Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tenants are accustomed to negotiating assignment provisions heavily as they relate to a third-party transfer. However, the effects that such provisions can have on a tenant's corporate autonomy are often overlooked. A thorough consideration of the assignment clause reveals that it can have a profound impact on a tenant's ability to run its business, including any expansion or reorganization. This article explores the strategy of negotiating an assignment provision that protects a tenant's ability to conduct business, and offers practical suggestions that will allow both the landlord and tenant ultimately to arrive at a mutually agreeable result.
Restrictions on Assignment
During the typical lease negotiation, the parties tend to treat assignment rights the same as subletting rights, and fail to recognize that restrictions on assignments can have far greater consequences on a tenant's business operations. From the tenant's perspective, the ideal outcome is for the tenant to have the right to freely assign the lease to any party it deems appropriate, without the consent of the landlord. The landlord will typically insist on having the right to consent to assignments, in which case the tenant's next best option is to require that landlord's consent not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. However, especially in situations where a tenant holds significantly less leverage than the landlord, a landlord may refuse to allow any assignment without its consent, and require that it have the right to deny such consent for any reason. Obviously, this is an extremely undesirable outcome for the tenant.
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.
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?
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.