Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tenants should get a Subordination Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement (SNDA) from the landlord's lender to make sure that the lender agrees not to disturb the tenant's possession of the premises if there is a foreclosure. (For more on SNDAs, see “In the Spotlight,” infra.) Too often, the SNDA is an after-thought that is negotiated after the parties have grown weary from the lease negotiations. A tenant's goal in negotiating a SNDA is to protect the rights that it has negotiated with its landlord if the landlord's lender or any third-party purchaser acquires the property.
The vast majority of lenders provide their own form of SNDAs and, based on our recent experience, those forms are growing increasingly less tenant-friendly. As an attorney for a tenant, you may not have a lot of leverage to negotiate terms, and will need to focus on the most important provisions affecting your client's interest. This article discusses the top 10 items tenants should try to get in a SNDA.
1. Delineate Who Will Get the Benefit of the SNDA
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.
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.
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.
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?