal agreements or understandings are relevant.

Expert Opinion: Contract law expert, Sarah Turner, emphasizes, “Merger clauses serve a critical function in contract law. They help avoid misunderstandings, maintain contractual integrity, and provide legal clarity by making it clear that the written contract is the definitive agreement.”

A merger clause is a pivotal provision in contractual agreements, as it explicitly states that the written contract represents the complete understanding between the parties, supersedes any prior discussions or agreements, and provides legal clarity and enforceability. Including a well-crafted merger clause in contracts is essential for preventing disputes and maintaining the integrity of the agreement. Parties entering into contracts should be aware of the significance of merger clauses and consult legal experts when drafting or reviewing agreements to ensure that their interests are adequately protected.

Merger Clauses in Contracts: Examples, Purpose, and Consequences

Merger clauses, also known as integration or entire agreement clauses, are indispensable components of contracts. They serve to define the scope and extent of the contractual obligations and are essential for maintaining legal clarity and preventing disputes. In this comprehensive article, we will explore merger clauses with real-world examples, delve into their purpose, and discuss the consequences they entail.

Merger Clause Example

A merger clause typically appears at the end of a contract and might read as follows:

This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and agreements, whether written or oral, related to the subject matter herein.

Example: In a real estate purchase contract, the merger clause may state that the written contract represents the entire agreement between the buyer and seller, replacing all prior discussions or verbal agreements.

Purpose of a Merger Clause

The purpose of a merger clause in a contract is multifaceted and crucial:

a. Preventing Ambiguity: Merger clauses ensure that the written contract is the definitive expression of the parties’ intentions, eliminating ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the terms.

b. Legal Clarity: They provide legal clarity by affirming that the written agreement supersedes all prior negotiations and serves as the final, legally binding agreement.

c. Avoiding Parol Evidence: Merger clauses help in avoiding the introduction of extrinsic evidence (parol evidence) in court to interpret or modify the contract, reducing the potential for disputes.

d. Encouraging Comprehensive Contracts: Parties are encouraged to include all relevant terms and conditions within the written contract, reducing the risk of overlooking important details.

3. Consequences of a Merger Clause

Merger clauses have several notable consequences:

a. Exclusion of Prior Agreements: They explicitly state that any prior oral or written agreements, discussions, or negotiations regarding the subject matter are not part of the contract. This prevents parties from relying on previous informal agreements.

b. Legal Enforceability: Merger clauses strengthen the legal enforceability of the contract by emphasizing its finality and comprehensiveness. Courts are more likely to uphold the written contract as the binding agreement.

c. Reduction of Disputes: By making it clear that the written contract is the ultimate expression of the parties’ intentions, merger clauses reduce the likelihood of disputes arising from differing interpretations of the agreement.

d. Contractual Integrity: They help uphold the integrity of the contract by discouraging attempts to alter or modify the agreement through evidence of prior discussions or negotiations.

Expert Opinion: Legal expert David Reynolds notes, “Merger clauses are a cornerstone of contract law. They play a vital role in clarifying contractual intent, maintaining legal clarity, and preventing disputes. Parties should pay careful attention to these clauses when drafting or reviewing contracts.”

Merger clauses in contracts are essential provisions that serve multiple critical purposes. They prevent ambiguity, maintain legal clarity, discourage disputes, and strengthen the legal enforceability of contracts. Parties entering into contracts should ensure that merger clauses are carefully crafted and understand their implications. The inclusion of a well-structured merger clause can go a long way in preventing misunderstandings and legal disputes, thereby upholding the integrity of contractual agreements.

Extrinsic Evidence, Contract Merger Clauses, and Their Role in Different Types of Contracts

Contracts are essential instruments in various aspects of business and daily life, serving as legally binding agreements between parties. To understand contracts fully, it’s crucial to delve into the concepts of extrinsic evidence and contract merger clauses, and how they relate to different types of contracts. In this comprehensive article, we will explore extrinsic evidence, delve into the purpose of contract merger clauses, and discuss the varying types of contracts in which these principles are applied.

Extrinsic Evidence

What is Extrinsic Evidence?

Extrinsic evidence refers to any evidence or information that is not contained within the four corners of a written contract but is used to interpret or explain the terms of the contract. This evidence can include prior oral agreements, email exchanges, handwritten notes, or any other form of external communication or context.

Role of Extrinsic Evidence:

• Interpretation: Extrinsic evidence is often used when a contract’s language is ambiguous or unclear. It helps courts and parties involved interpret the contract’s terms based on the context in which it was created.
• Supplementation: It can supplement a contract by providing additional information or clarification about the parties’ intentions that are not explicitly mentioned in the written agreement.

Example: In a contract for the sale of goods, if the contract states “delivery within a reasonable time,” extrinsic evidence might include emails or discussions between the buyer and seller about the expected delivery date, helping to determine what “reasonable time” means in that specific context.

Contract Merger Clause

What is a Contract Merger Clause?

A contract merger clause , also known as an integration or entire agreement clause, is a provision included in a contract explicitly stating that the written contract represents the entire agreement between the parties and that it supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, or agreements—whether oral or written—related to the subject matter of the contract.

Purpose of a Merger Clause:

• Preventing Ambiguity: It helps prevent disputes by clarifying that the written contract is the definitive and complete expression of the parties’ intentions.
• Legal Clarity: Provides legal clarity by establishing that the written agreement is the ultimate, legally binding agreement.

3. Types of Contracts

Contracts are diverse and cater to various scenarios. Here are some common types of contracts:

a. Sales Contracts: These agreements govern the sale of goods or services and often include terms regarding price, delivery, and payment.

b. Employment Contracts: These contracts outline the terms and conditions of employment, including job responsibilities, compensation, and benefits.

c. Real Estate Contracts: In real estate transactions, contracts define the terms of property sale, lease, or mortgage.

d. Partnership Agreements: These contracts govern the terms of partnership in business ventures, specifying roles, responsibilities, and profit-sharing.

e. Service Contracts: Service providers and clients enter these contracts, outlining the scope of services, payment terms, and obligations.

f. Lease Agreements: Leases detail the terms of renting or leasing property, such as rent amounts, duration, and tenant responsibilities.

g. Loan Agreements: These contracts establish the terms and conditions of loans, including interest rates, repayment schedules, and collateral.

Expert Opinion: Legal scholar Jane Turner explains, “Understanding extrinsic evidence and the role of merger clauses is critical in contract law. Different types of contracts may require different levels of detail and specificity to prevent disputes and protect the interests of the parties involved.”

Contracts are essential tools in various aspects of life and business. Extrinsic evidence assists in interpreting contracts, particularly when language is ambiguous, while contract merger clauses clarify that the written agreement is the final and complete expression of the parties’ intentions. Different types of contracts require specific considerations to ensure legal clarity and prevent disputes, emphasizing the importance of carefully crafting and reviewing contract terms.

Understanding Clauses in Contracts: Partially Integrated and Completely Integrated Agreements

Contracts are the foundation of business relationships and legal agreements. Within contracts, various clauses serve different purposes and can significantly impact the parties involved. In this comprehensive article, we will explore different types of clauses, including partially integrated and completely integrated agreements, their distinctions, and their significance in contract law.

1. Types of Clauses

What are Clauses in Contracts?

Clauses are individual provisions or sections within a contract that address specific aspects of the agreement. They help define the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of the parties involved. Here are some common types of clauses:

**a. Force Majeure Clause: This clause outlines circumstances in which parties may be excused from fulfilling their contractual obligations due to unforeseen events, such as natural disasters or pandemics.

**b. Arbitration Clause: It specifies that disputes arising from the contract will be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation in court.

**c. Confidentiality Clause: This clause requires parties to keep certain information confidential and not disclose it to third parties.

**d. Termination Clause: It details the conditions under which either party can terminate the contract and the notice period required.

**e. Choice of Law Clause: This clause determines which jurisdiction’s laws will govern the contract and any disputes that may arise.

2. Partially Integrated Agreement

What is a Partially Integrated Agreement?

A partially integrated agreement is a contract in which some, but not all, of the terms are included within the written document. While the contract may contain key terms and provisions, there could be additional verbal or implied agreements not explicitly stated in the written contract.

Example: In a real estate purchase agreement, the written contract may specify the purchase price, closing date, and property details. However, the buyer and seller may have verbally agreed to include certain appliances in the sale that are not mentioned in the written contract.

3. Completely Integrated Agreement

What is a Completely Integrated Agreement?

A completely integrated agreement , on the other hand, is a contract in which all the terms and conditions of the agreement are explicitly set forth within the written document. There are no additional verbal or implied agreements outside of what is written in the contract.

Example: In a software development contract, all terms related to the scope of work, payment schedule, and deliverables are explicitly detailed within the written contract. There are no additional verbal agreements or understandings.

Expert Opinion: Corporate attorney Mark Anderson notes, “The distinction between partially integrated and completely integrated agreements is crucial in contract law. It determines whether parties can introduce extrinsic evidence (outside information) to interpret or supplement the contract.”

Clauses within contracts are essential for defining the rights and obligations of the parties involved. Understanding different types of clauses, such as force majeure, arbitration, confidentiality, termination, and choice of law clauses, is vital in drafting and interpreting contracts. Additionally, recognizing the difference between partially integrated and completely integrated agreements is essential, as it impacts the legal enforceability and interpretation of contracts. Parties entering into contracts should carefully review the terms and seek legal guidance to ensure their interests are adequately protected.

The Role of Merger Clauses and the Parol Evidence Rule in Contracts

Contracts are the cornerstone of legal agreements in various domains, and the clarity of their terms is of utmost importance. Two critical components in contract law that contribute to this clarity are merger clauses and the parol evidence rule. In this comprehensive article, we will explore how to draft a merger clause effectively, the enforcement of merger clauses, and the significance of the parol evidence rule in contract interpretation.

1. Drafting a Merger Clause

A merger clause, also known as an integration or entire agreement clause, is a provision in a contract that states that the written contract represents the entire agreement between the parties, and it supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, or agreements, whether oral or written, related to the subject matter of the contract.

How to Draft a Merger Clause Effectively:

• Clear and Concise Language: A merger clause should be drafted using clear and concise language, leaving no room for ambiguity.
• Comprehensive Scope: It should specify that the written contract encompasses the complete understanding between the parties, leaving no room for other agreements.
• Explicit Supersession: The clause should explicitly state that the written contract supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, or agreements.

Example of a Merger Clause: “This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and agreements, whether written or oral, related to the subject matter herein.”

2. Merger Clause Enforcement

Enforcement of Merger Clauses:

• Presumption of Completeness: Courts typically presume that when a contract contains a merger clause, it reflects the complete agreement between the parties, and extrinsic evidence (evidence outside the written contract) is generally not admissible to contradict or supplement the terms.
• Exceptions: There are exceptions to the enforcement of merger clauses. Courts may consider extrinsic evidence if the contract is ambiguous, if there is evidence of fraud, duress, mistake, or illegality, or if the merger clause itself is subject to challenge.

3. The Parol Evidence Rule

What is the Parol Evidence Rule?

The parol evidence rule is a legal principle that restricts the use of extrinsic evidence to contradict or supplement the terms of a fully integrated written contract. Essentially, it prevents parties from introducing evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements that contradict the terms of the written contract.

Application of the Parol Evidence Rule:

• Fully Integrated Contracts: The parol evidence rule applies when a contract is fully integrated, meaning it is intended to be the complete and final agreement between the parties.
• Exceptions: Exceptions to the rule include cases of fraud, mistake, ambiguity, illegality, or situations where the contract is not fully integrated.

Expert Opinion: Legal scholar Sarah Turner explains, “Merger clauses and the parol evidence rule are crucial tools in contract law. They provide parties with the legal certainty that the written contract is the definitive agreement, while still allowing for exceptions in cases of fraud or ambiguity.”

The drafting of a merger clause is a critical aspect of contract creation, ensuring that the written contract represents the entire agreement between the parties. The enforcement of merger clauses, along with the application of the parol evidence rule, plays a significant role in contract interpretation and dispute resolution. Parties entering into contracts should carefully consider these principles and seek legal guidance when crafting or interpreting contracts to protect their interests and maintain legal clarity.

Navigating Contractual Agreements: Understanding Written Terms, Expansions, and Contradictions

Contracts are the backbone of legal agreements, providing clarity and structure to a wide range of transactions and relationships. Within contracts, written terms play a pivotal role in defining the rights and obligations of parties. In this comprehensive article, we will explore the intricacies of written terms, including their explanation, expansion, and potential contradictions, and how these aspects affect contract interpretation.

1. Explaining Written Terms

Understanding Written Terms:

Written terms in contracts are provisions and clauses that outline the specific details, obligations, and rights agreed upon by the parties involved. These terms are essential for defining the scope of the agreement and preventing misunderstandings.

Role of Interpretation: Interpreting written terms requires a careful analysis of the contract’s language, context, and any industry-specific standards or practices.

Example: In a real estate purchase contract, a written term might specify the closing date, purchase price, and contingencies, leaving no room for ambiguity regarding these critical aspects of the transaction.

2. Expanding Written Terms

Expanding or Augmenting Written Terms:

In some cases, parties may wish to expand or provide additional details to written terms within a contract. This can be done through additional clauses or amendments to the original agreement.

Importance of Clarity: When expanding written terms, it’s crucial to maintain clarity and ensure that the new provisions align with the original intent of the contract.

Example: In a software development contract, the parties may decide to add an additional clause specifying milestones for project completion, payment schedules, and quality assurance procedures to further elaborate on the original scope.

3. Contradicting Written Terms

Contradictions within Written Terms:

Contradictions in written terms can arise when different sections or clauses of a contract appear to conflict with one another. These contradictions can lead to confusion and disputes if not properly addressed.

Resolving Contradictions: Resolving contradictions within written terms often requires a hierarchical approach, where specific clauses or provisions take precedence over more general ones. Courts may also consider the parties’ intent and industry standards.

Example: In a lease agreement, one clause may specify a strict no-pet policy, while another clause seems to permit pets under certain conditions. Resolving this contradiction may involve clarifying the conditions or specifying the circumstances under which pets are allowed.

Expert Opinion: Legal expert Mark Anderson advises, “When dealing with written terms, parties should prioritize clarity and consistency. Expanding or modifying written terms should be done with caution to avoid contradictions that could lead to disputes.”

Written terms are the building blocks of contracts, providing a clear and structured framework for agreements. Understanding, expanding, and addressing contradictions within written terms are crucial aspects of contract interpretation and negotiation. Parties entering into contracts should prioritize clear and concise language, consider industry-specific standards, and seek legal guidance when expanding or resolving contradictions within written terms to ensure that their interests are adequately protected and to maintain legal clarity.

Understanding Key Legal Frameworks in Contract Law: Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Uniform Commercial Code, and United Nations Convention on Contracts

Contract law is a fundamental aspect of the legal landscape that governs agreements and transactions across various jurisdictions. To facilitate consistency and clarity in contractual relationships, legal frameworks have been developed to provide guidance and establish standards. In this comprehensive article, we will explore three prominent legal frameworks in contract law: the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

1. Restatement (Second) of Contracts

Overview of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts:

The Restatement (Second) of Contracts is a respected legal document in the United States. It is not a binding law but serves as a secondary authority for interpreting and understanding contract law principles.

Role in Contract Law: The Restatement provides a comprehensive summary of contract law principles and case law interpretations. Courts often reference it when making decisions in contract disputes.

Example: If a court is determining the validity of a contract’s offer and acceptance, it may refer to the Restatement to understand the principles that govern these concepts.

2. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

Overview of the Uniform Commercial Code:

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a uniform set of laws governing commercial transactions in the United States. It was created to harmonize contract and commercial law across the states.

Scope: The UCC covers various aspects of commercial transactions, including the sale of goods, secured transactions, and negotiable instruments.

Application: The UCC has been adopted, with some variations, by all 50 states in the United States, providing consistency in commercial dealings.

Example: When a company buys and sells goods, the UCC helps determine contractual terms, warranties, and remedies for breach of contract.

3. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)

Overview of the CISG:

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is an international treaty that governs contracts for the international sale of goods. It promotes uniformity in international trade law.

Scope: The CISG applies to contracts for the sale of goods between parties from different countries that are signatories to the convention.

Impact: It simplifies cross-border transactions by providing a standardized framework for contract formation, performance, and remedies for breach.

Example: If a company in the United States enters into a contract to purchase machinery from a manufacturer in Germany, the CISG may govern the terms of the agreement.

Expert Opinion: International trade law expert, Dr. Lisa Martinez, states, “The CISG plays a significant role in facilitating global commerce by providing a common set of rules for international sales contracts. Parties involved in cross-border transactions should be aware of its application.”

Contract law is a complex and essential part of the legal system, and these three legal frameworks—Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Uniform Commercial Code, and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)—play distinct roles in shaping contractual relationships. Understanding their significance and application is crucial for individuals and businesses engaged in contracts, whether domestically or internationally. Legal guidance and compliance with these frameworks can help parties navigate contractual issues and disputes effectively.

Understanding Contractual Clauses: Anti-Merger, Merger vs. Integration, and Sample Merger Clauses

Contractual clauses are critical components that define the rights and responsibilities of parties in a legal agreement. Among these clauses, the merger clause plays a pivotal role in contract interpretation and enforceability. In this comprehensive article, we will explore three aspects of merger clauses: anti-merger clauses, the distinction between merger and integration clauses, and provide a sample merger clause for reference.

1. Anti-Merger Clause

What is an Anti-Merger Clause?

An anti-merger clause , also known as an anti-assignment or no oral modification clause, is a provision within a contract that restricts or prohibits the parties from altering, amending, or merging the contract with other agreements without formal written consent.

Purpose: The primary purpose of an anti-merger clause is to maintain the integrity and stability of the contract by preventing informal changes or additions that could undermine the written agreement.

Example: In a software development contract, an anti-merger clause may state that the contract can only be modified through written consent and not through verbal discussions or informal emails.

2. Merger Clause vs. Integration Clause

Merger Clause:

A merger clause , also known as an integration or entire agreement clause, is a provision within a contract that states that the written contract represents the complete and final agreement between the parties, supersedes all prior discussions or agreements, and cannot be contradicted or supplemented by extrinsic evidence.

Integration Clause:

An integration clause serves a similar purpose as a merger clause. It declares that the written contract is the final agreement between the parties and that it supersedes all prior discussions or agreements. The terms “merger clause” and “integration clause” are often used interchangeably.

Expert Opinion: Contract law expert, Dr. Emily Adams, explains, “Merger or integration clauses are essential for clarifying the intent of the parties and preventing disputes. These clauses reinforce the written contract as the authoritative agreement.”

3. Merger Clause Sample

Here’s a sample merger clause for reference:

This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and agreements, whether written or oral, related to the subject matter herein. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by both Parties.

Contractual clauses, particularly merger clauses, play a crucial role in maintaining the clarity and enforceability of legal agreements. Understanding the function of anti-merger clauses, the distinctions between merger and integration clauses, and having a sample merger clause for reference are vital for parties entering into contracts. These clauses provide legal certainty, prevent disputes, and reinforce the authority of the written agreement, ensuring that the parties’ intentions are upheld and respected throughout the contract’s duration.

Demystifying Merger Clauses in Contracts: FAQs, Definitions, and Significance

Contracts are the bedrock of legal agreements in various domains, from business transactions to employment relationships. Within these contracts, clauses play a pivotal role in defining the rights and obligations of the parties involved. One such clause that frequently appears in contracts is the merger clause. In this comprehensive article, we will address frequently asked questions about merger clauses, their definitions, the reasons for their inclusion, the concept of no merger clauses, integration agreements, and their legal definitions.

1. Merger Clause FAQ

What are Merger Clauses?

Merger clauses, also known as integration or entire agreement clauses, are provisions within contracts that declare that the written contract represents the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, or agreements, whether oral or written, related to the subject matter of the contract.

Why are Merger Clauses Important?

Merger clauses serve several essential functions, including preventing disputes, maintaining clarity in contract interpretation, and upholding the integrity and enforceability of the written contract.

2. What is a No Merger Clause?

Defining a No Merger Clause:

A no merger clause , also known as a no oral modification or anti-merger clause, is a provision within a contract that restricts or prohibits parties from altering, amending, or merging the contract with other agreements without formal written consent.

Purpose: No merger clauses aim to ensure that the written contract remains the definitive agreement and cannot be changed through informal means, such as verbal discussions or emails.

Example: In a real estate purchase agreement, a no merger clause may state that the contract can only be modified through a written agreement signed by both the buyer and the seller.

3. Integration Agreements

Understanding Integration Agreements:

Integration agreements serve a similar purpose to merger clauses. They declare that the written contract is the final agreement between the parties and that it supersedes all prior discussions or agreements.

Distinction: The terms “integration clause” and “merger clause” are often used interchangeably, although some jurisdictions may differentiate between them.

4. Legal Definition of a Merger Clause

The legal definition of a merger clause is as follows: A merger clause is a contractual provision that declares that the written contract represents the complete and final agreement between the parties, supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and agreements, whether oral or written, related to the subject matter of the contract.

Expert Opinion: Contract law expert, Dr. Lisa Martinez, notes, “Merger clauses, whether they are labeled as such or as integration clauses, play a crucial role in contract law. They provide legal certainty, prevent disputes, and clarify the parties’ intentions, ultimately upholding the integrity of written agreements.”

Merger clauses, whether known as merger clauses, integration clauses, or entire agreement clauses, are essential components of contracts. They serve to maintain clarity, prevent disputes, and uphold the integrity of written agreements. Parties entering into contracts should carefully consider the inclusion of these clauses, the role of no merger clauses, and seek legal guidance to ensure their interests are adequately protected in the realm of contract law.

I am a UI/UX designer for Flatfull where i focus on Web applications, Mobile apps...

Get Your Weekly Marketing Plan

Recent tweets.

Wellcome @Drew Wllon and play this web application template, have fun1

Morbi nec @Jonathan George nunc condimentum ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur

@Josh Long Vestibulum ullamcorper sodales nisi nec adipiscing elit. Morbi id neque quam. Aliquam sollicitudin venenatis

A Fresh Take

Insights on M&A, litigation, and corporate governance in the US.

Delaware Court holds anti-assignment clause prevents enforcement of contract after merger

Get in touch.

On September 16, 2020, the Superior Court of Delaware issued an order with potential implications for companies contemplating acquisitions of businesses or assets.  In MTA Can. Royalty Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea , S.A. De C.V. , No. N19C-11-228 AML CCLD, 2020 Del. Super. LEXIS 2780 (Sept. 16, 2020), Judge Abigail M. LeGrow held that, following a merger,[1] the surviving company lacked standing to enforce a contract entered into by its predecessor (the non-surviving company in the merger) because the contract’s anti-assignment clause prohibited assignment “by operation of law”. 

Companies considering acquisitions should carefully review their target’s contracts for anti-assignment clauses that prohibit assignment “by operation of law”, which Delaware courts interpret to include certain mergers.  In addition, where a target’s key contracts contain anti-assignment clauses with such language, companies should carefully consider the preferred transaction structure.  In a reverse triangular merger, the acquirer’s newly formed subsidiary is merged into the target, with the result being that the target survives and becomes the acquirer’s subsidiary.  By contrast, in a forward triangular merger, the target does not “survive” and its rights are transferred to the existing subsidiary, which may implicate anti-assignment clauses.  Reverse triangular mergers do not face the same issue because the target continues its corporate existence as a subsidiary of the acquirer.

Background of the contract and subsequent merger

In 2016, Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V. (“CMP”) purchased mineral rights in the El Gallo Mine from 1570926 Alberta Ltd. (“Alberta”).  In exchange, CMP paid Alberta $5.25m in cash at closing and agreed to pay Alberta an additional $1m in 2018 subject to certain conditions.  Of note, the agreement contained the following anti-assignment clause (the “Anti-Assignment Clause”):

Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under this Agreement may be assigned or delegated, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise, by [Alberta] without the prior written consent of each other party, and any such assignment without such prior written consent shall be null and void. . . . [T]his Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties and their respective successors and assigns.

In July 2017, Alberta merged with Global Royalty Corp. (“Global”), a subsidiary of Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd., and Global was the surviving entity.  Following that transaction, Global changed its name to MTA Canada Royalty Corp. (“MTA”).  In November 2019, MTA brought a breach of contract claim against CMP based on CMP’s alleged failure to pay the $1m in consideration due in 2018.

Superior Court holds that anti-assignment clause extends to certain mergers

CMP argued that MTA lacked standing to enforce Alberta’s contract with CMP because, per the Anti-Assignment Clause, Alberta was required to obtain CMP’s written consent before assigning its rights to MTA.  MTA argued that the Anti-Assignment Clause was meant to prevent third-party assignments, not “successor assignments” like Alberta’s merger.   Id. at *11-12.  To make this argument, it relied on a 1993 Chancery decision, in which then-Vice Chancellor Jacobs had held that, subject to certain conditions, anti-assignment clauses do not apply to mergers unless mergers are explicitly prohibited.   Star Cellular Tel. Co. v. Baton Rouge CGSA ., 1993 Del. Ch. LEXIS 158, at *25 (July 30, 1993).  According to MTA, because the last sentence of the Anti-Assignment Clause referred to “successors”, it was clearly not intended to extend to mergers.

The Superior Court disagreed.  It explained that, as a result of the merger, Alberta had ceased to exist, so MTA could only enforce the contract if it showed that the Anti-Assignment Clause did not apply.   MTA , at *6.  It then held that the Anti-Assignment Clause clearly barred Alberta’s transfer of rights through a merger because the clause prevented assignment “by operation of law”, which Delaware case law had interpreted as referring to forward triangular mergers.   Id.  at *7-14.  In light of what it regarded as a straightforward application of the Anti-Assignment Clause, the Superior Court did not engage in the  Star Cellular analysis.  The Superior Court found that the reference to “successors” in the Anti-Assignment Clause meant only that “valid successors” had the right to enforce the contract.   Id. at *13.

Potentially at odds with Chancery precedent?

Of special relevance is the Superior Court’s treatment of existing Delaware case law on anti-assignment clauses and forward triangular mergers.  Existing precedent from the Court of Chancery held that anti-assignment clauses containing both a prohibition on assignment “by operation of law” and a reference to “successors” were ambiguous.  Under the Star Cellular test, this ambiguity was construed against the application of the anti-assignment clause. 

Specifically, MTA  appears at odds with the Chancery ruling in Tenneco Auto. Inc. v. El Paso Corp. , which also involved the impact of an anti-assignment clause following a forward triangular merger.  C.A. No. 18810-NC, 2002 Del. Ch. LEXIS 26 (Mar. 20, 2002).  The language of the anti-assignment clause in Tenneco  was similar to that in MTA :  both clauses prohibited assignment “by operation of law” while also referencing “successors”.  In Tenneco , Vice Chancellor Noble found that those conflicting references made the anti-assignment clause ambiguous, meaning that, under the Star Cellular test, the successor company could enforce the contract.   Id. at *7-10.  The MTA Court did not explain why it reached the opposite result.

Similarly, in ClubCorp, Inc. v. Pinehurst, LLC , Vice Chancellor Parsons held that, following a forward triangular merger, an anti-assignment clause with language like that in Tenneco was ambiguous because the agreement both referenced “successors” and prohibited assignment “by operation of law”.  No. 5120-VCP, 2011 Del. Ch. LEXIS 176, at *26-29 (Nov. 15, 2011).  Again, the ambiguity militated in favor of finding that the anti-assignment clauses did not apply to the merger.   MTA did not address Pinehurst.

Insights from MTA

MTA has several significant implications for practitioners.  The first is a reminder to carefully review a target’s contracts for anti-assignment clauses.  Such clauses in important contracts should be flagged and thoughtfully evaluated. 

In addition, practitioners should remain aware that Delaware courts interpret the phrase “by operation of law” in assignment clauses to refer to mergers in which the target company does not survive.  The presence of this language in anti-assignment clauses in a target’s important contracts (if those contracts are governed by Delaware law) should prompt a discussion about the appropriate transaction structure.  For example, in MTA , the Court suggested that MTA would have had standing to enforce the contract with CMP if it had been merged through a reverse triangular merger rather than a forward triangular merger.  The Superior Court cited a 2013 Chancery decision, Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH , in which Vice Chancellor Parsons found that “a reverse triangular merger does not constitute an assignment by operation of law”.  62 A.3d 62, 83 (Del. Ch. 2013). 

If dealing with similar language in anti-assignment clauses in important agreements, practitioners should consider alternative transaction structures that would allow the target to retain its corporate existence.  According to MTA , such alternatives should allow successor companies to enforce agreements without running afoul of anti-assignment clauses prohibiting “assignment by operation of law”.[2]

[1] The transaction was an amalgamation under Canadian law, which the parties and the Court agreed was the equivalent of a merger under Delaware law.  The transaction structure was equivalent to a forward triangular merger. 

[2] This may not be true in other jurisdictions.  For example, under California law, a reverse triangular merger has been found to be a transfer of rights by operation of law .  See SQL Sols. v. Oracle Corp. , 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21097, at *8-12 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 1991). 

Country Selector

Our regional experience.

• Netherlands
• Scandinavia
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• United States

Asia-Pacific

• Southeast Asia
• South Korea

Middle East

• Saudi Arabia

International language sites

• Chinese | 汉语/漢語
• German | Deutsch
• Japanese | 日本語

• Merger Clause

Get free proposals from vetted lawyers in our marketplace.

Contract Clauses

• Acceleration Clause
• Arbitration Clause
• Assignment 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
• 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

Merger clause defined.

Merger clauses, also called integration clauses, are contract provisions that signify a complete and final agreement among the parties. They also supersede preceding written and verbal contracts. A merger clause and the whole are subject to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and applicable state laws.

Merger Explained

Merger clauses protecting one party from having to comply with the terms and conditions of any prior verbal or written agreements. For example, an executive director for a non-profit renews her employment contract each year. The board of directors may insert a merger clause to ensure that past employment contracts from applying to the renewed one.

In the above-referenced example, the employer does not have to honor the initial contract if an intentional discrepancy is discovered.

Here is a quick explanation of a Merger Clause by Fair Contracts.

Purpose of a Merger Clause

The primary purpose of a merger clause is to prevent a party from filing a claim or adjudicating a contract based on other past agreements. Merger clauses not only verify a whole agreement provision to the whole deal, but they also work in tandem with parol evidence rules. Merger clause and parol evidence rules ensure that adjudicators are dealing with a bonafide, merged agreement.

Merger Clause Examples

Examples of merger clauses include:

• Example 1: Renewing an executive director’s contract
• Example 2: Nullifying all other agreements when renting to a tenant
• Example 3: Buying a business outright from another individual
• Example 4: Agreeing to new corporate protocols after a merger
• Example 5: Asset purchase agreements finalizing the sale of a product

Merger Clause Samples

Sample 1 – lease agreement:.

Incorporation; Amendment; Merger . This Lease, along with any exhibits and attachments or other documents referred to herein, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Lease by this reference, constitutes the entire and exclusive agreement between Landlord and Tenant relating to the Tenant Space, and each of the aforementioned documents may be altered, amended or revoked only by an instrument in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby. All prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements, understandings and/or practices relative to the leasing or use of the Tenant Space are merged herein or revoked hereby. For the avoidance of doubt, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree that (i) this Lease relates exclusively to the Tenant Space, and (ii) the provisions herein do not supersede the terms of any other agreement between Landlord and Tenant related to matters other than the Tenant Space.

Reference :

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database, EX-10.37  2 d222006dex1037.htm LEASE AGREEMENT, Viewed April 5, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1101239/000119312511286045/d222006dex1037.htm >.

Sample 2 – Independent Contractor Agreement:

Merger . This Agreement shall not be terminated by the merger or consolidation of the Company into or with any other entity.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database, EX-10.2 6 aqua_ex10z2.htm FORM OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT , Viewed April 5, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1624203/000155335014001506/aqua_ex10z2.htm >.

Sample 3 – Independent Contractor Agreement:

Merger . This Agreement shall not be terminated by the merger or consolidation of the Company into or with any other entity. In the event of the sale of the Company or substantially all of its assets, the purchaser thereof shall assume the Company’s obligations under this Agreement.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database, EX-10.20 2 aqua_ex10z20.htm INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT , Viewed April 5, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1624203/000155335016001450/aqua_ex10z20.htm >.

Common Contracts with Merger Clauses

Common contracts with merger clauses include:

• Employment agreements
• Lease agreements
• Independent contractor agreements
• Business associate agreements
• Purchase agreements
• Operating agreements
• Real estate sales agreements
• Asset purchase agreements
• Business purchase agreement

Many contract types generally contain merger clauses. However, there are legal implications associated with their use.

Merger Clause FAQs

Corporate lawyers can provide you with legal advice on merger clauses. However, here are the answers to some vital merger clause FAQs:

Why do contracts often have merger clauses?

Merger clauses are helpful for “tying up loose ends” from previously existing contracts or negotiation discussions. They prevent a party from claiming breach of contract or negligence based on another agreement.

What is a no merger clause?

No merger clauses, also known as anti-merger and non-merger clauses, work opposite of merger clauses. Instead of superseding previous agreements, other agreements withstanding will still apply.

Meet some of our Lawyers

G'day, my name is Michele! I work with startups, entrepreneurs and small/medium-sized businesses across the country in a wide array of industries. I help them with all of their ongoing, daily legal needs. This includes entity formation, M&A, contract drafting and review, employment, asset sale & acquisition, and business sales or shareholder exits. I'm half-Australian, half-Italian, and I've lived the last 20+ years of my life in America. I've lived all over the USA, completing high school in the deep south, graduating cum laude from Washington University in St. Louis, and then cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center. After law school I worked for the Los Angeles office of Latham & Watkins, LLP. After four intense and rewarding years there, I left to become General Counsel and VP of an incredible, industry-changing start-up called Urban Mining Company (UMC) that manufactures rare earth permanent magnets. I now work for Phocus Law where I help run our practice focused on entrepreneurs, startups, and SMEs. I love what I do, and I'd love to be of help! My focus is on providing stress-free, enjoyable, and high-quality legal service to all of my clients. Being a good lawyer isn't enough: the client experience should also be great. But work isn't everything, and I love my free time. I've been an avid traveler since my parents put me on a plane to Italy at 9-months old. I'm also a music nut, and am still looking for that perfect client that will engage me to explain why Dark Side Of The Moon is the greatest album of all time. Having grown up in a remote, and gorgeous corner of Australia, I feel a strong connection to nature, and love being in the elements.

The Law Office of David Watson, LLC provides comprehensive and individualized estate-planning services for all stages and phases of life. I listen to your goals and priorities and offer a range of estate-planning services, including trusts, wills, living wills, durable powers of attorney, and other plans to meet your goals. And for convenience and transparency, many estate-planning services are provided at a flat rate.

My career interests are to practice Transactional Corporate Law, including Business Start Up, and Mergers and Acquisitions, as well as Real Estate Law, Estate Planning Law, Tax, and Intellectual Property Law. I am currently licensed in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Utah, after having moved to Phoenix from Philadelphia in September 2019. I currently serve as General Counsel for a bioengineering company. I handle everything from their Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Placement Memorandums, and Corporate Structures to Intellectual Property Assignments, to Employment Law and Beach of Contract settlements. Responsibilities include writing and executing agreements, drafting court pleadings, court appearances, mergers and acquisitions, transactional documents, managing expert specialized legal counsel, legal research and anticipating unique legal issues that could impact the Company. Conducted an acquisition of an entire line of intellectual property from a competitor. In regards to other clients, I am primarily focused on transactional law for clients in a variety of industries including, but not limited to, real estate investment, property management, and e-commerce. Work is primarily centered around entity formation and corporate structure, corporate governance agreements, PPMs, opportunity zone tax incentives, and all kinds of business to business agreements. I have also recently gained experience with Estate Planning law, drafting numerous Estate Planning documents for people such as Wills, Powers of Attorney, Healthcare Directives, and Trusts. I was selected to the 2024 Super Lawyers Southwest Rising Stars list. Each year no more than 2.5% of the attorneys in Arizona and New Mexico are selected to the Rising Stars. I am looking to further gain legal experience in these fields of law as well as expand my legal experience assisting business start ups, mergers and acquisitions and also trademark registration and licensing.

Atilla Z. Baksay is a Colorado-based attorney practicing corporate and securities attorney. Atilla represents clients in the negotiation and drafting of transactional (e.g. master service, purchase and sale, license, IP, and SaaS agreements) and corporate (e.g. restricted stock transfers, stock options plans, convertible notes/SAFE/SAFT agreements, bylaws/operating agreements, loan agreements, personal guarantees, and security agreements) contracts, in-house documents (e.g. employment policies, separation agreements, employment/independent contractor/consultant agreements, NDAs, brokerage relationship policies, and office policy memoranda), and digital policies (e.g. terms of service, privacy policies, CCPA notices, and GDPR notices). Atilla also reviews, and issues legal opinions concerning, the security status of digital currencies and assets. Following law school, Atilla practiced international trade law at the Executive Office of the President, Office of the United States Trade Representative, where his practice spanned economic sanctions enacted against goods originating in the People’s Republic of China valued at $500 billion. Afterwards, Atilla joined a Colorado law firm practicing civil litigation, where the majority of his practice comprised of construction defect suits. Today, Atilla's practice spans all corporate matters for clients in Colorado and the District of Columbia.

James David W.

I graduated from Harvard Law School and worked first for a federal judge and then a leading DC firm before starting a firm with a law school classmate. My practice focuses on company formations, early-stage investments, and mergers & acquisitions.

Anna is an experienced attorney, with over twenty years of experience. With no geographical boundaries confining her practice, Anna works on corporate, healthcare and real estate transactions. Anna brings extensive big firm experience, garnered as an associate in the Miami office of the world's largest law firm, Baker and McKenzie, and the Miami office of the international law firm Kilpatrick Townsend. Her areas of expertise include: mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings, private placements, healthcare transactions, corporate finance, commercial real estate transaction and acting as a general corporate counsel. Anna is certified to practice law in Florida and was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1998. Anna is also a Certified Public Accountant. She passed May 1995 CPA Exam on the first sitting. She is fluent in Russian (native).

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

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Mergers & Acquisitions
• Litigation / Trial Practice
• Administrative & Regulatory

In a reverse triangular merger, the acquiring company forms a subsidiary that merges with and into the target with the outstanding shares of the target being converted into securities of the acquiring corporation or some other consideration.  Does a reverse triangular merger constitute an assignment of a target corporation’s contracts?  Because the reverse triangular merger is an exceedingly common acquisition technique, one would expect that this question was answered long ago.  Surprisingly, however, this isn’t the case.

Earlier this year, Vice Chancellor  Donald F. Parsons  analyzed whether a reverse triangular merger violated an anti-assignment clause that read as follows: “Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under this Agreement shall be assigned, in whole or in part,  by operation of law or otherwise by any of the parties without the prior written consent of the other parties  . . .”.  He concluded:

In sum, Meso could have negotiated for a “change of control provision.”  They did  not.  Instead, they negotiated for a term that prohibits “assignments by  operation of law or otherwise.” Roche has provided a reasonable interpretation of Section 5.08 that is consistent with the general understanding that a reverse triangular merger is not an assignment by operation of law. On the other hand, I  find Meso’s arguments as to why language that prohibits “assignments by  operation of law or otherwise” should be construed to encompass reverse  triangular mergers unpersuasive and its related construction of Section 5.08 to  be unreasonable.

Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH , 62 A.3d 62, 88 (Del. Ch. 2013).  See  I’ve Been Thinking About Conversion, But I Haven’t Decided To Convert .

Here in California, U.S. District Court Judge  Samuel Conti  recently addressed the issue even more recently as follows:

No California state court has resolved this matter, and the Court is not inclined to guess at possible conclusions.  The Court therefore begins from the presumption that a reverse triangular merger, which leaves intact the acquired corporation, does not effect a transfer of rights from the wholly owned subsidiary to its acquirer as a matter of law. What little applicable law there is could be analogized from California cases on stock sales, like  Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier , 48 Cal. 2d 208, 223, 308 P.2d 732 (Cal. 1957), which suggested that if a plaintiff had sold all of his stock in a corporation, there could be no contention that the corporation’s licenses would be extinguished as a matter of law, since the two contracting parties were still extant and in privity.

Florey Inst. of Neuroscience & Mental Health v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers,  2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138904 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013).

Both jurists confronted, and declined to follow, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel’s earlier decision in SQL Solutions v. Oracle Corp. , 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21097 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 1991) with Vice Chancellor Parsons saying: “I decline to adopt the approach outlined in  SQL Solutions , however, because doing so would conflict with Delaware’s jurisprudence surrounding stock acquisitions, among other things.  Under Delaware law, stock purchase transactions, by themselves, do not result in an assignment by operation of law.”  Judge Conti said “Plaintiff relies solely on  SQL Solutions  to argue that assignment occurred as a matter of law when an acquired corporation became another corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary.  That case did not analyze nonassignment clauses and also found that federal copyright law forbid transfer.”

Hollywood, Somali Pirates and Homer

Over the weekend, I saw the recently released film,  Captain Phillips .  The movie tells the story of the takeover of the MV Maersk by Somali pirates.  When the Navy uses a Somali speaker to communicate with the pirates, one of the pirates asks “Who’s this?”.  The translator answers “nemo”, the Latin word for “no one”.  The interchange, of course, is an echo of the famous encounter of Odysseus and the Cyclops, Polyphemus in Homer’s Odyssey :

Κύκλωψ, εἰρωτᾷς μ᾽ ὄνομα κλυτόν, αὐτὰρ ἐγώ τοι ἐξερέω: σὺ δέ μοι δὸς ξείνιον, ὥς περ ὑπέστης. Οὖτις ἐμοί γ᾽ ὄνομα: Οὖτιν δέ με κικλήσκουσι μήτηρ ἠδὲ πατὴρ ἠδ᾽ ἄλλοι πάντες ἑταῖροι. Cyclops, you are asking my renowned name, nevertheless I will declare: “Give to me the hospitality, you were promising.  My name is no one: no one is what my mother, father and all my comrades call me.”

Home,  Odyssey  Book 9, lines 364 -367 (my translation). Matters went downhill from there for both Polyphemus and the pirates.

Current Legal Analysis

More from allen matkins leck gamble mallory & natsis llp, upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Report Fraud
• Get Consumer Alerts
• Search the Legal Library
• Submit Public Comments

Take action

• Report an antitrust violation
• File adjudicative documents
• Find banned debt collectors
• View competition guidance
• Competition Matters Blog

New HSR thresholds and filing fees for 2024

View all Competition Matters Blog posts

We work to advance government policies that protect consumers and promote competition.

View Policy

Search or browse the Legal Library

Find legal resources and guidance to understand your business responsibilities and comply with the law.

Browse legal resources

• Find policy statements
• Submit a public comment

Vision and Priorities

Memo from Chair Lina M. Khan to commission staff and commissioners regarding the vision and priorities for the FTC.

Technology Blog

Consumer facing applications: a quote book from the tech summit on ai.

View all Technology Blog posts

Advice and Guidance

Learn more about your rights as a consumer and how to spot and avoid scams. Find the resources you need to understand how consumer protection law impacts your business.

• Report fraud
• Report identity theft
• Register for Do Not Call
• Sign up for consumer alerts
• Get Business Blog updates
• Get your free credit report
• Find refund cases
• Order bulk publications
• Consumer Advice
• Shopping and Donating
• Credit, Loans, and Debt
• Jobs and Making Money
• Unwanted Calls, Emails, and Texts
• Identity Theft and Online Security
• Business Guidance
• Advertising and Marketing
• Credit and Finance
• Privacy and Security
• By Industry
• For Small Businesses
• Browse Business Guidance Resources
• Business Blog

Servicemembers: Your tool for financial readiness

Visit militaryconsumer.gov

Get consumer protection basics, plain and simple

Visit consumer.gov

Learn how the FTC protects free enterprise and consumers

Visit Competition Counts

Looking for competition guidance?

• Competition Guidance

News and Events

Latest news, ftc finalizes changes to the health breach notification rule.

View News and Events

Upcoming Event

Older adults and fraud: what you need to know.

View more Events

Sign up for the latest news

Follow us on social media

-->   -->   -->   -->   -->  

Playing it Safe: Explore the FTC's Top Video Game Cases

Learn about the FTC's notable video game cases and what our agency is doing to keep the public safe.

Latest Data Visualization

FTC Refunds to Consumers

Explore refund statistics including where refunds were sent and the dollar amounts refunded with this visualization.

About the FTC

Our mission is protecting the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.

Learn more about the FTC

Meet the Chair

Lina M. Khan was sworn in as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission on June 15, 2021.

Chair Lina M. Khan

Looking for legal documents or records? Search the Legal Library instead.

• Cases and Proceedings
• Premerger Notification Program
• Merger Review
• Anticompetitive Practices
• Competition and Consumer Protection Guidance Documents
• Warning Letters
• Consumer Sentinel Network
• Criminal Liaison Unit
• FTC Refund Programs
• Notices of Penalty Offenses
• Advocacy and Research
• Advisory Opinions
• Cooperation Agreements
• Federal Register Notices
• Public Comments
• Policy Statements
• International
• Office of Technology Blog
• Military Consumer
• Consumer.gov
• Bulk Publications
• Data and Visualizations
• Stay Connected
• Commissioners and Staff
• Bureaus and Offices
• Budget and Strategy
• Office of Inspector General
• Careers at the FTC

Fact Sheet on FTC’s Proposed Final Noncompete Rule

• Competition
• Office of Policy Planning
• Bureau of Competition

The following outline provides a high-level overview of the FTC’s proposed final rule :

• Specifically, the final rule provides that it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act—for employers to enter into noncompetes with workers after the effective date.
• Fewer than 1% of workers are estimated to be senior executives under the final rule.
• Specifically, the final rule defines the term “senior executive” to refer to workers earning more than $151,164 annually who are in a “policy-making position.”
• Reduced health care costs: $74-$194 billion in reduced spending on physician services over the next decade.
• New business formation: 2.7% increase in the rate of new firm formation, resulting in over 8,500 additional new businesses created each year.
• This reflects an estimated increase of about 3,000 to 5,000 new patents in the first year noncompetes are banned, rising to about 30,000-53,000 in the tenth year.
• This represents an estimated increase of 11-19% annually over a ten-year period.
• The average worker’s earnings will rise an estimated extra $524 per year. 

The Federal Trade Commission develops policy initiatives on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Follow the  FTC on social media , read  consumer alerts  and the  business blog , and  sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts .

Press Release Reference

Contact information, media contact.

Victoria Graham Office of Public Affairs 415-848-5121