Consent and Notice Register · three contracts, one deal
Same question, three different answers
A checklist flags all three. Only two of them are anything to do with this deal.
| Contract | Clause | Trigger the clause uses | Reverse triangular merger | Stock | Asset |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supply agreement | 14.2 | Change of control | engaged | engaged | engaged |
| Distribution agreement | 19.1 | Assignment only | not engaged | not engaged | engaged |
| Master services agreement | 22.4 | Both limbs | engaged | engaged | engaged |
Why row two is different
Clause 19.1 restricts assignment and says nothing about a change of control. On a reverse triangular merger the target survives and keeps its own contracts, so under Delaware law nothing is assigned and the clause is not engaged. On an asset purchase it is engaged squarely, because that structure is an assignment.
One line of the register. It removes a consent from the completion list on one structure and puts it back on another, and it is the same clause either way.
What the row still has to answer
| Who consents | How long they have | What they get if they refuse |
|---|---|---|
| Counterparty | none stated | Termination for material breach |
The empty cell is the finding. A clause with no stated period is the one that runs over a completion date.