TSA assignment and novation decide who is allowed to deliver the services a buyer relies on and who eventually holds the contracts underneath them, and a buyer that ignores these clauses can find its separation handed to a party it never chose. Careful TSA negotiation keeps the seller on the hook for performance while making sure the contracts that matter end up in Newco. The seller wants freedom to assign and subcontract. The buyer wants control over both.
Assignment transfers rights, and in some drafting obligations, from one party to another while the original contract remains in force. Novation goes further. It replaces one party with a new one, extinguishes the old relationship, and requires the consent of everyone involved. The two words appear close together in a TSA, but they do very different jobs, and a buyer that treats them as interchangeable misses where its real exposure sits.
Inside the TSA itself, the question is whether either party can move its position in the agreement to someone else. The buyer cares most about the seller side, because the seller is the party delivering the services the separation depends on. If the seller can assign its obligations away, the buyer can end up depending on a party it never assessed and never agreed to.
Underneath the TSA sits a second layer. Many services run on third-party contracts, such as software licences, hosting, and vendor arrangements, that the seller holds today and the buyer must eventually hold in its own name. Moving those contracts usually requires novation, not a simple assignment, and that is where the exit work concentrates.
A buyer separates these two layers deliberately. It controls who is allowed to perform the TSA, and it plans how the contracts beneath it will novate to Newco, so neither the service nor its foundations move without the buyer agreement.
Sellers often want the freedom to subcontract parts of the service or to assign the TSA to an affiliate or a buyer of the retained business. Some of this is reasonable. A large seller may genuinely deliver through shared service centres or named providers, and a buyer that bans all subcontracting can make the service undeliverable. The point is not to forbid it, but to keep it under control.
The buyer position rests on one principle. Whoever actually performs, the seller remains fully responsible for the service, the standard, and the credits when it fails. Subcontracting changes who does the work, not who answers for it. The buyer makes the seller liable for its subcontractors as if it performed itself, so a poor handoff to a third party is the seller problem, not the buyer.
Assignment of the seller position is a higher bar. A buyer should resist any assignment that releases the seller from its obligations without the buyer consent, because that is novation by another name. Where assignment to an affiliate is allowed, the buyer ties it to continued performance standards and, often, a guarantee from the original seller so the covenant does not weaken when the entity changes.
Allowing subcontracting while holding the seller accountable, and gating assignment behind consent, gives the buyer the flexibility the seller needs without losing the party it actually negotiated with.
The contracts that sit beneath the TSA are often where the exit succeeds or stalls. Software licences, hosting agreements, support contracts, and vendor arrangements frequently live in the seller name, and the buyer cannot end the dependency until those move into Newco. The mechanism for moving them is usually novation, because the vendor must agree to deal with a new counterparty.
Novation needs the vendor consent, and vendors use that moment to renegotiate price, demand new minimums, or impose fresh terms. A buyer that waits until the exit to start this work discovers the leverage has shifted. The buyer therefore wants the TSA to commit the seller to support novation actively, to introduce the buyer to vendors, and to share the information needed to stand up replacement contracts.
Cost and timing should be written down rather than assumed. The buyer wants clarity on who bears novation fees, vendor consent charges, and any uplift a vendor demands to deal with a smaller standalone entity. It also wants a timeline that starts early, because novation of a large estate of contracts cannot be compressed into the final weeks of a service.
By treating novation of the underlying contracts as a planned exit workstream rather than a closing formality, the buyer turns the act that ends each dependency into something it can schedule and control.
A TSA can run for many months, and during that time the seller, or the part of it delivering the service, may itself be sold, merged, or restructured. The buyer needs a position on what happens when the entity it depends on changes hands. A change of control provision gives the buyer that position rather than leaving it to chance.
The concern is concrete. A new owner may have different priorities, may resource the service differently, or may be a competitor of the buyer. The buyer wants the right to be consulted, to require continued performance on the agreed terms, and in the most serious cases to exit the affected services if the new control party is unacceptable. The clause makes the seller stability a matter the buyer can react to.
Confidentiality deserves a particular look here. If the service could pass to a competitor, the buyer wants assurance that its data and operating information do not travel with it, and that the protective duties survive any change of control. This connects assignment to the wider clause set the buyer is negotiating, including the confidentiality and security provisions.
A buyer that addresses change of control in the TSA keeps a grip on who is performing its services even when the corporate ownership behind them moves.
Assignment and novation are quiet clauses that rarely draw attention in the rush to close, which is exactly why they reward early work. While the deal is live the buyer can set the consent thresholds, fix the seller responsibility for subcontractors, and commit the seller to active support for novating the underlying contracts. After signing, each of these becomes a favour the buyer must request.
The most valuable pre-signing outcome is a clear novation plan for the contracts that matter most. Identifying which vendor agreements must move, who owns the consent process, and how costs are split turns the exit from a scramble into a sequence. A buyer that leaves this blank pays for the gap later in vendor uplift and slipped timelines.
These provisions also belong with the rest of the clause set. The way assignment interacts with the liability cap, the indemnities, and the exit assistance obligations means they are best negotiated together, as one coherent position, rather than as isolated paragraphs handled by different people.
A disciplined buyer settles assignment, subcontracting, and novation during a pre-signing review, so the parties performing the service and the contracts beneath it both stay under the buyer control through to exit.
Assignment transfers rights, and sometimes obligations, from one party to another while the original contract stays in place. Novation replaces a party entirely with a new one, requires consent from everyone involved, and is the mechanism used to move an underlying vendor contract from the seller to Newco.
The buyer should keep control of who performs. It can allow subcontracting to named or qualified providers while requiring the seller to remain fully responsible for performance, and it should resist any assignment that releases the seller from its obligations without the buyer consent.
Many TSA services rest on third-party contracts the buyer must eventually hold in its own name. Novating those contracts to Newco is often the act that ends the dependency, so the buyer wants novation obligations, timelines, and cost responsibility written into the agreement rather than left to goodwill.
The buyer wants a say if the entity providing its services is sold or restructured. A change of control provision lets the buyer consent, require continued performance, or trigger an exit right, so the people delivering the separation cannot change without the buyer being protected.
Where to set the cap, what to exclude, and the carve-outs that matter.
Read the article →What the buyer should be covered for, and what it should never give away.
Read the article →Keeping data and operating information protected through the separation.
Read the article →The 90-day governance, IT, finance, HR and procurement separation plan we run on live carve-outs. Get the playbook plus the bi-weekly Day One Letter — short, signal-heavy, buyer-side.
No spam. Unsubscribe in one click. · Read the overview first →
We gate assignment, hold the seller responsible for subcontractors, and plan novation of the contracts beneath the service. Fixed-fee proposal in 48 hours. The first conversation is always free.
Seven buyer-side moves to exit a Transition Services Agreement on time and below budget. The mark-up, the extension-fee curve, exit sequencing, and the 11-month calendar.
One tactic, one benchmark, or one pattern from a recent buyer-side engagement. Short. Signal heavy. Free.
Subscribe to The Day One Letter →