Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Reserved Use ' A Modern Approach To 'Use Restrictions'
Most modern leases contain one or more paragraphs addressing the use of the premises. Pursuant to these paragraphs the landlord and tenant agree, among other things, that the tenant is entitled to use the leased premises for one or more specified uses, an 'Allowable Use.' The parties may also agree that certain uses, 'Obnoxious or Prohibited Uses,' would be inappropriate for the tenant space or for any other space in the shopping center occupied by another tenant. In shopping centers where one or more tenants are acting as the initial anchor, that tenant will frequently require the landlord to agree not to let any other occupant have the right to use any portion of the center for a specified use (an 'Exclusive Use'). Sometimes the exclusive is coterminous with the anchor tenant's Allowable Use, but frequently it will be more narrowly drafted to include only a portion of the Allowable Use. In shopping centers where the initial anchor is a grocery store or other readily definable use and where the tenant has significant bargaining power, this process can be quite simple and, with the use of a well-drafted declaration of restrictions, can be applied with relative ease.
The situation becomes much more complicated, however, in the regional centers commonly known in the industry as 'Lifestyle Centers' and 'Value Mega-mall' developments.
The approach described above can lead to very complicated and difficult analysis and negotiations as the project grows in size and more tenants are added. This occurs because a) these developments typically have regional or national retailers joining the tenant mix at various times throughout the development process, and b) these new tenants will have their own specific requirements with respect to Allowable Uses, Exclusive Uses, and Prohibited Uses. Furthermore, some uses may be acceptable, or even attractive uses for co-tenants, but only if they are located in portions of the project acceptable to the other tenants.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?