Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Exclusions from operating expenses are frequently the subject of much wrangling between landlords and tenants in lease negotiations. Many sophisticated parties will deal with such exclusions in the Letter of Intent, a method which allows the business people to focus on the issue early, rather than having the lawyers argue about it during the lease negotiation.
One way for tenants with leverage to protect themselves against significant increases in operating expenses (and also to avoid some of the hassle of negotiating exclusions) is to agree upon an annual cap on tenant's liability for increases in operating expenses. Landlords may be willing to entertain such a concept, but generally will insist that any cap apply only to items that are not “controllable.” Letters of Intent will sometimes include a cap on “non-controllable costs” and leave the definition of “controllable” up to the negotiating lawyers. Not surprisingly, lawyers are quite likely to disagree on this point. It may be prudent for the parties to address the issue directly, rather than paying for their respective counsel to argue. At a minimum, controllable costs should expressly exclude real estate taxes, insurance, seasonal maintenance such as snow removal, sanding, etc., and utility costs. Landlords may also attempt to exclude wages and benefits pursuant to collective bargaining agreements, non-insured casualties, and legal compliance, but savvy tenants (particularly those with leverage) will not necessarily accept such exclusions to an expense cap. As in any other lease negotiation, the more attention given to the issue by the parties when the deal is struck, the less likelihood for misunderstanding when the lease is negotiated and executed.
Exclusions from operating expenses are frequently the subject of much wrangling between landlords and tenants in lease negotiations. Many sophisticated parties will deal with such exclusions in the Letter of Intent, a method which allows the business people to focus on the issue early, rather than having the lawyers argue about it during the lease negotiation.
One way for tenants with leverage to protect themselves against significant increases in operating expenses (and also to avoid some of the hassle of negotiating exclusions) is to agree upon an annual cap on tenant's liability for increases in operating expenses. Landlords may be willing to entertain such a concept, but generally will insist that any cap apply only to items that are not “controllable.” Letters of Intent will sometimes include a cap on “non-controllable costs” and leave the definition of “controllable” up to the negotiating lawyers. Not surprisingly, lawyers are quite likely to disagree on this point. It may be prudent for the parties to address the issue directly, rather than paying for their respective counsel to argue. At a minimum, controllable costs should expressly exclude real estate taxes, insurance, seasonal maintenance such as snow removal, sanding, etc., and utility costs. Landlords may also attempt to exclude wages and benefits pursuant to collective bargaining agreements, non-insured casualties, and legal compliance, but savvy tenants (particularly those with leverage) will not necessarily accept such exclusions to an expense cap. As in any other lease negotiation, the more attention given to the issue by the parties when the deal is struck, the less likelihood for misunderstanding when the lease is negotiated and executed.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
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?