Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Don't Ignore Liquor License Issues in Real Estate Transactions
When representing a client in core real estate work, such as buying or selling real property or negotiating a lease, alcohol may be the last thing an attorney is likely to take into consideration. Clients are often looking for high-quality work on the specific issue presented to the attorney, with a quick turnaround and acceptable cost. A client who retains an attorney for representation in the purchase or sale of real property, or in the negotiation of a lease, may not necessarily bring liquor licensing concerns to the attorney's attention.
As with many other business considerations related to the use of real property, liquor licensing issues can significantly impact real estate transactions. These items may delay, or even derail, negotiations and closings of purchase/sale contracts and leases.
In the course of working with a potential buyer or tenant of commercial real estate, it is important to consider the licenses and other approvals the client will need to operate the intended business at the property. Many businesses may require a liquor license to remain sufficiently profitable to operate. However, both the location and physical layout of the property being purchased or leased can cause several issues for a client applying for a liquor license. These factors should be considered in the contract or lease negotiations, as well as in the due diligence phase of any real estate transaction involving a business that will sell alcoholic beverages.
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.