Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Understanding and Utilizing Percentage Rent Provisions
As retailers like to say, 'The three most important factors in retailing are location, location, location.' The real value of a retail lease, however, resides in the volume of sales produced at the location; therefore, the provider of the location ' namely, the landlord ' is a key player in the retailer's success. That is why percentage rent has developed in retail leases as a way by which the landlord that provides a successful location might share to some degree in that success.
A developer setting out to construct a shopping center or strip mall typically prepares a pro forma plan for the project, thereby determining the fixed rent that must be realized from the project in order to cover its debt service and meet its desired rate of return. This is similar to what the developer of an office building would do. In the case of most retail centers, that fixed rent is a triple net rent, with the tenants paying all common area costs, property taxes, and the landlord's insurance premiums. Most pro forma plans are prepared without regard to any percentage rent; thus, percentage rent is truly the icing on the cake. However, it has also been suggested that percentage rent permits a lower fixed rent than would otherwise be the case and, therefore, lends stability to the project by enabling retailers to ride out downturns in retail activity.
This article discusses the basics of percentage rent; the various ways in which percentage rent may be determined, including the concept of 'breakpoints'; and how percentage rent works in practice.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.