Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Spotlight: The Co-Tenancy Clause
When purchasing a car from the local dealership, or a new outfit from, say, Ann Taylor, the often-stated legal maxim is caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. After Kleban v. Ann Taylor (USDC Connecticut, CV-01879), when a mall or shopping center landlord is marketing space and offers a potential retail tenant a co-tenancy provision, the most applicable legal maxim is caveat venditor, let the seller beware. Landlords can suffer great unintended consequences from a co-tenancy clause that is negotiated as an accommodation to get a tenant into the space and then explodes years later.
Co-Tenancy Clauses
A typical co-tenancy clause allows a retail tenant to obtain a reduction in rent if: 1) key or anchor tenants vacate or stop operating in the center; or 2) a certain number of the other tenants vacate or stop operating in the center. This gives the retail tenant some reassurance that it will have rent protection if a vacancy at the center reduces the anticipated foot traffic. But the right mix of retailers is just as important as the volume of foot traffic. As a result, smaller retailers may also want a co-tenancy clause that offers some protection with regard to the type of retailers that are in the center. The proper assortment of retailers will ensure that the foot traffic consists of shoppers with the ideal customer profile for the given retailer. It is unlikely, for example, that the retail jeweler Tiffany will open up next to Shop Rite in a shopping center. On the other hand, Tiffany is commonly seen in malls and shopping centers with department stores such as Saks, Bloomingdales and Nordstrom.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?