Negotiating and Interpreting ‘Best Efforts,’
‘Ordinary Course of Business’ and Anti-Assignment
Provisions in Secured Lending Transactions Documenting Grant of Security Interest in Assets Subject
to Anti-Assignment Clause and Interpreting Complex Covenants
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.
THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2014
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Joerg H. Esdorn, Partner, Gibson Dunn, New York
Darius Mehraban, Partner, Gibson Dunn, New York
Sound Quality
If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality
of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial
1-888-450-9970 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please
send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can
address the problem.
If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your
location by completing each of the following steps:
• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of
attendees at your location
• Click the SEND button beside the box
If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your
participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE
Form).
You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the
appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner.
If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For
additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at
1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please
complete the following steps:
• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-
hand column on your screen.
• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a
PDF of the slides for today's program.
• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Selected Topics in
Secured Lending Transactions Interpreting and Drafting “Ordinary Course of Business”
and “Best Efforts” Clauses, and
Addressing Anti-Assignment Provisions
Presented by: Joerg H. Esdorn and Darius Mehraban
Thursday, July 31, 2014
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Interpretation of Certain Common Terms in Debt Agreements
• “Ordinary course of business” – Examples of common usage
– Legal guidance
– Recommendations
• “Best efforts,” “reasonable best efforts,” and “commercially reasonable efforts” – Examples of common usage
– Legal guidance
– Recommendations
6
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Examples of Common Usage
• Exceptions to asset sale covenant
– “Borrower may sell inventory in the ordinary course of business.”
– “Borrower may liquidate or otherwise dispose of obsolete, damaged,
expired, uneconomic, or worn-out property in the ordinary course of
business.”
• Exceptions to indebtedness covenant – “Indebtedness in respect of bid, performance or surety bonds or letters of
credit issued in the ordinary course of business, including letters of credit
supporting lease obligations or supporting (or in lieu of) such bid,
performance or surety bonds or in respect of workers’ compensation
claims.”
7
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Examples of Common Usage
• Exceptions to affiliate transactions covenant
– “Payments made and other transactions entered into in the ordinary course
of business with Affiliates upon fair and reasonable terms no less favorable
to the relevant Borrower than it would obtain in a comparable arm’s length
transaction with a Person that is not an Affiliate.”
8
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Black’s Law Dictionary definition
– “Normal routine in managing a trade or business.”
• Contexts where term has been interpreted – Commercial contracts
• There is no case law interpreting “ordinary course of business” in the context of
debt agreements; however, there is case law interpreting this term in
commercial contracts, which may provide guidance when interpreting the term
in the context of debt agreements.
9
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Contexts where term has been interpreted (cont’d)
– U.C.C. “buyer in the ordinary course of business”
• U.C.C. § 9-320(a) – “[A] buyer in ordinary course of business . . . takes free of
a security interest created by the buyer’s seller, even if the security interest is
perfected and the buyer knows of its existence.”
• U.C.C. § 1-201(b)(9) – “A person buys goods in the ordinary course if the sale .
. . comports with the usual or customary practices in the kind of business in
which the seller is engaged or with the seller’s own usual or customary
practices.”
10
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Contexts where term has been interpreted (cont’d)
– Bankruptcy
• 11 U.S.C. § 363(c) – Limitations on transactions and use of property during
bankruptcy. Unless the court orders otherwise, the debtor may enter into
transactions, including the sale or lease of property of the estate, in the
“ordinary course of business,” without notice or a hearing, and may use
property of the estate in the “ordinary course of business” without notice or a
hearing.
• 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) – The trustee may not avoid a preferential transfer to the
extent that such transfer was in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the
“ordinary course of business” of the debtor and the transferee, and such transfer
was made in the “ordinary course of business” of the debtor and the transferee.
11
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Contexts where term has been interpreted (cont’d) – Tax
• I.R.C. § 1221(a)(1) – Income from certain sales of goods is treated as ordinary
income rather than capital gains if it is derived from the sale of property held
for sale to customers in the “ordinary course of the business.”
12
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Various meanings in other areas of law – Previous conduct/past practice
• Unisys Corp. v. Hercules Inc. (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)1 – Under New York law, in a dispute over the interpretation of an agreement for the sale of a subsidiary, a New York intermediate appellate court stated that something done as a matter of “corporate historical practice” constitutes “ordinary course of business” as a matter of law.
• Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp. v. Humana, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2009)2 – A federal district court in Florida, applying Florida law, interpreting a confidentiality agreement that prohibited contact with doctors who were part of plaintiff’s healthcare network except “in the ordinary course of business,” determined that defendant’s contract renegotiations with doctors who were both within defendant’s and plaintiff’s healthcare network were in the ordinary course of business since those negotiations were “normal” and “routine” compensation discussions with providers within defendant’s network.
13
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Various meanings in other areas of law (cont’d) – Previous conduct/past practice (cont’d)
• Grober v. Comm’r (T.C. 1972)3 – When U.S. Tax Court reviewed whether a sale of machinery and equipment was in ordinary course of business, court looked at “the taxpayer’s purpose in acquiring and in disposing of the property, the continuity of sales or sales-related activity over a period of time, the number and frequency of sales, the substantiality of sales and the overall history of the operation.”
14
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Various meanings in other areas of law (cont’d) – Infrequent conduct/first-time conduct
• Tanbro Fabrics Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc. (N.Y. 1976)4 – New York Court of Appeals deemed a company’s sale of excess fabric as within the ordinary course of business for purposes of U.C.C. § 9-307 even though the seller’s predominant business was dyeing unfinished fabric. The court pointed to the fact that the company had previously sold such goods and there was, in fact, a common practice in the industry, i.e., to be reasonably expected.
• Bontemps v. Bank of Babylon (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)5 – New York intermediate appellate court ruled a company’s sale of a car may still be part of ordinary course of business for purposes of U.C.C. § 9-307 even if it is infrequent or incidental to its predominant business of leasing cars.
15
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Various meanings in other areas of law (cont’d) – Infrequent conduct/first-time conduct (cont’d)
• Gosch v. Burns (6th Cir. 1990)6 – Transaction between the bank and borrower can be in the ordinary course for purposes of Section 547(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code even if it is the first such transaction taken by the customer because “obviously every borrower who does something in the ordinary course of affairs must, at some point, have done it for the first time.” This becomes fact-specific inquiry that looks to whether the transaction “would not be out of the ordinary for a person in the borrower’s position” in the same transaction.
16
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Legal Guidance
• Various meanings in other areas of law (cont’d) – Creditor’s expectation test (Bankruptcy Code § 363)
• In re Lavigne (2d Cir. 1997)7 – The “creditor’s expectation test” or the “vertical test,” “‘views the disputed transaction from the vantage point of a hypothetical creditor and inquires whether the transaction subjects a creditor to economic risks of a nature different from those he accepted when he decided to’ enter into the contract with the debtor.”
– Industry-wide test (Bankruptcy Code § 363)
• In re Lavigne (2d Cir. 1997) – The industry-wide perspective, also called the horizontal test, determines “ordinary course of business” by looking at whether “the transaction is of a type that other similar businesses would engage in as ordinary business.”
17
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Recommendations
• Consistency and precision in usage – If the document switches between “ordinary course of business” and
“ordinary course of business consistent with past practices,” an inference
can be made that “ordinary course of business” is broader than past
practice.
– If consistency with past practice, or customary usage in the industry, is an
important point, expressly state this in the language.
18
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Recommendations
• Define the scope of “ordinary course” in the agreement? – Example: “Ordinary Course of Business” – an action taken by a Person will be deemed to
have been taken in the Ordinary Course of Business only if that action: (a) is consistent in
nature, scope and magnitude with the past practices of such Person and is taken in the
ordinary course of the normal, day-to-day operations of such Person; (b) does not require
authorization by the board of directors or shareholders of such Person (or by any Person or
group of Persons exercising similar authority) and does not require any other separate or
special authorization of any nature; and (c) is similar in nature, scope and magnitude to
actions customarily taken, without any separate or special authorization, in the ordinary
course of the normal, day-to-day operations of other Persons that are in the same line of
business as such Person. COMMITTEE ON NEGOTIATED ACQUISITIONS, AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION, MODEL ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH COMMENTARY (2011).
19
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Ordinary Course of Business”: Recommendations
• Flexibility of interpretation – If “ordinary course of business” is left undefined, there is more flexibility
for the borrower to interpret its meaning because the lender will have a
difficult time proving existence of a default.
– Most would say that a material incurrence of indebtedness would generally
not count as “ordinary course of business.”
– Also, actions requiring specific board approval would arguably not count
as “ordinary course of business.”
20
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Examples of Common Usage
• Syndication assistance in commitment letters – “You shall assist the Lead Arrangers in their syndication efforts, including
by making available your, and using commercially reasonable efforts to
cause the Target to make available the Target’s officers, representatives, and
advisors.”
21
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Examples of Common Usage
• Financing cooperation covenants in merger agreements – “The Purchaser shall, and shall cause its Affiliates to, use reasonable best
efforts to obtain the Debt Financing on the terms and conditions described
in the Debt Commitment Letter, including using reasonable best efforts to:
(i) enter into definitive agreements with respect to the Debt Financing
(including agreeing to any requested changes to the Debt Commitment
Letter by the committed lenders in accordance with the related flex
provisions); (ii) satisfy (or obtain a waiver) on a timely basis of all
conditions in such definitive agreements (within the Purchaser’s control);
and (iii) consummate the Debt Financing contemplated by the Debt
Commitment Letter at Closing.”
22
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Examples of Common Usage
• Covenants regarding deliverables (e.g., certain financial statements, further assurances relating to collateral, insurance) – “The Borrower will use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, on or
before 30 days after the date hereof, in the form agreed upon or otherwise in
a form and substance satisfactory to the Administrative Agent, an executed
Landlord Waiver, for each of the following locations. . . .”
23
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Examples of Common Usage
• Covenants regarding regulatory approvals – “Borrower shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to assist in
obtaining from the FCC or such other Governmental Authority the
necessary consent, approval and authorization, if any, for the assignment
of or the direct or indirect transfer of control of such FCC Licenses.”
24
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Legal Guidance
• How far must a party go to satisfy “best efforts”? – Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. (2d Cir. 1979)8 – Second Circuit
recognized a brewery on hard times could give “reasonable consideration
to its own interests” to satisfy a “best efforts” clause that required it to
promote another beer. In its discussion, the court affirmed the lower
court’s interpretation, which did not require the brewery “to bankrupt itself
. . . or even to sell those products at a substantial loss” to meet the standard.
25
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Legal Guidance
• How far must a party go to satisfy “best efforts”? (cont’d) – Showtime Networks Inc. v. Comsat Video Enters. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998)9 –
In applying New York law, a trial court in Manhattan stated that whether
“best efforts” or “reasonable business efforts” obligations were satisfied is
an issue of fact undeterminable on summary judgment; however, the court
went further to state that financial difficulty does not excuse performance
under either standard. The court distinguished Bloor on the grounds that
the defendant did not show that it met the Bloor test that performance
would be “financially disastrous.”
26
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Legal Guidance
• Decisions suggest a blurred standard – Kroboth v. Brent (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)10 – Applying New York law, the
court stated that “‘best efforts’ requires more than ‘good faith,’ which is an
implied covenant in all contracts.” At the same time, the court inserted a
reasonableness standard into “best efforts” when it held that best efforts
“require[d] that plaintiffs pursue all reasonable methods.”
– Scott-Macon Secs., Inc. v. Zoltek Cos. (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 11 – When
evaluating whether a company had used “reasonable efforts,” a New York
federal court stated that “New York courts use the term ‘reasonable efforts’
interchangeably with ‘best efforts.’”
27
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Legal Guidance
• Decisions suggest a blurred standard (cont’d) – But see LTV Aerospace & Defense Co. v. Thomson-CFF, S.A. (S.D.N.Y.
1996)12 – “The standard imposed by a ‘reasonable efforts’ clause . . . is
indisputably less stringent than that imposed by the ‘best efforts’ clauses
contained elsewhere in the Agreement.” Citing Bloor, the court stated:
“[t]herefore, in order to prevail upon its allegations that LTV did not exert
reasonable efforts to consummate the transaction, Thomson must
demonstrate that LTV’s actions were inconsistent with good faith business
judgments.”
28
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Recommendations
• Use the variation you believe to be most appropriate, despite court decisions that blur the standards – Base this on the situation or your client’s interest.
• Define or limit the scope – Clarify by defining what constitutes “best efforts,” “reasonable best
efforts,” or “commercially reasonable efforts” or otherwise limiting the
scope of the obligation.
29
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Recommendations
• Examples of definitions – Best Efforts means the efforts that a prudent Person desirous of achieving a
result would use in similar circumstances to ensure that such result is
achieved as expeditiously as possible on commercially reasonable terms.
– Commercially Reasonable Efforts means the efforts that a prudent Person
desirous of achieving a result would use in similar circumstances to
achieve that result as expeditiously as possible; provided, however, that a
Person required to use commercially reasonable efforts under this
Agreement will not be required to take actions that would result in a
material adverse change in the benefits to such Person of this Agreement
and the transactions contemplated hereby or to dispose of or make any
change to its business, expend any material funds or incur any other
material burden.
30
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Recommendations
• Examples of specific limitations – Prior to any public offering of registrable securities, Company shall use
commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with applicable Holders to
qualify the securities under state securities or blue sky laws; provided that
the Company shall not be required to (1) qualify as a foreign corporation,
(2) execute any general consent to service of process in any jurisdiction
where it would not otherwise be required to so qualify, or (3) subject itself
to taxation or service of process in any such jurisdiction.
31
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
“Best Efforts,” “Reasonable Best Efforts,” and “Commercially Reasonable Efforts”:
Recommendations
• Examples of specific limitations (cont’d) – Company agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain an
amendment, waiver or consent under its existing senior credit agreement to
permit the issuance of the Exchangeable Shares and related transactions,
but Company shall not be required to pay any fee to the lenders under the
existing senior credit agreement or to accept any pricing increase, or make
any other material concession relative to the existing terms of such credit
agreement, in order to obtain such amendment, waiver or consent.
32
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Dealing with Contractual and Legal Restrictions on Assignment in the Context of Secured Lending
• Anti-assignment provisions – Overview
• Contractual restrictions on assignment
• Legal restrictions on assignment
• The U.C.C. “override” provisions
33
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Anti-Assignment Provisions – Overview
• What is the effect of an anti-assignment provision on a security interest? – Anti-assignment provision may prevent attachment of a security interest, or
prohibit the enforcement of a security interest, or both. For a secured
creditor, it is important to analyze the provision to determine if it only
restricts outright assignments or whether it also restrict assignments for
security purposes (i.e., security interests).
• Is the anti-assignment provision subject to the U.C.C. override provisions? – The U.C.C. may override certain types of contractual and legal (i.e.,
statutory) anti-assignment provisions.
34
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Anti-Assignment Provisions – Overview
• What are the ramifications of breaching an anti-assignment provision? – Breach of an anti-assignment provision may subject the borrower to
damage claims for breach of contract or, depending on the language in the
anti-assignment provision, void the assignment, give the counterparty to
the agreement termination rights in case of material breach, or under
certain circumstances subject the lender to tort liability for tortious
interference with contractual relations.
35
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Anti-Assignment Provisions – Overview
• Certain examples – Borrower selling goods under buyer’s purchase order, and purchase order
has an anti-assignment provision governing the purchase order and the
resulting account.
– Borrower leases equipment under a lease with anti-assignment provisions.
– Borrower is the licensor of intellectual property pursuant to a licensing
agreement with anti-assignment provisions.
– Borrower holds a promissory note which requires the payor’s consent to an
assignment.
36
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Contractual Restrictions on Assignment: Introduction
• The U.C.C. generally does not define “assignment” – Official comment 26 to U.C.C. § 9-102 states “[t]his article generally
follows common usage by using the terms ‘assignment’ and ‘assign’ to
refer to transfers of rights to payment, claim, and liens and other security
interests.” Furthermore, it may refer to “an assignment or transfer of an
outright ownership interest or the assignment or transfer of a limited
interest, such as a security interest.”
37
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Contractual Restrictions on Assignment: Assignment v. Delegation
• Assignment of rights – Transfer of a right to performance to a third party. See RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 317(1).
– It seems from comment 26 to U.C.C. § 9-102 that the grant of a security
interest may constitute an assignment of limited rights under the contract
(i.e., a conditional assignment).
• Delegation of duties – Appointment by one person of another to perform either a duty or a
condition to the other party’s performance. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF
CONTRACTS § 318(1).
– Depending on the circumstances, the enforcement of a security interest may
constitute a delegation of duties.
38
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Contractual Restrictions on Assignment: Interpretation of Common Formulations
• “No party may assign this Agreement” – When a contractual provision simply prohibits “assignment of the contract,”
the limitation will only be construed to prohibit a delegation of duties under
the contract. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 322(1); U.C.C. §
2-210(3).
• “No party may assign any rights under this Agreement” – This has been construed to be a “personal covenant” of the assignor and a
violation of the covenant does not render the assignment ineffective. Rather,
it gives rise to damages against the assignor for the breach of such covenant.
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 322(2)(b); see Pro Cardiaco
Pronto Socorro Cardiologica S.A. v. Trussell (S.D.N.Y. 1994).13
39
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Contractual Restrictions on Assignment: Interpretation of Common Formulations
• “No party may assign any rights under this Agreement. Any purported Assignment is void.” – In addition to giving rise to damages, this provision will render a purported
assignment ineffective. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS §
322(2).
– Subject to the override provisions, the attachment of a security interest in
the contract may be void.
• “No party may delegate any obligations under this Agreement. Any purported delegation is void.” – In addition to giving rise to damages, this provision will render the
delegation void. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 322(2).
– Subject to the override provisions, even if a security interest in this contract
attaches, the anti-delegation language may limit enforcement.
40
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• Federal Assignment of Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727 – FACA has no applicability to disputes between private parties.
– FACA allows enforcement of security interests on accounts receivable in
contracts with federal government if creditor is “financing institution.”
– Contractor assigns right to payment as loan collateral rather than contract itself
or claims other than for payment arising under contract.
– Actual assignment must meet certain criteria and certain forms must be
delivered to governmental office administering contract.
– Secured creditor must file Form UCC-1 to perfect its security interest in
governmental receivables and compliance with FACA is not necessary for
perfection. See In re Altek Sys., Inc. (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1981).14 However, if
secured creditor does not comply with FACA, it will not have a claim against
governmental agency that pays someone other than secured creditor after
creditor enforces its security interest in the contract.
41
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• FCC licenses – Starting in 1994, the FCC allowed secured creditors to take a security interest in the
proceeds of a broadcast license. The rationale was that allowing a security interest
in the proceeds of a sale for the license would not threaten the FCC’s ability to
regulate transfer of the underlying license.
– In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp. (Bankr. D. Colo. 2010)15 – The court ruled on a
bank’s security interest in a radio station’s FCC license that since a secured party
could not place a lien on the underlying FCC license, Section 552 barred it from
placing a security interest in the proceeds. The Tenth Circuit overruled this case.
– In re Terrestar Networks, Inc. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)16 – The court rejected the
reasoning in Tracy and ruled that secured creditors had an underlying lien on the
economic value of the FCC license. Following a Ninth Circuit opinion, it reasoned
that there is a distinction between the public right for the FCC to regulate exchange
of the license and the private right to grant liens on the economic value of the
license.
42
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• FCC licenses – Recommendations – Secured creditors should obtain both a pledge in the equity interest in the
entity that holds the FCC license and an express pledge in such license and
the economic interests in such license. To further protect itself, a secured
creditor may request that the entity holding the FCC license be an SPV
with no other liabilities or liens.
43
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• FCC licenses – Recommendations (cont’d) – The security agreement should be drafted in a way to avoid breaching FCC
regulations by including:
• Exclusion of a grant of security interest in the underlying license, to the extent
it is prohibited by applicable law.
• Express statement that prohibits transfer of the FCC license in any way that
violates FCC rules and requirements that any transfer be made in accordance
with FCC rules.
• Express covenant that requires the debtor to take any requested actions
necessary to transfer the FCC license upon an Event of Default.
44
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• Government paid health-care-insurance receivables – The anti-assignment provisions of Medicare and Medicaid do not affect
debtors’ ability to perfect a security interest in health-care-insurance
receivables by filing a UCC-1.
– However, the anti-assignment provisions of Medicare and Medicaid prohibit
lenders from taking control of deposit accounts in which Medicare or
Medicaid health-care-insurance receivables are deposited.
• For the provisions governing Medicare Part A, see 42 U.S.C. § 1395g(c);
Part B, see 42 U.S.C. § 1395u(b)(6); and Medicaid, see 42 U.S.C.
§ 1396(a)(32).
45
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• Government paid health-care-insurance receivables (cont’d) – Only a healthcare provider with a provider number can receive payments of
federal health-care insurance receivables. Accordingly, a secured creditor
will not have the ability to receive payments from the government directly
or direct the government to make payments to the secured creditor.
– For further detail, see DFS Secured Healthcare Receivables Trust v.
Caregivers Great Lakes, Inc. (7th Cir. 2004);17 In re Missionary Baptist
Foundation of America (5th Cir. 1986);18 and In re East Boston
Neighborhood Health Center Corp. (Bankr. D. Mass. 1999).19
46
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• State gaming licensees – In many jurisdictions, including Nevada, lender generally cannot grant or
foreclose on a security interest in a gaming license, gaming equipment, or
the equity of a gaming licensee without first obtaining prior state gaming
authority approval or undergoing a suitability review, unless certain
exemptions apply.
• N.R.S. 463.300 – Unlawful transfer of ownership: “It is unlawful for any
person to sell, purchase, lease, hypothecate, borrow or loan money, or create a
voting trust agreement or any other agreement of any sort to or with any
licensee in connection with any gaming operation licensed under this chapter or
with respect to any portion of such gaming operation, except in accordance
with the regulations of the Commission.”
47
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• State liquor licenses – In many jurisdictions, state law prohibits a secured creditor from taking or
enforcing on a security interest in a liquor license. The rationale behind
many of these statutes is that a liquor license is a privilege bestowed upon
the licensee, not a property right.
– In many states, it has been the practice of secured creditors to effectively
obtain a lien on the license by taking a pledge of the stock in the licensee.
48
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Legal Restrictions on Assignment
• State liquor licenses (cont’d) – Concorde Equity II, LLC v. Bretz (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)20 – The
California Court of Appeal held the lender’s security interest could attach
to the proceeds of a liquor license sold by a court-appointed receiver
because it was an all-assets lien rather than an individual pledge of the
liquor license. Moreover, the court discussed that although one cannot take
a security interest in a liquor license, the sale of the license in this case did
not violate the underlying public policy to prevent transfers without
governmental approval because the transfer was by a court-appointed
receiver and the new buyer was approved by the relevant governmental
authority.
49
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Introduction
• U.C.C. § 9-102 – Introductory defined terms – “Accounts” generally means a right to payment of a monetary obligation.
• E.g., accounts receivable.
– “Account debtor” means a person obligated on an account, chattel paper, or
general intangible. The term does not include persons obligated to pay a
negotiable instrument, even if the instrument constitutes part of chattel
paper.
– “General intangible” is broadly defined to include any personal property,
including things in action, other than among other things, accounts,
instruments, and chattel paper. The term includes payment intangibles.
• E.g., intellectual property license.
• But see Section 9-109(d).
50
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Introduction
• U.C.C. § 9-102 – Introductory defined terms (cont’d) – “Payment intangible” is a subset of “general intangibles” under which the
account debtor’s principal obligation is a monetary obligation.
• E.g., rights to receive payment in a loan transaction that is not evidenced by a
promissory note or chattel paper.
– “Promissory note” means an instrument that evidences a promise to pay a
monetary obligation, does not evidence an order to pay, and does not
contain an acknowledgment by a bank that the bank has received for
deposit a sum of money or funds.
– “Chattel paper” generally means a record that evidences both a monetary
obligation and a security interest in or lease of specific goods.
• E.g., installment purchase contract relating to and secured by, or a lease of,
personal property.
51
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Introduction
• U.C.C. § 9-102 – Introductory defined terms (cont’d) – “Health-care-insurance receivable” is a subset of “accounts” and means an
interest in or claim under a policy of insurance which is a right to payment
of a monetary obligation for health-care goods or services provided.
• E.g., medical bill reimbursement claims of doctors against insurance
companies.
• U.C.C. § 9-109(a) – Introductory concept – The sale of an account, chattel paper, a promissory note, or payment
intangible constitutes a security interest for purposes of Article 9.
52
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: U.C.C. § 9-406
• Overview – Section 9-406 renders ineffective contractual or legal provisions relating to
certain receivables to the extent such provisions “prohibit, restrict or
require consent to the assignment or transfer of, or provide that the
creation, attachment, perfection or enforcement of the security interest
may give rise to a default, breach, right of recoupment, claim, defense,
termination, right of termination or remedy.”
• E.g., purchase order and account.
53
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: U.C.C. § 9-407
• Overview – Section 9-407 renders ineffective provisions in personal property leases to
the extent such provisions “prohibit, restrict or require consent to the
assignment or transfer of, or provide that the creation, attachment,
perfection or enforcement of the security interest may give rise to a
default, breach, right of recoupment, claim, defense, termination, right of
termination or remedy.”
• Section 9-407 applies to lease agreements but does not override remedy for
breach of transfer restrictions to the extent that there is a transfer of the lessee’s
right of possession or use of goods in violation of the lease agreement or there
is a delegation of a material performance of either party in violation of the lease
agreement.
– Override applies to transfer restrictions under lease contracts or governing a
lessor’s residual interest in goods.
54
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: U.C.C. § 9-408
• Overview – Section 9-408 renders ineffective contractual or legal provisions relating to
general intangibles and certain receivables to the extent such provisions
“impair the creation, attachment, or perfection of a security interest or
provide that assignment or transfer or the creation, attachment, or
perfection of the security interest may give rise to a default, breach, right of
recoupment, claim, defense, termination or remedy.”
• E.g., intellectual property licenses and cable franchise regulation.
• One key difference between Sections 9-406 and 9-408 is that Section 9-408
(unlike Section 9-406) does not override legal or contractual provisions in the
context of enforcement of a security interest.
55
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: U.C.C. § 9-408
• Overview (cont’d) • Further, Section 9-408(d) provides that to the extent a transfer restriction is
enforceable outside Article 9 but is partially overridden by override provisions
of Section 9-408, the security agreement (i) does not impose any duty or
obligation on the person in whose favor the restriction runs, (ii) does not
require that person to pay or render performance to the secured party, (iii) does
not entitle the secured party to use or assign any of the debtor’s rights in the
collateral, and (iv) does not entitle the secured party to any rights with respect
to trade secrets or confidential information of the person in whose favor the
restriction runs.
• Thus, if debtor is the licensee under a software license agreement containing an
anti-assignment provision, the security interest can attach to the debtor’s
interest under the license agreement but imposes no obligation on the licensor
and the secured party cannot use the license in the foreclosure or sell a
computer with the licensed software on it.
56
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: U.C.C. § 9-408
• Overview (cont’d) • Likewise, if debtor is the franchisee under a “non-assignable” municipal cable
franchise, the security interest attaches to the franchisee’s rights under the
franchise, but the secured party has no rights against the municipality and the
municipality needs to pay no attention to the security interest or the secured
party.
57
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Comparing § 9-406 and § 9-408
Type of Collateral Legal Restriction Contractual Restriction
Accounts other than health-care-
insurance receivables Sale or transaction for security Sale or transaction for security
Chattel paper Sale or transaction for security Sale or transaction for security
Health-care-insurance receivables N/A N/A
Payment intangibles N/A Transactions for security
Promissory notes N/A Transactions for security
Other general intangibles N/A N/A
58
§ 9-406 – Total override for grant, perfection & enforcement of security interest
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Comparing § 9-406 and § 9-408
Type of Collateral Legal Restriction Contractual Restriction
Accounts other than health-care-
insurance receivables N/A N/A
Chattel paper N/A N/A
Health-care-insurance receivables Sale or transaction for security Sale or transaction for security
Payment intangibles Sale or transaction for security Sales
Promissory notes Sale or transaction for security Sales
Other general intangibles Transaction for security Transaction for security
59
§ 9-408 – Limited override for grant/perfection of security interest only
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: What They Do Not Do
• Practical impairment of an assignment – Example: Buyer enters into an agreement with Seller to buy equipment that Seller
is to manufacture according to Buyer’s specifications. Buyer agrees to make a
series of prepayments during the construction process. In return, Seller agrees to set
aside the prepaid funds in a special account and to use the funds solely for the
manufacture of the designated equipment. Seller also agrees that it will not assign
any of its rights under the sale agreement with Buyer. Nevertheless, Seller grants to
secured creditor a security interest in its accounts. Seller’s anti-assignment
agreement is ineffective under Section 9-406(d); its agreement concerning the use of
prepaid funds, which is not a restriction or prohibition on assignment, is not
ineffective. Unless secured creditor releases the funds to Seller so that Seller can
comply with its use-of-funds covenant, Seller will be in breach of that covenant.
Official comment 5 to U.C.C. § 9-406.
60
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: What They Do Not Do
• U.S. federal statute or regulation (i.e., preemption) – Federal Assignment of Claims Act
– FCC license-related issues
– Federal healthcare laws
• LP or LLC interests – To the extent that LP or LLC interests are Article 8 securities, they do not
constitute general intangibles and transfer restrictions governing such
securities are not subject to Sections 9-406 to 9-408.
61
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: What They Do Not Do
• Account debtors who are individuals covered by consumer protection laws – U.C.C. § 9-406(h) – “This section is subject to law other than this article
which establishes a different rule for an account debtor who is an
individual and who incurred the obligation primarily for personal, family,
or household purposes.”
62
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Important State Variations
• Delaware, Texas, Colorado, Kentucky, and Virginia – Override provisions in these states do not apply to LP or LLC interests.
See U.C.C. §§ 9-406(i)(5), 9-408(e)(4).
• Concern was that these interests may be “payment intangibles” and U.C.C. § 9-
406(d) may override provisions requiring the consent of other holders of
interests to approve a transfer of the interest resulting from a foreclosure sale.
• Draft PEB Commentary demonstrates that this is not a correct interpretation of
that section.
– In Kentucky and Colorado, the provision that the U.C.C. anti-assignment
overrides do not apply to LP or LLC interests is found in the business
organizations laws of those states, rather than in the U.C.C. See, e.g., Ky.
Rev. Stat. §275.255 (4)
63
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Important State Variations
• New York – The New York anti-assignment override provisions do not apply to transfer
restrictions under laws or regulations. See N.Y. U.C.C. §§ 9-406,
9-408 (McKinney) (omitting §§ 9-406(f) and 9-408(c)).
• California – California has adopted all of the U.C.C. override provisions.
64
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Documentation Considerations
• Choice of law – The U.C.C. provides explicit rules on governing law for perfection
purposes. However, other aspects of a secured transaction such as scope, attachment, and enforcement are determined by looking at the parties’ agreement or the application of the forum state’s conflict of law provisions.
– Can the secured party take advantage of these state-by-state variations by choosing a more favorable state law in the security agreement?
65
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Documentation Considerations
• Choice of law (cont’d) – Example: A debtor has an interest in a Delaware LLC that constitutes a
general intangible, and the LLC agreement for such entity restricts a
collateral assignment of such interests. If the debtor pledges that LLC
interest pursuant to a security agreement under New York law, would New
York law (override applies to LLC interests) or Delaware law (override not
applicable) govern?
– Official comment 3 to Section 9-401 states that “[t]his article does not
provide a specific answer to the question of which State’s law applies to
the restriction on assignment.” The comment then goes on to reference
non-U.C.C. choice of law principles and suggest that the entity’s
jurisdiction of formation is likely to govern.
66
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Documentation Considerations
• Choice of law (cont’d) – Example: Debtor holds a cable franchise under applicable local law. The
local law provides that no rights under the franchise can be assigned
without consent of the municipality. If the N.Y. U.C.C. were to apply,
there would be no override under Section 9-408. Should the secured party
provide in the security agreement that the U.C.C. of the state in which the
municipality is located applies to the attachment and enforcement of the
security interest (assuming the U.C.C. of that state has adopted Section 9-
408(f))?
67
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
The U.C.C. “Override” Provisions: Documentation Considerations
• Savings clause in security grant – Example: “provided, however, that notwithstanding any of the other provisions set forth in this Section 3 or any other
provision in this Agreement or any other Loan Document, the term Collateral and the terms set forth in this Section
defining the components of Collateral shall not include, and this Agreement shall not constitute a grant of a security
interest in, any of the following (the “Excluded Property”): (i) any property to the extent that such grant of a security
interest is prohibited by any Requirements of Law of a Governmental Authority, requires a consent not obtained of any
Governmental Authority pursuant to such Requirement of Law or is prohibited by, or constitutes a breach or default
under or results in the termination of or requires any consent not obtained under, any contract, license, agreement,
instrument or other document evidencing or giving rise to such property or, in the case of any Investment Property or
Pledged Collateral, any applicable shareholder or similar agreement, . . . . except to the extent that a term in such
contract, license, agreement, instrument or other document providing for such prohibition, breach, default or
termination or requiring such consent is ineffective and unenforceable against such Grantor under applicable law; . . . .
provided, however, that Excluded Property shall not include any Proceeds, substitutions or replacements of any
Excluded Property referred to above (unless such Proceeds, substitutions or replacements would constitute Excluded
Property referred to above).”
68
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Case Law Cites
1. Unisys Corp. v. Hercules Inc., 224 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996).
2. Preferred Care Partners v. Humana, No. 08-20424, 2009 WL 982433, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9,
2009).
3. Grober v. Comm’r, 31 T.C.M. (CCH) 1179 (1972).
4. Tanbro Fabrics Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 39 N.Y.2d 632 (N.Y. 1976).
5. Bontemps v. Bank of Babylon, 96 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).
6. Gosch v. Burns, 909 F.2d 903 (6th Cir. 1990).
7. Med. Malpractice Ins. Ass’n v. Hirsch (In re Lavigne), 114 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 1997).
8. Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 601 F. 2d 609 (2d Cir. 1979).
9. Showtime Networks Inc. v. Comsat Video Enter., 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 732 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
June 29, 1998).
69
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Case Law Cites
10. Kroboth v. Brent, 215 A.D.2d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995).
11. Scott-Macon Secs., Inc. v. Zoltek Cos., 2005 WL 1138476 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2005).
12. LTV Aerospace & Def. Co. v. Thomson-CFF, S.A. (In re Chateaugay), 198 B.R. 848
(S.D.N.Y. 1996).
13. Pro Cardiaco Pronto Socorro Cardiologica S.A. v. Trussell, 868 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y.
1994).
14. Gen. Cable Co. v. Altek Sys., Inc. (In re Altek Sys., Inc.), 14 B.R. 144 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
1981).
15. Spectrum Scan LLC v. Valley Bank & Trust Co. (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), 438 B.R.
323 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2010), rev’d, 696 F.3d 1051 (10th Cir. 2012).
16. Sprint Nextel Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n (In re Terrestar Networks, Inc.), 457 B.R. 254
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).
70
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Case Law Cites
17. DFS Secured Healthcare Receivables Trust v. Caregivers Great Lakes, Inc., 384 F.3d 338 (7th
Cir. 2004).
18. Health Ctr. Corp. v. Chittenden Trust Co. (In re E. Bos. Neighborhood Health Ctr. Corp.), 242
B.R. 562 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1999).
19. Wilson v. First Nat’l Bank, Lubbock, Tx. (In re Missionary Baptist Found. of Am.), 796 F.2d
752 (5th Cir. 1986).
20. Concorde Equity II, LLC v. Bretz, 2011 WL 5056295 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2011).
71
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
Darius Mehraban
212.351.2428
72
Joerg H. Esdorn
212.351.3851