Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As the popularity of lifestyle center developments continues to grow, the national and regional small-shop tenants forming the leasing backbone of these projects persist in their efforts to negotiate lease rights traditionally granted only to anchor tenants just a few years ago. One such right is the sales volume termination right. Generally, the sales volume termination clause allows a tenant to terminate its lease in the event sales from the tenant's premises do not exceed a predetermined sales volume during a specific period of time. The primary purpose of this clause is to provide a tenant with an exit strategy for an underperforming store. Although the cause of such underperformance may be attributable to a struggling shopping center, alternate causes include poor store management and misguided merchandising decisions, among others. Certainly, landlords would prefer to avoid granting tenants any termination rights; however, the relative bargaining position of the parties may require that the landlord concede to the tenant's insistence for a sales volume termination right. If a landlord finds itself providing a sales volume termination right, then the sales volume termination clause should be structured to address the tenant's specific concerns rather than serve as an open-ended termination right, and it should include a number of landlord protections.
Key Elements
The sales volume termination clause, when stripped bare, has two essential elements: the sales volume threshold and the measuring period. First, the parties must agree upon the sales volume threshold that will trigger the tenant's termination right. The tenant is motivated to set the threshold as high as possible in an effort to maximize its ability to utilize the termination right. If the sales volume threshold is set too high, the tenant will effectively guarantee itself the right to terminate the lease early, thereby reducing the value of the lease to prospective lenders and purchasers of the project. Accordingly, the landlord should negotiate as low of a threshold as possible to minimize the tenant's ability to utilize the termination right. To arrive at a meaningful sales volume threshold, the landlord and the tenant may establish the threshold as a percentage of the average sales volume at the tenant's other stores.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?