Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Guaranty Law Invalidated
In March 2020, as New York City became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a number of executive orders, some of which required non-essential businesses to close their doors. As a consequence, many commercial businesses began defaulting on rent payments or attempting to terminate their leases altogether, to potentially catastrophic effect for landlords, who rely on rent payments to cover expenses (e.g., taxes and debt service).
In May 2020, the New York City Council enacted several local laws to combat the economic impact of the pandemic on struggling small businesses. Among the laws passed in this legislative relief package were amendments to the Commercial Harassment Law (Local Law No. 53 of 2020) and to the Residential Harassment Law (Local Law No. 56 of 2020), and the "Guaranty Law" (Local Law No. 55 of 2020). While facially implemented to protect struggling commercial tenants and small businesses, the practical effect of these laws was to shift the economic burden of the pandemic almost exclusively to landlords, who were now precluded from enforcing certain negotiated personal guaranties contained in their lease agreements. Compounding that restriction, the amendments to the Harassment Laws stoked apprehension with respect to the consequences of demanding rent payments directly from tenants.
By far, the most egregious action was the enactment of the Guaranty Law, which limited the ability of commercial landlords to enforce their bargained-for personal guaranties for the period from March 7, 2020, through June 30, 2021 to the extent the guarantor was an individual. New York City, N.Y., Code §22-1005
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?