Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Commercial Leasing Law & StrategyKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Leasing Covenant Loopholes

By Camilla Titterington
April 27, 2007

Protecting the success of its business is of prime concern to any retailer client in the course of shopping center lease negotiations. A protection commonly found in leases is an exclusive use right granting a tenant either the exclusive right to sell a particular product in a center or the exclusive right to operate a particular business. An exclusive right in a lease is violated any time an occupant of the shopping center fails to comply with its restrictive terms. As such, it places a burden on the landlord to administer and police a tenant's exclusive throughout the term of the lease. Landlords have, therefore, started to move away from granting exclusive rights to giving leasing covenants ' a provision intended to give a retailer the protection for its use while removing the administrative burden from the landlord in enforcing exclusives. However, is the retailer really getting the benefit of protecting its use from future tenants? Below are some considerations to keep in mind when drafting a leasing covenant for a tenant.

Before looking at some protections to be added to a leasing covenant, it is important to clearly understand the differences between an exclusive and a leasing covenant. In its most common form, a leasing covenant is a promise to the tenant by the landlord not to lease to a 'direct competitor.' The primary distinction between an exclusive use and a leasing covenant is that a covenant is made by the landlord only and is only binding on the landlord. An exclusive is binding on all future tenants and the burden is on the landlord to enforce it against future tenants. Unless a leasing covenant is carefully negotiated, a retailer does not have any of the following exclusive use protections in a leasing covenant scenario: 1) remedy in the event of a rogue tenant violation; 2) protection on second-generation space (i.e., assignments or subleases by tenants to a direct competitor); 3) protection for specific classes of use; and 4) obviously, a right to an exclusive if one is granted to another tenant in the future.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.