Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Businesses borrow money. Security for the repayment of a loan often includes a lien granted by the borrower to its lender on the borrower's equipment, trade fixtures and inventory (“Tenant's Property”). A lender and its borrower can expend significant time and resources negotiating the loan documents whereby the borrower grants the lender a security interest in Tenant's Property. Of course, businesses also frequently lease the space in which they conduct their operations (“Leased Premises”). If they plan to locate portions of Tenant's Property within a Leased Premises, a conflict of interests inevitably arises between the lender and the owner of the Leased Premises, ie, the borrower's landlord. A lender will want to obtain an unfettered right to enter the Leased Premises and remove the Tenant's Property without being deemed a trespasser or a converter of any interest of the landlord in Tenant's Property.
However, a landlord may have its own lien rights in Tenant's Property. Often the terms of lease agreements will specifically grant to the landlord a lien on the Tenant's Property as additional security for the tenant's performance of its obligations under the lease. Additionally, some states provide protection to landlords in the form of common law and statutory lien rights with respect to portions of Tenant's Property located on a Leased Premises. So long as a landlord is satisfied with a tenant's ability to perform its obligations under its lease (whether by virtue of a security deposit, third-party guaranty or confidence in the tenant's own financial wherewithal), the landlord may be willing to agree to waive or subordinate its security interests in Tenant's Property. Even if that is the case, though, a lender generally also requires that its borrower's landlord grant the lender access to the Leased Premises on its own terms for the removal and disposition of Tenant's Property. The idea of granting such a right of occupancy might not appeal to the landlord; after all, the landlord has already expended its own time and resources in negotiating a lease with the tenant.
Timing of Negotiation
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 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.