what is the meaning of equitable assignment

Equitable Assignment: Everything You Need to Know

An equitable assignment is one that does not fulfill the statutory criteria for a legal assignment, but is binding and upheld by the courts in the interest of equability, justice, and fairness. 3 min read updated on September 19, 2022

An equitable assignment is one that does not fulfill the statutory criteria for a legal assignment, but is binding and upheld by the courts in the interest of equability, justice, and fairness.

Equitable Assignment

An equitable assignment may not appear to be self-evident by the law's standard, but it presents the assignee with a title that is protected and recognized in equity. It's based on the essence of a declaration of trust; specifically, essential fairness and natural justice. As long as there is valuable consideration involved, it does not matter if a formal agreement is signed. There needs to be some sort of intent displayed from one party to assign and the other party to receive.

The evaluation of a righteous equitable assignment is completed by determining if a debtor would rationally pay the debt to another party alleging to be the assignee. Equitable assignments can be created by:

• The assignor informing the assignee that they transferred a right to them
• The assignor instructing the other party to release their obligation from the assignee and place it instead on the assignor

The only part of an agreement that can be assigned is the benefit. Generally speaking, there is no prerequisite for the written notice to be received or given. The significant characteristic that separates an equitable assignment from a legal assignment is that most of the time, an equitable assignee may not take action against a third party. Instead, it must rely on the guidelines governing equitable assignments. In other words, the equitable assignee must team up with the assignor to take action.

The Doctrine of Equitable Assignment in Wisconsin

In Dow Family LLC v. PHH Mortgage Corp ., the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued in favor of the doctrine of equitable assignment. The case was similar to many other foreclosure cases, except this one came with a twist. Essentially, Dow Family LLC purchased a property and the property owner insisted the mortgage on the property had been paid off. However, in actuality, it wasn't. 

Prior to the sale, the mortgage on the property was with PHH Mortgage Corp. When PHH went to foreclose on the mortgage, Dow Family LLC contested it. There was one specific rebuttal that caught the attention of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The official mortgage on record was with MERS, an appointee for the original lender, U.S. Bank.

Dow argued that PHH couldn't foreclose on the property because the true owner was MERS. Essentially, Dow was stating that the mortgage was never assigned to PHH. Based on this argument, PHH utilized the doctrine of equitable assignment.

Based on a case from 1859, Croft v. Bunster, the court determined that the security for a note is equitably assigned when the note is assigned without a need for an independent, written assignment. Additionally, Dow contended that the statute of frauds prohibits the utilization of the doctrine, mainly because it claimed every assignment on a property must be formally recorded.

During the case, Dow argued that the MERS system, which stored the data regarding the mortgage, was fundamentally flawed. According to the court, the statute of frauds was satisfied because the equitable assignment was in accordance with the operation of law. Most importantly, the court avoided all consideration regarding the MERS system, concluding it was not significant in their decision. 

The outcome was a major win for lenders, as they were relying on the doctrine specifically for these types of circumstances.

Most experts agree that this outcome makes sense in the current mortgage-lending environment. This is due to the fact that it is still quite common for mortgages to be bundled up into mortgage-backed securities and sold on the secondary market.

Many economists claim that by not requiring mortgages to be recorded each time a transfer is completed, the loans are more easily marketed to investors. Additionally, debtors know who their current mortgage company is because the new lender must always notify the current borrower in order to receive payment. It was determined that recording and documenting the mortgage merely provides a signal to the rest of the world that the property owner secures a debt.

If you need help with an equitable assignment, you can  post your job  on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Assignment Legal Definition
• Assignment Law
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Legal Assignment
• Assignment and Novation Agreement: What You Need to Know
• Assignment of Rights Example
• Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
• Partial Assignment of Contract
• Assignment Contract Law
• What is an Assignment and Assumption Agreement

• Practical Law

Equitable assignment

Practical law uk glossary 2-107-6540  (approx. 3 pages).

• The assignor can inform the assignee that he transfers a right or rights to him.
• The assignor can instruct the other party or parties to the agreement to discharge their obligation to the assignee instead of the assignor.
• General Contract and Boilerplate
• Breach of Lease Covenants
• Security and Quasi Security

Equitable Assignment

Equitable Assignment: What is Equitable Assignment?

In the world of law and business, contracts are a common way to formalize agreements between two parties. Sometimes, these contracts involve intellectual property, such as patents, trademarks, or copyrights. When one party wants to transfer ownership of this intellectual property to another party, they may use an equitable assignment.

So, what is an equitable assignment?

An equitable assignment is a type of contract that transfers the rights and benefits associated with intellectual property from one person (the assignor) to another person (the assignee). This can happen when someone wants to sell or give away their patents, trademarks, or copyrights, but there are specific rules and regulations governing these types of transactions.

In an equitable assignment, the assignor agrees to transfer their rights in the intellectual property to the assignee. The assignee then gains the right to use, license, or monetize the intellectual property as they see fit. Equitable assignments are often used when someone wants to pass on ownership of their intellectual property after they have developed it, or when a company acquires another business and needs to take ownership of its patents, trademarks, or copyrights.

Here's an example: let's say John has spent years developing a new software program and now wants to sell the rights to use that software. He can enter into an equitable assignment with Jane, who is willing to pay him for the rights to use the software. Once the assignment is complete, Jane gains the right to use, modify, or distribute the software as she sees fit, while John no longer has any claim to the intellectual property.

Equitable assignments are important because they help ensure that intellectual property is transferred correctly and legally. This is especially crucial in today's digital age, where patents, trademarks, and copyrights can have significant value and impact on businesses and individuals alike.

In summary, an equitable assignment is a type of contract that transfers ownership of intellectual property from one party to another. It's a common way for people or companies to buy, sell, or give away their patents, trademarks, or copyrights, and it helps ensure that these valuable assets are transferred correctly and legally.

Equitable assignment

Practical law uk glossary 2-107-6540  (approx. 3 pages).

• The assignor can inform the assignee that he transfers a right or rights to him.
• The assignor can instruct the other party or parties to the agreement to discharge their obligation to the assignee instead of the assignor.

The Law Dictionary

Your Free Online Legal Dictionary • Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.

EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT Definition & Legal Meaning

Definition & citations:.

A result that falls short of meeting the requirements of a legal assignment, yet, in the interest of fairness and justice, will be enforced by the courts, and documented as valid.

This article contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. The Law Dictionary is not a law firm, and this page does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

Browse Legal Articles

Business Formation

Business Law

Child Custody & Support

Criminal Law

Employment & Labor Law

Estate Planning

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Landlord-Tenant

Motor Vehicle Accidents

Personal Injury

Real Estate & Property Law

Traffic Violations

Browse by Area of Law

Powered by Black’s Law Dictionary, Free 2nd ed., and The Law Dictionary .

About The Law Dictionary

Terms and Conditions

Privacy Policy

Switch language:

Legal and equitable assignments

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

Legal Framework of Equitable Assignments in Finance

Financiers and lessors often take an assignment over debts or certain rights under contracts as part of their security package. Depending on how this is done, an assignment can either be characterised as a legal or equitable assignment under English law. Stephenson Harwood’s Dipesh Bharania explains

A key difference between a legal and equitable assignment is the ability of the assignee, be it a financier or lessor, to bring proceedings in its own name against the debtor for payment of the debt owed, or to enforce rights in the contract.

Go deeper with GlobalData

Alternative Payment Solution: iDEAL

Competitor profile: neat, data insights.

The gold standard of business intelligence.

Find out more

A legal assignee has this right, but there is a question over whether an equitable assignee has this right or not.

In the case of General Nutrition Investment Company v Holland and Barrett International Ltd and another [2017] EWHC 746 Ch, the High Court held that the beneficiary of an equitable assignment did not have the right to bring proceedings in its own name, and had to do so jointly with the assignor which had assigned rights in the underlying contract.

This raises questions about the equitable assignment, as it appears to contradict other judgments which permit an equitable assignee to take proceedings in its own name. The predecessor company of General Nutrition Investment Company (GNIC) entered into a trade mark licence agreement in March 2003 with Holland and Barrett (H&B) allowing H&B to use certain trademarks in the UK.

After complex internal restructuring, the original contracting party had been dissolved and GNIC was the successor company, which as assignee had been assigned both the rights under the original trademark licence agreement, and the rights to the trademarks themselves. GNIC alleged that H&B was in breach of the licence agreement and served a number of notices of termination on H&B purporting to terminate the agreement.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

The court had to decide whether any of these notices of termination were effective, and whether GNIC had the right to serve such notices, and bring and maintain proceedings against H&B in its own name.

The formalities for a legal assignment are set out in Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, including that the assignment must be:

In writing and executed by the assignor “Absolute” and unconditional, Not be expressed to be “by way of charge”, and Notified in writing to the person against whom the assignor could enforce the assigned rights – usually the other contracting party.

It can often suit the assignor, the assignee and the third party to allow the assignor to deal with the third party, for notice not to be given (certainly initially) and the assignee to remain a silent party. This method is frequently used in financing documents, with notice only being given at a later date (rather than at the time of assignment) when there is a possibility of enforcement on the horizon.

An equitable assignment tends to be created when an assignment does not meet one or more of the requirements for a legal assignment. The main differences between a legal and an equitable assignment are priority (and the established principle that the assignee who serves notice first takes priority over any other assignee (where notice is not given)) and an equitable assignee needing to join the assignor as a party in any legal proceedings it brings against the third-party debtor.

However, two recent cases have lessened the distinction in practice between the two. In the Bexhill case the Court of Appeal recognised that an equitable assignee could take action in its own name without joining in the assignor. In the Ardila case, where notice had been given to the contracting party, the High Court looked at the terms of the notice and decided that what had seemed to be a legal assignment was in fact an equitable assignment because the wording of the notice seemed to retain rights for the assignor. The court used this reasoning to declare it an equitable assignment, despite the notice having been given as required.

Returning to the case in point, after the internal reorganisation and subsequent assignment of the trade mark licence agreement to GNIC, no notices of such assignment were served on H&B by the assignor prior to the purported termination of the agreement or the issue of proceedings. GNIC maintained that as it took the place of its predecessor as the “Licensor”, it became the body entitled to exercise rights of termination under the agreement. H&B’s contention was that, as an equitable assignee, GNIC did not have the right to terminate the agreement or bring proceedings in its own name.

It is widely accepted that, until a notice of assignment is given, and (i) the third party can validly discharge its obligations under the contract to the assignor, and (ii) the third party may raise against the assignee any defence or set-off which he could have raised against the assignor (provided that the matter on which the defence is based arose before notice was received) and the contracting party and assignor can amend the terms of the contract without the assignee’s consent.

The High Court considered that previous case law on this issue was binding as it had not been overruled or materially distinguished in any subsequent cases heard, and held that notice to the contracting third party is necessary to perfect the right of the assignee. Additional weight was given to the fact that a substantive contractual right (in this case, the right to terminate the licence agreement) had been assigned rather than just the assignment of a debt. Consequently, the contractual relationship between the parties was seeking to be amended and therefore the third party was entitled to see that such change was being effected by a party which had the right to do so and whom it knew to have such rights. The Court maintained that H&B cannot be expected to accept a notice of termination from an entity which turns out to be an assignee when it had never been given notice of that assignment.

While the High Court accepted that this decision may be appealed, this has raised a question about equitable assignments and the rights of the equitable assignee under English law. In the meantime, in practice, parties will have to scrutinise what type of right they are seeking, whether in security or as a full legal assignment and opt for the method which provides the clearest outcome possible as the law stands when they take the assignment. Anyone taking an assignment of the benefit of a contract should clearly ensure that notice is served on the other contracting party if it wants to be sure it can act in its own name under that contract against the other contracting party if need be.

Otherwise, there is a risk that an equitable assignee will be unable to enforce substantive contractual rights without having to join in the assignor in proceedings. That said, it may still be commercially preferable to have an equitable assignment for particular financing and leasing structures where it is not thought difficult to join the assignor at a later date if need be. In this case it was not possible, as the assignor had been dissolved. Advice should be sought about the type of assignment to be taken in each transaction pending further clarification from the courts.

Related Company Profiles

More relevant.

Top M&A legal advisers in financial services in 2023 

Davis polk & wardwell, kirkland & ellis lead financial services-sector m&a legal advisers in q1-q3 2023, auxillias expands team with two legal, governance and compliance specialists, jo davis and daksha mistry launch specialist legal firm, sign up for our daily news round-up.

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

Sign up to the newsletter: In Brief

Your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

Leasing Life Focus (monthly)

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

Search for:

Jump straight to:

Please enter a search term

What sectors are you interested in?

We can use your selection to show you more of the content that you’re interested in.

Sign-up and we’ll remember your preferences

Sign-up to follow topics, sectors, people and also have the option to receive a weekly update of lastest news across your areas of interest.

Got an account already? Sign in

Want to speak to an advisor from your closest office?

Out-law / your daily need-to-know.

Out-Law Guide 4 min. read

Assignment and novation

19 Aug 2011, 4:40 pm

Assignment involves the transfer of an interest or benefit from one person to another. However the 'burden', or obligations, under a contract cannot be transferred.

Assignment in construction contracts

As noted above only the benefits of a contract can be assigned - not the burden. In the context of a building contract:

• the employer may assign its right to have the works constructed, and its right to sue the contractor in the event that the works are defective – but not its obligation to pay for the works;
• the contractor may assign its right to payment of the contract sum - but not its obligation to construct the works in accordance with the building contract or its obligation to meet any valid claims, for example for defects.

After assignment, the assignee is entitled to the benefit of the contract and to bring proceedings against the other contracting party to enforce its rights. The assignor still owes obligations to the other contracting party, and will remain liable to perform any part of the contract that still has to be fulfilled since the burden cannot be assigned. In practice, what usually happens is that the assignee takes over the performance of the contract with effect from assignment and the assignor will generally ask to be indemnified against any breach or failure to perform by the assignee.  The assignor will remain liable for any past liabilities incurred before the assignment.

In construction contracts, the issue of assignment often arises in looking at whether collateral warranties granted to parties outside of the main construction contract can be assigned.

Funders may require the developer to assign contractual rights against the contractor and the design team as security to the funder, as well as the benefit of performance bonds and parent company guarantees. The developer may assign such rights to the purchaser either during or after completion of the construction phase.

Contractual assignment provisions

Many contracts exclude or qualify the right to assignment, and the courts have confirmed that a clause which provides that a party to a contract may not assign the benefit of that contract without the consent of the other party is legally effective and will extend to all rights and benefits arising under the contract, including the right to any remedies. Other common qualifications on the right to assign include:

• a restriction on assignment without the consent of the other party, whether or not such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed;
• only one of the parties may assign;
• only certain rights may be assigned – for example, warranties and indemnities may be excluded;
• a limit on the number of assignments - as is almost always the case in respect of collateral warranties;
• a right to assign only to a named assignee or class of assignee.

Note that in some agreements where there is a prohibition on assignment, it is sometimes possible to find the reservation of specific rights to create a trust or establish security over the subject matter of the agreement instead.

Legal and equitable assignment

The Law of Property Act creates the ability to legally assign a debt or any other chose in action where the debtor, trustee or other relevant person is notified in writing. If the assignment complied with the formalities in the Act it is a legal assignment, otherwise it will be an equitable assignment.

Some transfers can only take effect as an equitable assignment, for example:

• an oral assignment;
• an assignment by way of charge;
• an assignment of only part of the chosen in action;
• an assignment of which notice has not been given to the debtor;
• an agreement to assign.

If the assignment is equitable rather than legal, the assignor cannot enforce the assigned property in its own name and to do so must join the assignee in any action. This is designed to protect the debtor from later proceedings brought by the assignor or another assignee from enforcing the action without notice of the earlier assignment.

Security assignments

Using assignment as a way of taking security requires special care, as follows:

• if the assignment is by way of charge, the assignor retains the right to sue for any loss it suffers caused by a breach of the other contract party;
• if there is an outright assignment coupled with an entitlement to a re-assignment back once the secured obligation has been performed, it is an assignment by way of legal mortgage.

Please see our separate Out-Law guide for more information on types of security.

Restrictions on assignment

There are restrictions on the assignment of certain types of interest on public policy grounds, as follows:

• certain personal contracts – for example, a contract for the employment of a personal servant or for the benefit of a motor insurance policy cannot be assigned;
• a bare cause of action or 'right to sue' where the assignee has no commercial interest in the subject matter of the underlying transaction cannot be assigned;
• certain rights conferred by statute – for example, a liquidator's powers to bring wrongful trading proceedings against a director – cannot be assigned;
• an assignment of a contract may not necessarily transfer the benefit of an arbitration agreement contained in the contract;
• the assignment of certain rights is regulated – for example, the assignment of company shares or copyright.

If you want to transfer the burden of a contract as well as the benefits under it, you have to novate. Like assignment, novation transfers the benefits under a contract but unlike assignment, novation transfers the burden under a contract as well.

In a novation the original contract is extinguished and is replaced by a new one in which a third party takes up rights and obligations which duplicate those of one of the original parties to the contract. Novation does not cancel past rights and obligations under the original contract, although the parties can agree to novate these as well.

Novation is only possible with the consent of the original contracting parties as well as the new party. Consideration (the 'price' paid, whether financial or otherwise, by the new party in return for the contract being novated to it) must be provided for this new contract unless the novation is documented in a deed signed by all three parties.

• Construction Contracts
• Construction
• Government and public sector
• Real Estate
• Technology, Science & Industry
• United Kingdom

Contact an adviser

Graham Alty

Latest News

Why health and safety at work law stands the test of time 50 years on, dpa issues uber €290 million fine for gdpr data transfer breach, uk insurance firms must ensure fair value of products following fca review, botswana mining law proposals pose potential litigation and corruption risks, hong kong sar consultation on ai technology copyright a ‘positive step’, don't miss a thing.

Sign-up to receive the latest news, analysis and events direct to your e-mail inbox

You might also like

Out-Law News

UK Budget 2024: general election battle lines become clearer

The UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Budget speech on Wednesday, and the response of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to it, provide an insight into how the forthcoming UK general election campaign will be fought, an expert in public policy has said.

Regulatory references ‘in scope’ of FCA’s survey of non-financial misconduct

Anne Sammon tells HRNews about the challenge facing firms over whether non-financial misconduct should be included in a regulatory reference

EHRC’s menopause guidance highlights business case for supporting women

Trish Embley tells HRNews about attracting and retaining older female talent in the workplace

UK government plans to revamp holiday pay calculation for part-year workers

Out-Law Analysis

Pensions disputes: managing member expectations paramount

UK subsidy control post-Brexit: access to effective judicial remedies

'Steps of court' settlement was not negligent, court rules

'Vast majority' of companies not seeking to avoid tax

'World first' industrial decarbonisation strategy developed in the UK

3D printing: UK product safety issues

5G potential for business highlighted in UK funding programme

Sectors and what we do

Sectors we work in.

• Financial Services
• Infrastructure
• Your assets
• Your company
• Your finance
• Your legal team and resource
• Your people
• Your risks and regulatory environment

Your privacy matters to us

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. To improve our site, we would like to use additional cookies to help us understand how visitors use it, measure traffic to our site from social media platforms and to personalise your experience. Some of the cookies that we use are provided by third parties. To accept all cookies click ‘accept all’. To reject all optional cookies click ‘reject all’. To choose which optional cookies to allow click ‘cookie settings’. This tool uses a cookie to remember your choices. Please visit our cookie policy for more information.

Azmi & Associates

Legal Consulting : Conception to Completion

Statutory Assignment vs Equitable Assignment

This article attempts to provide a brief overview of the differences between statutory assignment and equitable assignment. The actual application of the general rules described here would be subject to the applicable distinct facts and circumstances.

What is Assignment?

An assignment is a transfer of rights or liabilities such as those that arise under an instrument, chose in action 1 , or debt. An assignment can either be a statutory assignment or an equitable assignment.

In Malaysia, an assignment complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was described as a ‘statutory assignment’ and an assignment not complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was a ‘non-statutory assignment’ i.e., an equitable assignment. 2 The conditions of a statutory assignment are as follows: 3

(a) it must be absolute and did not purport to be by way of charge only;

(b) the assignment was in writing under the hand of the assignor; and

(c) express notice in writing thereof had been given to the debtor or trustee.

Meanwhile, an equitable assignment gives the assignee a right enforceable only in equity. The mode or form of assignment is absolutely immaterial provided the intention of the parties is clear. 4

Rules that Govern Assignments

Written notice is an essential part of a statutory assignment. Therefore, it is ineffective unless strictly accurate – accurate, for instance, as regards the date of the assignment and the amount due from the debtor. 5

However, notice is not necessary to perfect an equitable assignment. Even without notice to the debtor the title to the assignee is complete, not only against the assignor personally, but also against the persons who stand in the same position as the assignor, as, for instance, his trustee in bankruptcy, a judgement creditor or a person claiming under a later assignment made without consideration. 6

In regard to the form of notice, as mentioned earlier, a statutory assignment must comply with the form of notice required under Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956, whilst for an equitable assignment, no particular form is required to constitute a valid equitable assignment.

Additionally, it must be noted that although notice is not required for equitable assignments, an assignee must give notice to the debtor in order to get priority over other assignee(s). In this regard, the Federal Court in Public Finance Bhd v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd (In Receivership) (Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia, Intervener) [1996] 2 MLJ 369 explained in detail about the importance of notice:

“ We need to say a few words more about the great desirability of giving notice of assignment of a debt by an assignee to the debtor, even though absence of such notice does not affect the validity of the equitable assignment as between the assignor and the assignee. If notice is not given, the assignee must give credit for any payment made to the assignor by the debtor. This rule means that, by extension, even if the assignor assigns once more the debt to another person in fraud or otherwise on the earlier assignee, and that other person gives notice to the debtor; and if the debtor pays that other person or the second assignee, then the earlier assignee must still give credit to the debtor for his payment thus, for the debtor cannot be blamed for doing lawfully in ignorance of the title of the earlier assignee who has failed to give notice of the assignment to the debtor. Notice to debtor is for the protection of the assignee himself. It is this effect of what the debtor does lawfully as described that dims the view of the true role of the nemo dat rule in the resolution of disputed claims to a same debt. The money paid to the ‘second assignee’ can, of course, be recovered by the earlier assignee on the nemo dat principle. ”

(b) An assignee takes subject to equities

For both statutory assignment and equitable assignment, the assignee takes ‘subject to equities’, that is, subject to all such defences as might have prevailed against the assignor.

The general rule, both at law and in equity, is that no person can acquire title to a chose in action…from one who has himself no title to it. 7 In other words, the assignee can be in a no better position than the assignor was prior to the assignment. 8

(c) Rights incapable of assignment

Some choses in action are not assignable, and not every right which arises under or out of a contract can be assigned. 9 An example of rights incapable of assignment is where the nature of the contract is intended to be personal, therefore, it will be meaningless if it is assigned to another person.

Effect of Assignment

A statutory assignment has the sole intended effect of facilitating an assignee to sue in his own name directly irrespective of whether the chose in action is an equitable chose in action or a legal chose in action. 10

Meanwhile, the effect of an equitable assignment depends on whether the assignment is absolute or not. An absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action entitles the assignee to bring an action in his own name. 11 But a non-absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action does not entitle the assignee to sue in his own name but requires him to join the assignor as a party. 12

• ‘Chose in action’ is a known legal expression used to describe all personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not by taking physical possession (Associated Tractors Sdn Bhd v Woo Sai Wa [1997] 5 MLJ 441 (High Court)).
• MBF Factors Sdn Bhd v Tay Hing Ju (T/A New General Trading) [2002] 5 MLJ 536 (High Court).
• Williams Brandt Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co [1905] AC 454 (House of Lords).
• Leong, A. P. B. (1998). Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract (2nd ed.). Butterworths Asia, at page 861.
• Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson’s law of contract, at page 400.
• Meagher, R. P., Heydon, J. D., & Leeming, M. J. (2022). Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrine and Remedies (4th ed., p. 284). Butterworths LexisNexis.
• Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson’s law of contract, at page 402.
• Lim Chon Jet @ Lim Chon Jat & Ors v Wee Ai Hua & Anor [2022] 6 MLJ 243 (Court of Appeal).

Written by:

Nur Izzatie Azlan & Narina Aireen Hilmy Zaini  ( [email protected] )

Corporate Communications Azmi & Associates 28 November 2023

Related Articles

Navigating legal requirements – living in sarawak, malaysia, recent developments on the implementation of environment, social and governance (esg), trademark wars: protecting your brand in the battle against infringement – malaysian context, the regulatory framework of stem cell research and therapy in malaysia, the legal aspects of purchasing a drilling rig, privacy overview.

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

Dear Valued Clients,

Following the national fiscal (Budget 2024) announcement, the proposed Service Tax (ST) rate will be increased from the current rate of 6% to 8% with effect from 1 March 2024, on selected taxable services including the legal services sector.

At this point, Azmi & Associates (“ the Firm ”) has outlined a tentative approach to the proposed increase in ST, pending further clarifications and implementation guidelines from the relevant Ministry and the Royal Malaysian Customs Department.

During this period, the Firm reserves the right to update or modify the information as deemed necessary.

1. Effective Date The anticipated effective date for the implementation of the new tax rate (8%) is set for 1 March 2024.

2. Transitional rules for the proposed increase in Service Tax rate a. Service Tax at 6% is applicable on taxable services provided before 1 March 2024; Service Tax at 8% is applicable on taxable services provided post 1 March 2024. b. Taxable services spanning 1 March 2024: • Service Tax at 6% for the portion of taxable services provided before 1 March 2024 • Service Tax at 8% for the portion of taxable services provided post 1 March 2024

Should you have any queries or require further clarification on this matter, please feel free to reach out to us. We highly value our client relationships and are dedicated to ensuring a seamless transition through these changes.

Corporate Communications, Azmi & Associates – 16 February 2024

Powered by WhatsApp Chat

WhatsApp Chat is free, download and try it now here!

• assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Read more about our firm

© 2024, Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, All rights reserved  | Terms of Use | Site by Bay Design

Equitable assignment

Practical law uk glossary 2-107-6540  (approx. 3 pages).

• The assignor can inform the assignee that he transfers a right or rights to him.
• The assignor can instruct the other party or parties to the agreement to discharge their obligation to the assignee instead of the assignor.
• General Contract and Boilerplate

Transferring a loan by assignment

Published by a lexisnexis banking & finance expert.

This Practice Note explains one of the key ways a lender can transfer a loan under English law to another lender by assignment.

The other key ways are:

novation—see Practice Note: Transferring a loan by novation, and

sub-participation or risk–participation—see Practice Note: Selling a loan by sub-participation

A loan (which is a debt) is a chose in action . A chose in action is something which is recoverable by legal action (as opposed to something which is physically possessed). As a basic principle, choses in action cannot be assigned at common law.

Assignments of choses in action are therefore either:

statutory—often referred to as 'legal' assignments because they have an equivalent effect to legal assignment s, or

Under English law, an assignment is a transfer of rights; it does not transfer obligations (in contrast to a novation—see Practice Note: Transferring a loan by novation).

This Practice Note discusses:

requirements for a legal assignment

how legal assignments differ from equitable assignments

the advantages and disadvantages of assignments as a method of transfer, and

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

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

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

Get your quote today and take step closer to being able to benefit from:

• 36 practice areas

Get a LexisNexis quote

* denotes a required field

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE

Key definition:

Equitable assignment definition, what does equitable assignment mean.

assignment s can occur in equity when any of the requirements of legal assignment are not satisfied.

Popular documents

Accelerating a loan.

Accelerating a loanThis Practice Note looks at considerations prior to, and when accelerating a loan. It discusses:•what is meant by acceleration•the circumstances in which lenders may accelerate•alternatives to acceleration, and•risks and legal considerations in relation to accelerationWhat is

Selling a loan by sub-participation

Selling a loan by sub-participationSub-participation is a means by which a lender can transfer its risk in a loan to another entity.For more general information on loan transfers in a lending context, see Practice Note: Key issues in loan transfers.What is meant by

The security agent and security trust provisions

The security agent and security trust provisionsThe security agentIn a syndicated loan transaction, the security agent (sometimes also known as the security trustee) (the Security Agent) will hold the transaction security on trust for the creditors as a whole, the membership of which can vary from

Introduction to fund finance—capital call facilities

Introduction to fund finance—capital call facilitiesThis Practice Note discusses:•what is meant by capital call facilities, NAV, or asset backed facilities, and hybrid facilities•the commercial use of capital call facilities•the due diligence that lenders will conduct•the standard security package

0330 161 1234

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

Popular Links

• Supplier Payment Terms
• Partner Alliance Programme

HELP & SUPPORT

• Legal Help and Support
• Tolley Tax Help and Support

LEGAL SOLUTIONS

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

Assignments: why you need to serve a notice of assignment

Catherine phillips.

PSL Principal Associate

It's the day of completion; security is taken, assignments are completed and funds move. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief. At this point, no-one wants to create unnecessary paperwork - not even the lawyers! Notices of assignment are, in some circumstances, optional. However, in other transactions they could be crucial to a lender's enforcement strategy. In the article below, we have given you the facts you need to consider when deciding whether or not you need to serve notice of assignment.

What issues are there with serving notice of assignment?

Assignments are useful tools for adding flexibility to banking transactions. They enable the transfer of one party's rights under a contract to a new party (for example, the right to receive an income stream or a debt) and allow security to be taken over intangible assets which might be unsuitable targets for a fixed charge. A lender's security net will often include assignments over contracts (such as insurance or material contracts), intellectual property rights, investments or receivables.

An assignment can be a legal assignment or an equitable assignment. If a legal assignment is required, the assignment must comply with a set of formalities set out in s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which include the requirement to give notice to the contract counterparty.

The main difference between legal and equitable assignments (other than the formalities required to create them) is that with a legal assignment, the assignee can usually bring an action against the contract counterparty in its own name following assignment. However, with an equitable assignment, the assignee will usually be required to join in proceedings with the assignor (unless the assignee has been granted specific powers to circumvent that). That may be problematic if the assignor is no longer available or interested in participating.

Why should we serve a notice of assignment?

The legal status of the assignment may affect the credit scoring that can be given to a particular class of assets. It may also affect a lender's ability to effect part of its exit strategy if that strategy requires the lender to be able to deal directly with the contract counterparty.

The case of General Nutrition Investment Company (GNIC) v Holland and Barrett International Ltd and another (H&B) provides an example of an equitable assignee being unable to deal directly with a contract counterparty as a result of a failure to provide a notice of assignment.

The case concerned the assignment of a trade mark licence to GNIC . The other party to the licence agreement was H&B. H&B had not received notice of the assignment. GNIC tried to terminate the licence agreement for breach by serving a notice of termination. H&B disputed the termination. By this point in time the original licensor had been dissolved and so was unable to assist.

At a hearing of preliminary issues, the High Court held that the notices of termination served by GNIC , as an equitable assignee, were invalid, because no notice of the assignment had been given to the licensee. Although only a High Court decision, this follows a Court of Appeal decision in the Warner Bros Records Inc v Rollgreen Ltd case, which was decided in the context of the attempt to exercise an option.

In both cases, an equitable assignee attempted to exercise a contractual right that would change the contractual relationship between the parties (i.e. by terminating the contractual relationship or exercising an option to extend the term of a licence). The judge in GNIC felt that "in each case, the counterparty (the recipient of the relevant notice) is entitled to see that the potential change in his contractual position is brought about by a person who is entitled, and whom he can see to be entitled, to bring about that change".

In a security context, this could hamper the ability of a lender to maximise the value of the secured assets but yet is a constraint that, in most transactions, could be easily avoided.

Why not serve notice?

Sometimes it's just not necessary or desirable. For example:

• If security is being taken over a large number of low value receivables or contracts, the time and cost involved in giving notice may be disproportionate to the additional value gained by obtaining a legal rather than an equitable assignment.
• If enforcement action were required, the equitable assignee typically has the option to join in the assignor to any proceedings (if it could not be waived by the court) and provision could be made in the assignment deed for the assignor to assist in such situations. Powers of attorney are also typically granted so that a lender can bring an action in the assignor's name.
• Enforcement is often not considered to be a significant issue given that the vast majority of assignees will never need to bring claims against the contract counterparty.

Care should however, be taken in all circumstances where the underlying contract contains a ban on assignment, as the contract counterparty would not have to recognise an assignment that is made in contravention of that ban. Furthermore, that contravention in itself may trigger termination and/or other rights in the assigned contract, that could affect the value of any underlying security.

What about acknowledgements of notices?

A simple acknowledgement of service of notice is simply evidence of the notice having been received. However, these documents often contain commitments or assurances by the contract counterparty which increase their value to the assignee.

Best practice for serving notice of assignment

Each transaction is different and the weighting given to each element of the security package will depend upon the nature of the debt and the borrower's business. The service of a notice of assignment may be a necessity or an optional extra. In each case, the question of whether to serve notice is best considered with your advisers at the start of a transaction to allow time for the lender's priorities to be highlighted to the borrowers and captured within the documents.

For further advice on serving notice of assignment please contact Kirsty Barnes or Catherine Phillips  from our Banking & Finance team.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Related services

• Cast & crew

What Did One of the Neighbors Miss During His Photographic Assignment Abroad?

Pascal Bonitzer: "Neither death nor crime existed in the polymorphous world of the burlesque, in which everyone deals and takes blows as best he can, in which cream buns fly and buildings co... Read all Pascal Bonitzer: "Neither death nor crime existed in the polymorphous world of the burlesque, in which everyone deals and takes blows as best he can, in which cream buns fly and buildings collapse in a burst of collective laughter. In a world of pure gesture, such as the animated... Read all Pascal Bonitzer: "Neither death nor crime existed in the polymorphous world of the burlesque, in which everyone deals and takes blows as best he can, in which cream buns fly and buildings collapse in a burst of collective laughter. In a world of pure gesture, such as the animated cartoon (itself a substitute for slapstick), the protagonists are in principle immortal a... Read all

• Jalal Toufic

User reviews

• November 8, 2023 (Lebanon)
• The webpage of the solo exhibition at Beirut Art Center of which it was a part.
• See more company credits at IMDbPro

Technical specs

• Runtime 21 minutes

Related news

Contribute to this page.

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More to explore

Recently viewed.

‘SEAL Team’s Beau Knapp on Drew’s ‘Breakthrough Moment’: ‘You Shed Part of Your Soul to Get There’

Spoiler Alert

Don’t Miss a Thing!

For exclusive news and updates, subscribe to our seal team newsletter :.

[Warning: The below contains MAJOR spoilers for  SEAL Team Season 7 Episode 5 “A Perfect Storm.”]

Put a team of SEALs in an abandoned restaurant without air conditioning for days, a storm raging outside, and tensions already high before all that, and it’s the perfect pressure cooker of a situation. Such is the case in the latest episode of  SEAL Team , which results in Bravo’s newest member, Drew Franklin ( Beau Knapp ), revealing why he’s been keeping himself at a distance from the rest of the team.

It turns out that Drew was part of Echo—he wasn’t with the rest of his team when they were killed in Jalalabad. But even after opening up, he’s not ready for anything to change or to be anything but professional, he stresses. The episode then ends with Jason ( David Boreanaz ) surprising the team by revealing they’ll have to continue without him—he’s heading back to be with his son, who needs reconstructive surgery after a hockey injury.

Below, Knapp talks about Drew’s vulnerability, filming that key scene, and what’s coming up.

Drew finally opens up to Bravo, but it’s in the middle of this pressure cooker situation. Talk about filming that scene.

Beau Knapp: That episode was very special. Jessica Paré directed, and she was incredible. She was very intimate, everyone knowing each other. And it was funny, we were trapped in that room for five days straight. You’d go into that room just to film and they set it up to where it would drive you crazy to be in there. And there’s all these intense things, everyone going after each other and everything, so there was some real emotion happening in that room.

Michael Moriatis / Paramount+

It was definitely a moment for Drew that I was nervous to—not nervous, but I was heavily anticipating this moment for Drew in the series because I do think it’s that breakthrough moment for him, or at least for the audience to understand who he is, why he is the way he is, and he’s not just a complete asshole and that they all have something in common. While we were filming, we did a few takes, everyone was very fluid, and then that real stuff comes down when you just kind of shed part of your soul to get there. And it was beautiful because for four episodes, my character Drew would just go head-to-head with everybody, and it was so refreshing to just kind of be vulnerable and open up for a change. I know that he’s wanted to—I think that’s why he pushes back so much, even if he is making progress with the team, is that he feels a connection starting to be made. He feels like a team member and he doesn’t want that because he doesn’t want to get hurt again, and he puts so much responsibility on himself for what happened with Echo that to experience anything like that again or to open up like that again to a team is very hard.

What do you think it would’ve taken for him to open up without this situation? Would he ever have just sitting around?

Maybe if we had 22 episodes and he’d be able to kind of take some more time with it. But I think it happened at the perfect time and no, I don’t think—I think he was so stubborn, had so much guilt and shame and insecurity, and I mean it all comes out through cockiness and he has his guard up all the time, but I felt like Drew saw that this team was falling apart that he actually cares about deep down inside. I think it was a way for him to bring everybody together again or to show that we’ve made some progress here and that we need each other. And like Clay said, that everybody needs a team. I think he just finally understands that.

And it’s funny because it was such an emotional moment that Drew, obviously he’ll go back to his ways of being an asshole or cockiness, but there’ll always be that moment where you see him as a human being. Hopefully, that just gives him the opportunity to open up more and to really be on a team and to really build that trust with everybody and be open to living again and open to trusting and fighting the good fight.

Will the dynamic with the rest of Bravo change or because he’s going to go back to how he’s been, not really?

I can’t give away too much, but I think it’s like we spoke about before where if he feels himself getting closer to anybody or vulnerable or any sort of connection, it triggers him to go, I need to destroy everything. I need to push. I need to burn every house down every bridge. Because building connections and building that trust and caring for these people just sets up the opportunity to be hurt again, to lose people again, and I don’t think that Drew thinks that he can handle that loss again. I think it’s questionable where he doesn’t know if he could suffer through that again. And so yeah, I think it’s a time where he definitely opens up and he shows his true colors and that he’s the same as Jason and Sonny [ A.J. Buckley ] and all these people. He’s scared but he’s strong-willed and brave and all these things, but I think that’s going to go through the season where the more he connects, the more he’s got to equally push back, and then hopefully, he figures it out by the end and everyone’s friends.

Does hearing about Jason offering up his trident for the team change what Drew thinks of him? Because Drew has been very vocal about that, especially for a new member of the team.

It’s a facade to an extent. It’s that his armor is cockiness, his armor is arrogance, and that he doesn’t need anybody to get by, that he knows what he’s doing. And I think underneath it all, he will always respect Jason, Bravo 1. He’s definitely walking that line and pushing buttons and trying to see where it leads because it’s to get attention, to kind of see where you stand with the team, and it is just disrespecting authority—he’s against authority in every way. But yeah, I think hearing he offered up his trident, I think he takes it like, that’s probably the most courageous thing somebody can do for his team besides just the ultimate sacrifice of dying.

But then again, Drew will take it and use it as ammunition to be like, nobody wants to be on this team. Nobody wants to fight anymore. Ray [ Neil Brown Jr. ] doesn’t want to go down range anymore. Am I the only one that just wants to fight? But truthfully, it’s the opposite. He probably wishes he could be as courageous as that or as, I don’t know, loving. He wants that connection again, wants a team again. He had a family, he wants it again, but losing everything is just so hard. But deep down, it’s like that’s the ultimate thing. It’s just finding those brothers again, that family again.

Then the episode ends with Jason leaving to go take care of his son after all that tension. How is Bravo in Episode 6 when Jason’s not there? 

Yeah. Six is an interesting episode because David directed it. So he had a few scenes with his son and everything. DB will get the best out of us because he knows us because he has worked with us. He sees our strengths, our flaws, how we work, and he’s able to, not manipulate, but get us to a place where we shine.

But yeah, not having B1 there is really complicated because you’re like, who’s in charge? Is Ray in charge? It’s almost like a free-for-all. It is such an action-packed episode, and so we stay busy with— when we’re sitting around a table, at the cages or whatever, we could talk and be personal and talk s**t and all that, but when it comes down to it, when we’re in a fight, all that stuff’s forgotten. What they talk about is, can we trust Drew? Can I trust Sonny to have my back when the bullets start flying? All this stuff. But yeah, I think [Episode] 6 is probably a time where we all come together the most, besides closer towards the end. It’s like after [Episode] 5, we went through it and now we’re in all this situation. And in 5, Drew’s like, let’s just be professional, let’s never talk about this moment again. I don’t want to f**king hear it from you guys. Nothing. This never happened. So there’s a respect between everybody after that. It’s like going through something together. And even if it’s unspoken afterward, we all know. There was truth told, secrets told, and yeah, I think they’re definitely closer than ever.

David Boreanaz Explains Jason's Actions, Teases 'SEAL Team' Ending

Then there’s the matter of Drew’s family and that podcast that came up earlier in the season. What’s coming up there?

Drew’s family is just the worst. He comes from a very privileged background, but a very unloving childhood. He lost his mother really young. She was probably the only person that he loved. And it all is just how Drew was made. It’s just another thing where he went out looking for a family. But yeah, podcast with her, I think things will definitely heat up with those two, but anything can happen. Drew is always trying to destroy a good thing. So we’ll see.

What can you preview about Bravo’s last mission on the show?

It’s epic. Speaking with the showrunner Spencer Hudnut, we went to Colombia to shoot, and he told me, “I’ve been dreaming of this moment since we started this thing, of just being in that jungle and just the fights”—and I can’t really say much. I just know that what we did in Colombia is really special and I really think the audience is in for a wild, wild ride.

I know a lot of people, or at least some are like, this season is unlike any other season to where we’re not at war. We’re not fighting really overseas. I mean, we’re doing this fentanyl stuff and everything, but we’re not in Afghanistan or wherever they were. It’s a season of really finding out who these men are underneath, who these men are back home, which I know they’ve touched on in the past, but they’re coming to this, Bravo’s last ride, and we’re seeing what, over the seven years, which I’ve been a huge fan of, the battles have done to them in good and bad ways. But yeah, I think people are like, when are we kicking doors, when are we blowing s**t up? And there’s been a lot of that still, but I think they’re in for a real treat by the end of this.

What can you tease about how the series ends in general and for Drew?

I think that anything could happen to Drew. He figures out a lot of stuff and we just don’t know if Drew will make it out clean, if he’s ready, if he’s able, if the loss, if the wars, if everything is just too much for him, and the pain of just even personal relationships and everything.

SEAL Team , Sundays, Paramount+

SEAL Team where to stream

Benefits to Registering & Following

(It's free!)