by assignment of claims

subpart 232.8--assignment of claims

(Revised October 29, 2021)

 232.803 Policies.  232.805 Procedure.  232.806 Contract clauses. 232.803   Policies.

      (b)   Only contracts for personal services may prohibit the assignment of claims.

      (d)   Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 6305, and in accordance with Presidential delegation dated October 3, 1995, Secretary of Defense delegation dated February 5, 1996, and Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) delegation dated February 23, 1996, the Director of Defense Procurement determined on May 10, 1996, that a need exists for DoD to agree not to reduce or set off any money due or to become due under the contract when the proceeds under the contract have been assigned in accordance with the Assignment of Claims provision of the contract.   This determination was published in the Federal Register on June 11, 1996, as required by law. Nevertheless, if departments/agencies decide it is in the Government's interest, or if the contracting officer makes a determination in accordance with FAR 32.803(d) concerning a significantly indebted offeror, they may exclude the no-setoff commitment.

232.805   Procedure.

      (b)   The assignee shall forward—

              (i)   To the administrative contracting officer (ACO), a true copy of the instrument of assignment and an original and three copies of the notice of assignment.   The ACO shall acknowledge receipt by signing and dating all copies of the notice of assignment and shall—

                    (A)   File the true copy of the instrument of assignment and the original of the notice in the contract file;

                    (B)   Forward two copies of the notice to the disbursing officer of the payment office cited in the contract;

                    (C)   Return a copy of the notice to the assignee; and

                    (D)   Advise the contracting officer of the assignment.

              (ii)   To the surety or sureties, if any, a true copy of the instrument of assignment and an original and three copies of the notice of assignment.   The surety shall return three acknowledged copies of the notice to the assignee, who shall forward two copies to the disbursing officer designated in the contract.

              (iii)   To the disbursing officer of the payment office cited in the contract, a true copy of the instrument of assignment and an original and one copy of the notice of assignment.   The disbursing officer shall acknowledge and return to the assignee the copy of the notice and shall file the true copy of the instrument and original notice.

232.806   Contract clauses.

      (a)(1)   Use the clause at 252.232-7008 , Assignment of Claims (Overseas), instead of the clause at FAR 52.232-23, Assignment of Claims, in solicitations and contracts when contract performance will be in a foreign country.

              (2)   Use Alternate I with the clause at FAR 52.232-23, Assignment of Claims, unless otherwise authorized under 232.803 (d).

Assignment of a claim or cause of action | Practical Law

Assignment of a claim or cause of action

Practical law uk practice note 1-522-7861  (approx. 32 pages).

Assignment of Claims

• First Online: 02 September 2017

Cite this chapter

• İlhan Helvacı 2  

479 Accesses

A claim arising from a contract or some other source of obligation, such as a tort or unjust enrichment, may be transferred to third parties. A claim may be transferred by an agreement, by a court order or by law. In this section, assignment of claims effected by agreement and those effected by a court decision or operation of law are analysed respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

For further explanations, see Kocaman ( 1989 ), Dayınlarlı ( 2008 ), Günergök ( 2014 ).

Cession des créances , Abtretung von Forderungen .

Becker ( 1941 ), art. 164, N. 4.

Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 304; Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 32–35; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1236; Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 521; Engel ( 1997 ), p. 872.

Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1237; Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 522; Engel ( 1997 ), p. 872; Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 305; Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 36.

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 247; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1237; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 571–574; Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 522.

Becker ( 1941 ), art. 164, N. 5; Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 305; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 240; Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 522.

Déclaration de volonté , Willenserklärung .

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 20; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 566.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 562–563; Reisoğlu ( 2014 ), p. 466; Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 449.

Acte de disposition , Verfügungsgeschäft . See Chap. 14 fn. 5–6.

Conversely, such a contract is an acquisitive transaction with regard to the assignee.

Pouvoir de disposer, Verfügungsmacht .

Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 306.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 560.

Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1231; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), pp. 241–242.

von Tuhr and Escher ( 1974 ), § 93, II, p. 333; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 560; Reisoğlu ( 2014 ), p. 465; Becker ( 1941 ), art. 164, N. 1. For further explanations see Honsell et al. ( 2003 ), art. 164, N. 23–25.

Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 449; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 569.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 563.

See Sect. 8.2.2 .

Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 449; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 566–567; Eren ( 2015 ), pp. 1234–1235.

See Sect. 29.2 .

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 19.

See Sect. 29.3 .

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 250; Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 164, N. 61; Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 307.

Tercier et al. ( 2016 ), p. 524; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 574–575; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1238.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 577.

Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 641; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 241; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 575.

See Sect. 26.4 .

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 251; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 577–578.

For further explanations, see Helvacı ( 2008 ).

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 170 fn. 30, cf. Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 651; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 260.

For further explanations see Çetiner ( 2010 ).

Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1240; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 576; Oğuzman et al. ( 2016 ), p. 1049, compare to Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 170, N. 9.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 576; Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 450.

Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 651; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 259; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 578.

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 170, N. 11; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 578; Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 651; Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 260.

For further explanations see Günergök ( 2014 ).

Tercier ( 2004 ), p. 308.

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 167, N. 21; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 582–583; Nomer ( 2015 ), p. 452; Reisoğlu ( 2014 ), p. 470.

Becker ( 1941 ), art. 168, N. 7; Engel ( 1997 ), p. 884; Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 168, N. 4; Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 656; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), pp. 583–584.

Öz ( 1990 ), pp. 57–58.

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 252 ff ; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 586; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1241

See Sect. 18.4.2.2 .

Thévenoz and Werro ( 2012 ), art. 169, N. 11; Feyzioğlu ( 1977 ), p. 658; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 587; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1241.

For further explanations see Engin ( 2002 ).

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 591.

Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 593.

See Sect. 24.2 .

Tekinay et al. ( 1993 ), p. 266; Eren ( 2015 ), p. 1227; Oğuzman and Öz ( 2016 ), p. 596.

See Sect. 25.4.2 , fn. 43.

The transfer of possession is of a factual nature. The material transfer of possession must be complemented by the parties’ agreement (referred to as a real agreement) concerning the transfer of ownership or the constitution of rights in rem . The real agreement is a bilateral legal act and does not require any specific form. It may be formed by the parties’ express or implied declarations of will (intention).

Aybay A (2011) Borçlar hukuku dersleri genel bölüm. Filiz, İstanbul

Google Scholar  

Becker H (1941) Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Volume VI, Obligationenrecht, 1. Abteilung: Allgemeine Bestimmungen, Art. 1-183. Stämpfli, Bern

Berger B (2012) Allgemeines Schuldrecht. Stämpfli, Bern

Çetiner B (2010) Hapis hakkı. Filiz, İstanbul

Dayınlarlı K (2008) Borçlar kanununa göre alacağın temliki. Banka ve ticaret hukuku araştırma enstitüsü, Ankara

Engel P (1997) Traité des obligations en droit Suisse. Stämpfli, Bern

Engin Bİ (2002) Alacağı temlik edenin garanti sorumluluğu. Seçkin, Ankara

Eren F (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Yetkin, Ankara

Feyzioğlu FN (1977) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 2. Fakülteler, İstanbul

Gauch P, Schluep WR, Emmenegger S (2008) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, vol 2. Schulthess, Zürich

Günergök Ö (2014) Alacağın devrinde borçlunun hukuki durumu. Vedat, İstanbul

Helvacı İ (2008) Eski medenî kanunumuzla karşılaştırmalı olarak Türk medenî kanunu’na göre sözleşmeden doğan ipotek hakkı. On iki levha, İstanbul

Honsell H, Vogt NP, Wiegand W (eds) (2003) Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Obligationenrecht 1: Art. 1-529 OR. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

Kılıçoğlu AM (2013) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Turhan, İstanbul

Kocaman AB (1989) Alacağın temlikinin benzer üçlü ilişkiler karşısındaki teorik sınırı sorunu. Banka ve ticaret hukuku araştırma enstitüsü, Ankara

Nomer HN (2015) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

Oğuzman K, Öz T (2016) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler, vol 2. Vedat, İstanbul

Oğuzman K, Seliçi Ö, Oktay-Özdemir S (2016) Eşya hukuku. Filiz, İstanbul

Oser H, Schönenberger W (1929) Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Volume V: Das Obligationenrecht, Erster Halbband: Art. 1-183. Schulthess, Zürich

Öz MT (1990) Öğreti ve uygulamada sebepsiz zenginleşme. Kazancı, İstanbul

Özsunay E (1983) Borçlar hukuku, vol I. Filiz, İstanbul

Reisoğlu S (2014) Türk borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Beta, İstanbul

Schwenzer I (2009) Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil. Schulthess, Bern

Tekinay SS, Akman S, Burcuoğlu H, Altop A (1993) Tekinay borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. Filiz, İstanbul

Tercier P (2004) Le droit des obligations. Schulthess, Zurich

Tercier P, Pichonnaz P, Develioğlu HM (2016) Borçlar hukuku genel hükümler. On iki levha, İstanbul

Thévenoz L, Werro F (éd) (2012) Commentaire romand code des obligations 1: art. 1-529 CO. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Bâle

von Tuhr A, Escher A (1974) Allgemeiner Teil des Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht, vol 2. Schulthess, Zürich

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Law, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

İlhan Helvacı

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Helvacı, İ. (2017). Assignment of Claims. In: Turkish Contract Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_32

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60061-1_32

Published : 02 September 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-60060-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-60061-1

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

An assignment of a legal claim occurs when one party (the “assignor” ) transfers its rights in a cause of action to another party (the “assignee” ). 1 Footnote Black’s Law Dictionary 136 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “assignment” as “the transfer of rights or property” ). The Supreme Court has held that a private litigant may have standing to sue to redress an injury to another party when the injured party has assigned at least a portion of its claim for damages from that injury to the litigant. The Supreme Court in the 2000 case Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens held that private individuals may have Article III standing to bring a qui tam civil action in federal court under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) on behalf of the federal government if authorized to do so. 2 Footnote 529 U.S. 765, 768, 778 (2000) . The FCA imposes civil liability upon “any person” who, among other things, knowingly presents to the federal government a false or fraudulent claim for payment. 3 Footnote 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) . To encourage citizens to enforce the Act, in certain circumstances, a private individual, known as a “relator,” may bring a civil action for violations of the Act. Such plaintiffs sue under the name of the United States and may receive a share of any recovered proceeds from the action. 4 Footnote Id. § 3730(d)(1)–(2) . Under the FCA, the relator is not merely the agent of the United States but an individual with an interest in the lawsuit itself. 5 Footnote Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. , 529 U.S. at 772 ( “For the portion of the recovery retained by the relator . . . some explanation of standing other than agency for the Government must be identified.” ) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730 ).

Ordinarily, if the relator’s financial interest in the outcome of the case were merely a byproduct of the suit itself, there would be no injury sufficient for standing. 6 Footnote Id. at 772–73 ( “An interest unrelated to injury in fact is insufficient to give a plaintiff standing. . . . A qui tam relator has suffered no [invasion of a legally protected right]—indeed, the ‘right’ he seeks to vindicate does not even fully materialize until the litigation is completed and the relator prevails.” ) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has held that a litigant’s interest in recovering attorneys’ fees or the costs of bringing suit by itself normally does not confer standing to sue. E.g. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 107 (1998) ( “The litigation must give the plaintiff some other benefit besides reimbursement of costs that are a byproduct of the litigation itself.” ); Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 70–71 (1986) ( “[T]he mere fact that continued adjudication would provide a remedy for an injury that is only a byproduct of the suit itself does not mean that the injury is cognizable under Art. III.” ). In Stevens , however, the Supreme Court recognized a distinction that confers standing upon qui tam plaintiffs in FCA cases. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Court, determined that assignments of claims are distinguishable from cases in which a litigant has a mere financial interest in the outcome of the suit because the assignee-plaintiff actually owns a stake in the dispute as a legal matter. 7 Footnote Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. , 529 U.S. at 773 . Justice Scalia drew support for this distinction from the long-standing historical practice of the government assigning a portion of its damages claim to a private party and allowing that party to assert the injury suffered by the federal government as a representative of the United States. 8 Footnote Id. at 774, 778 The Court noted the “long tradition of qui tam actions in England and the American colonies,” 9 Footnote Id. concluding that “Article III’s restriction of the judicial power to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies’ is properly understood to mean ‘cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.’” 10 Footnote Id. Although the Court held that the relator had standing to sue under the qui tam provision, it ultimately determined that the plaintiff could not maintain the action against a state agency for allegedly submitting false grant claims to the EPA because states were not “persons” subject to liability under the False Claims Act. Id. at 787 .

Eight years after deciding Stevens , the Supreme Court again found that an assignee of a claim had standing, even when the assignee had promised to remit all of the money it recovered in the proceedings to the assignor. 11 Footnote Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc. , 554 U.S. 269 , 271 (2008) . In Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. , payphone operators had assigned their legal claims for money owed to them by long-distance communications carriers to third-party collection agencies. 12 Footnote Id. at 271–72 . The agencies were authorized to bring suit on behalf of the payphone operators and promised to pay all of the proceeds of the litigation to the payphone operators for a fee. 13 Footnote Id. at 272 . The Court held that these collection agencies had standing to pursue the operators’ claims because of the long history of courts’ acceptance of such claims. 14 Footnote Id. at 273–75 . The Court noted that “federal courts routinely entertain suits which will result in relief for parties that are not themselves directly bringing suit. Trustees bring suits to benefit their trusts; guardians ad litem bring suits to benefit their wards; receivers bring suit to benefit their receiverships; assignees in bankruptcy bring suit to benefit bankrupt estates; executors bring suit to benefit testator estates; and so forth.” Id. at 287–88 . Assignment was sufficient to transfer the injury to the collections agencies, and the injury to the operators that had been transferred to the collection agencies would be redressed by a favorable judicial decision, even if the agencies would subsequently pay all of the proceeds to the operators. 15 Footnote Id. at 286–87 ( “[I]f the [collection agencies] prevail in this litigation, the long-distance carriers would write a check to [them] for the amount of dial-around compensation owed. What does it matter what the [agencies] do with the money afterward?” ).

The Stevens and Sprint cases could have broader implications for Article III standing doctrine, as they suggest a way in which the constitutional limitations on standing may be bypassed through the assignment of rights to a third party. 16 Footnote See also ArtIII.S2.C1.6.4.3 Particularized Injury. For instance, if Congress enacts a federal statute recognizing an injury to the federal government that otherwise satisfies Article III’s requirements, it may assign a portion of its claim to a private party, thereby potentially giving that plaintiff standing to sue as a representative of the United States. 17 Footnote See Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. , 529 U.S. at 773 . This is essentially the operation of the False Claims Act. 18 Footnote 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733 . However, it is unclear whether every such statute would necessarily resolve all Article III standing concerns. In Stevens and Sprint , the Court gave significant weight to the lengthy history of courts recognizing the types of assignments at issue when determining that the litigants in those cases had standing to sue. 19 Footnote See id. at 774, 778 ; Sprint Commc’ns Co. , 554 U.S. at 273–75 . Moreover, there may be a number of concerns about the constitutionality and practicality of using assignments to delegate core government functions (e.g., criminal prosecutions) to private parties when courts have not historically recognized claims based on such assignments, including concerns about interference with the Executive Branch’s Article II powers and prosecutorial discretion. 20 Footnote See Heather Elliott , Congress’s Inability to Solve Standing Problems , 91 B.U. L. Rev. 159 , 195–204 (2011) (questioning whether Congress’s assignment of claims to citizen suitors in order to confer standing would be constitutional or practical).

• Practical Law

Assignment of a claim or cause of action

Practical law uk practice note 1-522-7861  (approx. 32 pages), get full access to this document with a free trial.

Try free and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can improve productivity, efficiency and response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

650+ full-time experienced lawyer editors globally create and maintain timely, reliable and accurate resources across all major practice areas.

83% of customers are highly satisfied with Practical Law and would recommend to a colleague.

81% of customers agree that Practical Law saves them time.

• Court proceedings: restructuring & insolvency
• Property: restructuring & insolvency
• Restructuring and Insolvency Transactions
• Regulation, Powers and Duties of Insolvency Practitioners

When Assigning the Right to Pursue Relief, Always Remember to Assign Title to, Or Ownership in, The Claim

• Posted on: Oct 4 2016

Whether a party has standing to bring a lawsuit is often considered through the constitutional lens of justiciability – that is, whether there is a “case or controversy” between the plaintiff and the defendant “within the meaning of Art. III.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). To have Article III standing, “the plaintiff [must have] ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant [its] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers on [its] behalf.” Id. at 498–99 (quoting Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).

To show a personal stake in the litigation, the plaintiff must establish three things: First, he/she has sustained an “injury in fact” that is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the injury has to be caused in some way by the defendant’s action or omission. Id . Finally, a favorable resolution of the case is “likely” to redress the injury. Id . at 561.

When a person or entity receives an assignment of claims, the question becomes whether he/she can show a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation, i.e. , a case and controversy “of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.’” Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 285 (2008) (quoting Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 777–78 (2000)).

To assign a claim effectively, the claim’s owner “must manifest an intention to make the assignee the owner of the claim.” Advanced Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc. , 106 F.3d 11, 17 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A would-be assignor need not use any particular language to validly assign its claim “so long as the language manifests [the assignor’s] intention to transfer at least title or ownership , i.e., to accomplish ‘a completed transfer of the entire interest of the assignor in the particular subject of assignment.’” Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). An assignor’s grant of, for example, “‘the power to commence and prosecute to final consummation or compromise any suits, actions or proceedings,’” id. at 18 (quoting agreements that were the subject of that appeal), may validly create a power of attorney, but that language would not validly assign a claim, because it does “not purport to transfer title or ownership” of one. Id.

On September 15, 2016, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, issued a decision addressing the foregoing principles holding that one of the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims because the assignment of the right to pursue remedies did not constitute the assignment of claims.  Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecom., S.à.r.l. , 2016 NY Slip Op. 06051.

BACKGROUND :

Cortlandt involved four related actions in which the plaintiffs – Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. (“Cortlandt”), an assignee for collection, and Wilmington Trust Co. (“WTC”), an indenture trustee – sought payment of the principal and interest on notes issued in public offerings. Each action alleged that Hellas Telecommunications, S.a.r.l. and its affiliated entities, the issuer and guarantor of the notes, transferred the proceeds of the notes by means of fraudulent conveyances to two private equity firms, Apax Partners, LLP/TPG Capital, L.P. – the other defendants named in the actions.

The defendants moved to dismiss the actions on numerous grounds, including that Cortlandt, as the assignee for collection, lacked standing to pursue the actions. To cure the claimed standing defect, Cortlandt and WTC moved to amend the complaints to add SPQR Capital (Cayman) Ltd. (“SPQR”), the assignor of note interests to Cortlandt, as a plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged that, inter alia , SPQR entered into an addendum to the assignment with Cortlandt pursuant to which Cortlandt received “all right, title, and interest” in the notes.

The Motion Court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that, among other things, Cortlandt lacked standing to maintain the actions and that, although the standing defect was not jurisdictional and could be cured, the plaintiffs failed to cure the defect in the proposed amended complaint. Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecom., S.à.r.l. , 47 Misc. 3d 544 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 2014).

The Motion Court’s Ruling

As an initial matter, the Motion Court cited to the reasoning of the court in Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch , No. 12 Civ. 9351 (JPO), 2013 WL 3762882, 2013 US Dist. LEXIS 100741 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2013) (the “SDNY Action”), a related action that was dismissed on standing grounds.  The complaint in the SDNY Action, like the complaints before the Motion Court, alleged that Cortlandt was the assignee of the notes with a “right to collect” the principal and interest due on the notes. As evidence of these rights, Cortlandt produced an assignment, similar to the ones in the New York Supreme Court actions, which provided that as the assignee with the right to collect, Cortlandt could collect the principal and interest due on the notes and pursue all remedies with respect thereto. In dismissing the SDNY Action, Judge Oetken found that the complaint did not allege, and the assignment did not provide, that “title to or ownership of the claims has been assigned to Cortlandt.” 2013 WL 3762882, at *2, 2013 US Dist. LEXIS 100741, at *7. The court also found that the grant of a power of attorney (that is, the power to sue on and collect on a claim) was “not the equivalent of an assignment of ownership” of a claim. 2013 WL 3762882 at *1, 2013 US Dist. LEXIS 100741 at *5. Consequently, because the assignment did not transfer title or ownership of the claim to Cortlandt, there was no case or controversy for the court to decide ( i.e. , Cortlandt could not prove that it had an interest in the outcome of the litigation).

The Motion Court “concur[red] with” Judge Oeken’s decision, holding that “the assignments to Cortlandt … were assignments of a right of collection, not of title to the claims, and are accordingly insufficient as a matter of law to confer standing upon Cortlandt.”  In so holding, the Motion Court observed that although New York does not have an analogue to Article III, it is nevertheless analogous in its requirement that a plaintiff have a stake in the outcome of the litigation:

New York does not have an analogue to article III. However, the New York standards for standing are analogous, as New York requires “[t]he existence of an injury in fact—an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated.”

Under long-standing New York law, an assignee is the “real party in interest” where the “title to the specific claim” is passed to the assignee, even if the assignee may ultimately be liable to another for the amounts collected.

Citations omitted.

Based upon the foregoing, the Motion Court found that Cortlandt lacked standing to pursue the actions.

Cortlandt appealed the dismissal. With regard to the Motion Court’s dismissal of Cortlandt on standing grounds, the First Department affirmed the Motion Court’s ruling, holding:

The [IAS] court correctly found that plaintiff Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. lacks standing to bring the claims in Index Nos. 651693/10 and 653357/11 because, while the assignments to Cortlandt for the PIK notes granted it “full rights to collect amounts of principal and interest due on the Notes, and to pursue all remedies,” they did not transfer “title or ownership” of the claims.

The Takeaway

Cortlandt limits the ability of an assignee to pursue a lawsuit when the assignee has no direct interest in the outcome of the litigation. By requiring an assignee to have legal title to, or an ownership interest in, the claim, the Court made clear that only a valid assignment of a claim will suffice to fulfill the injury-in-fact requirement. Cortlandt also makes clear that a power of attorney permitting another to conduct litigation on behalf of others as their attorney-in-fact is not a valid assignment and does not confer a legal title to the claims it brings. Therefore, as the title of this article warns: when assigning the right to pursue relief, always remember to assign title to, or ownership in, the claim.

Tagged with: Business Law

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Assignment of claims

The European Commission proposes to harmonise conflict of laws rules on the third-party effects of assignment of claims

When claims are assigned across borders, it's not always easy for investors, credit providers and other market participants to know which national law applies to determine who owns the assigned claims. Different national rules about the third-party (or ownership) effects of assignments of claims complicate the use of claims as collateral and make it difficult for investors to price the risk of debt investments.

Removing legal uncertainties about the ownership of claims after they have been assigned on a cross-border basis is important for the assignor and the assignee of the claims. However, it is also essential for market participants who are not party to the assignment but who interact with any of the parties and need certainty about who has legal title over the assigned claims.

Commission initiatives

The  Action plan on building a capital markets union , adopted by the Commission in September 2015, envisaged targeted action on securities ownership rules and third-party effects of assignments of claims.

In order to consult all interested parties, in February 2017 the Commission published an  inception impact assessment  providing an overview of the problems to be addressed and the possible solutions.

In April 2017, the Commission launched a public consultation ( consultation on conflict of laws rules for third party effects of transactions in securities and claims ) and established an Expert group on conflict of laws regarding securities and claims. The members of the Expert group assisted the Commission by providing specialist advice on private international law and financial markets as a sound basis for policymaking.

On 12 March 2018, the Commission proposed the adoption of common conflict of laws rules on the third-party effects of assignments of claims . The proposal provides that, as a rule, the law of the country where the assignor has its habitual residence will govern the third-party effects of the assignment of claims. As an exception, the law of the assigned claim will govern the third-party effects of the assignment of specific claims. By introducing legal certainty, the new rules will promote cross-border investment, enhance access to credit and contribute to market integration. The proposal, which deals with the law applicable to the ownership questions of assignments of claims, complements the rules in the Rome I Regulation , which deal with the law applicable to the contractual questions of assignments of claims.

Previous work in relation to claims

The question of the third-party effects of assignments of claims was raised when the  Rome Convention  was being transformed into the Rome I Regulation ( Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 ). The Rome I Regulation did not address the issue, but required the Commission to prepare a report on the matter. To that effect, the Commission asked the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) to carry out a study and the Commission presented its report in September 2016

Related links

Share this page

§3727. Assignments of claims

(a) In this section, "assignment" means-

(1) a transfer or assignment of any part of a claim against the United States Government or of an interest in the claim; or

(2) the authorization to receive payment for any part of the claim.

(b) An assignment may be made only after a claim is allowed, the amount of the claim is decided, and a warrant for payment of the claim has been issued. The assignment shall specify the warrant, must be made freely, and must be attested to by 2 witnesses. The person making the assignment shall acknowledge it before an official who may acknowledge a deed, and the official shall certify the assignment. The certificate shall state that the official completely explained the assignment when it was acknowledged. An assignment under this subsection is valid for any purpose.

(c) Subsection (b) of this section does not apply to an assignment to a financing institution of money due or to become due under a contract providing for payments totaling at least $1,000 when-

(1) the contract does not forbid an assignment;

(2) unless the contract expressly provides otherwise, the assignment-

(A) is for the entire amount not already paid;

(B) is made to only one party, except that it may be made to a party as agent or trustee for more than one party participating in the financing; and

(C) may not be reassigned; and

(3) the assignee files a written notice of the assignment and a copy of the assignment with the contracting official or the head of the agency, the surety on a bond on the contract, and any disbursing official for the contract.

(d) During a war or national emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by law and ended by proclamation or law, a contract with the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, the Department of Energy (when carrying out duties and powers formerly carried out by the Atomic Energy Commission), or other agency the President designates may provide, or may be changed without consideration to provide, that a future payment under the contract to an assignee is not subject to reduction or setoff. A payment subsequently due under the contract (even after the war or emergency is ended) shall be paid to the assignee without a reduction or setoff for liability of the assignor-

(1) to the Government independent of the contract; or

(2) because of renegotiation, fine, penalty (except an amount that may be collected or withheld under, or because the assignor does not comply with, the contract), taxes, social security contributions, or withholding or failing to withhold taxes or social security contributions, arising from, or independent of, the contract.

(e)(1) An assignee under this section does not have to make restitution of, refund, or repay the amount received because of the liability of the assignor to the Government that arises from or is independent of the contract.

(2) The Government may not collect or reclaim money paid to a person receiving an amount under an assignment or allotment of pay or allowances authorized by law when liability may exist because of the death of the person making the assignment or allotment.

Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 976 .)

In subsection (a)(1), the words "or share thereof" and "whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor" are omitted as surplus. In clause (2), the word "authorization" is substituted for "powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities" to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsections (b) and (c), the word "official" is substituted for "officer" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (b), the words "Except as hereinafter provided" are omitted as unnecessary. The words "read and" are omitted as surplus. The words "to the person acknowledging the same" are omitted as unnecessary. The text of 31:203(1st par. last sentence) is omitted as superseded by 39:410. The words "Notwithstanding any law to the contrary governing the validity of assignments" and the text of 31:203(last par.) are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (c), before clause (1), the words "bank, trust company, or other . . . including any Federal lending agency" are omitted as surplus. The words "of money due or to become due under a contract providing for payments totaling at least $1,000" are substituted for "in any case in which the moneys due or to become due from the United States or from any agency or department thereof, under a contract providing for payments aggregating $1,000 or more" to eliminate unnecessary words. The text of 31:203(2d par. proviso cl. 1) is omitted as executed. In clause (1), the words "in the case of any contract entered into after October 9, 1940" are omitted as executed. In clause (2)(A), the words "payable under such contract" are omitted as surplus. In clause (3), the words "true" and "instrument of" are omitted as surplus. The words "department or" are omitted because of the restatement. The words "if any" and "to make payment" are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (d), before clause (1), the words "During a war or national emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by law and ended by proclamation or law" are substituted for "in time of war or national emergency proclaimed by the President (including the national emergency proclaimed December 16, 1950) or by Act or joint resolution of the Congress and until such war or national emergency has been terminated in such manner" to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "Department of Energy (when carrying out duties and powers formerly carried out by the Atomic Energy Commission)" are substituted for "Atomic Energy Commission" (which was reconstituted as the Energy Research and Development Administration by 42:5813 and 5814) because of 42:7151(a) and 7293. The words "other department or . . . of the United States . . . except any such contract under which full payment has been made" and "of any moneys due or to become due under such contract" before "shall not be subject" are omitted as surplus. The words "A payment subsequently due under the contract (even after the war or emergency is ended) shall be paid to the assignee without" are substituted for "and if such provision or one to the same general effect has been at any time heretofore or is hereafter included or inserted in any such contract, payments to be made thereafter to an assignee of any moneys due or to become due under such contract, whether during or after such war or emergency . . . hereafter" to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "of any nature" are omitted as surplus. In clause (1), the words "or any department or agency thereof" are omitted as unnecessary. In clause (2), the words "under any renegotiation statute or under any statutory renegotiation article in the contract" are omitted as surplus.

Subsection (e)(1) is substituted for 31:203(4th par.) to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (e)(2), the words "person receiving an amount under an assignment or allotment" are substituted for "assignees, transferees, or allottees" for clarity and consistency. The words "or to others for them" and "with respect to such assignments, transfers, or allotments or the use of such moneys" are omitted as surplus. The words "person making the assignment or allotment" are substituted for "assignors, transferors, or allotters" for clarity and consistency.

Ryan McKenna claimed off waivers by San Francisco Giants after being DFA'ed by Baltimore

Ryan McKenna, a 2015 graduate of St. Thomas Aquinas High School in Dover, was claimed off waivers by the San Francisco Giants on Saturday and was placed on their 40-man roster.

San Francisco outfielder Jung Hoo Lee, who had season-ending shoulder surgery, was moved to the 60-day IL to clear up a 40-man spot for McKenna.

The Giants are 23-25 on the season, 8.5 games behind the Los Angeles Dodgers in the National League West. They begin a six-game road trip Tuesday at Pittsburgh, and then will play the New York Mets this weekend before they begin a six-game homestand next Monday against the Philadelphia Phillies.

McKenna was designated for assignment by the Baltimore Orioles last Monday.

McKenna was called up to Baltimore on April 26. He appeared in nine games and went 3-for-8, including two solo home runs. Austin Hayes, who was reinstated from the 10-day injured list after missing three weeks with a strained calf, took McKenna's spot on the roster.

McKenna appeared in the majors with the Orioles for the fourth season. He began this season at Triple-A Norfolk , batting .244 with two homers and five RBIs before being called up to the majors.

More: Here's where 7 Seacoast baseball stars are as MLB teams open spring training in 2024

Last year, McKenna appeared in 89 games in the regular season and had career highs in several categories, including batting average (.254), on-base percentage (.316), slugging (.677), RBIs (18), and stolen bases (five).  

The Orioles won the American League East last year with a record of 101-61, and were swept by the Texas Rangers in the American League Division Series. McKenna, who was optioned to Triple-A Norfolk in the final week of the regular season, was not on the postseason roster .

McKenna appeared in 291 games with the Orioles since he made his debut in 2021. He had eight home runs and 45 RBIs, and a batting average of .224. His first career MLB hit was a triple in 2021 against the Boston Red Sox off Nick Pivetta at Camden Yards.

Detroit Tigers claim Easton Lucas, a left-handed reliever, off waivers from Athletics

PHOENIX — The Detroit Tigers swapped a right-handed reliever in the organization for a month for a brand-new left-handed reliever.

The Tigers claimed left-handed reliever Easton Lucas off waivers Saturday from the Oakland Athletics. Right-handed reliever Ty Adcock , previously claimed off waivers in mid-April from the Seattle Mariners, was designated for assignment by the Tigers to create room for Lucas on the 40-man roster.

Lucas has been optioned to Triple-A Toledo.

The 27-year-old has pitched for Triple-A Las Vegas and the Athletics throughout the 2024 season. He has a 2.87 ERA with eight walks and 13 strikeouts across 15⅔ innings in 11 Triple-A games, but he was shelled for six runs across 3⅔ innings in three games coming out of the Athletics' bullpen.

CONFIDENCE BOOST: Tigers rookie Colt Keith takes 'big step in right direction' with 4-hit game

All things Tigers: Latest Detroit Tigers news, schedule, roster, stats, injury updates and more.

Lucas, who has three minor-league options, has struggled throughout his brief stints in the big leagues, a span of 10⅓ innings in nine relief appearances over parts of two seasons. He has a 10.45 ERA — 12 earned runs — with seven walks and 13 strikeouts.

In 2024, Lucas threw five pitches: averaging 94.2 mph with his four-seam fastball, 90.5 mph with his cutter, 83.1 mph with his slider, 86.8 mph with his changeup and 93.9 mph with his sinker. His four-seamer has performed well this season.

The Tigers are his fourth organization as a professional.

[ MUST LISTEN: Make "Days of Roar" your go-to Detroit Tigers podcast, available anywhere you listen to podcasts ( Apple , Spotify ) ]

Lucas was drafted out of Pepperdine by the Miami Marlins in the 14th round of the 2019 draft, traded from the Marlins to the Baltimore Orioles for veteran infielder Jonathan Villar in December 2019 and then traded from the Orioles to the Athletics for right-handed reliever Shintaro Fujinami , an erratic flamethrower, in July 2023.

STOCK WATCH: Three pitchers among best in big leagues, but big bats aren't hitting

As for Adock, the Tigers can outright him to Triple-A Toledo — thus keeping him in the organization — if he clears waivers, but for that to happen, the other 29 teams must decline to pick him up.

Adcock has a 9.00 ERA with three walks and nine strikeouts across six innings in Triple-A Toledo.

Contact Evan Petzold at  [email protected]  or follow him  @EvanPetzold .

Listen to our weekly Tigers show  "Days of Roar"  every Monday afternoon on demand at freep.com,  Apple ,  Spotify  or wherever you listen to podcasts. And catch all of our podcasts and daily voice briefing at  freep.com/podcasts .