In MTA Canada Royalty v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V., C.A. No. N19C-11-228 AML CCLD (Del. Super. Sept. 16, 2020), Judge Abigail LeGrow considered whether an agreement’s anti-assignment clause operated to void an assignment that occurred as a result of a subsequent merger between a contracting party to the agreement and a third party. She held that the anti-assignment clause prohibiting an assignment “by operation of law” without the other party’s consent applied to a subsequent merger in which the contracting party was not the surviving entity.

In 2016, the defendant, Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. de C.V. (CMP), purchased certain mineral rights in a mine located in Mexico from Alberta Ltd. They executed an assignment and assumption agreement that provided, in addition to a cash payment to Alberta of $5.25 million at closing, an additional $1 million payment to Alberta conditioned on the mine remaining in operation after a specified date. The agreement, which was governed by Delaware law, included an anti-assignment clause prohibiting Alberta from assigning its rights to any other party without CMP’s consent. The clause read, in part:

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]