Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Don't Sleep On Prohibitions on the Assignability of Leases
In commercial real estate transactions, lease assignment provisions play a critical role in balancing the rights of landlords, tenants and potential assignees. Lease assignability clauses, which determine how and under what circumstances a tenant may transfer their leasehold interest to another party, are often heavily negotiated due to their potential impact on the property's control, value and long-term stability. From the tenant's perspective, flexibility in assignment can be essential for business growth or restructuring, while landlords typically seek to maintain oversight, continue to have financial assurances, and protect the integrity of the lease.
In the absence of any language prohibiting or otherwise limiting a tenant's ability to transfer the tenant's right in the leasehold estate, there is a presumption that a tenant should have free assignability (i.e., alienability) of the lease, based on the fundamental bundle-of-sticks theory of real property law. If the tenant is not otherwise prohibited from doing something within a lease, the general presumption is that the tenant can do that thing! For example, a straightforward provision that absolutely prohibits a tenant from assigning its interest in a lease does precisely nothing to prohibit the same tenant from subletting the entire space to a third-party subtenant.
Accordingly, commercial landlords typically will place safeguards on the tenant's assignability of a lease by absolutely prohibiting the tenant from assigning, subletting, mortgaging, encumbering, pledging, transferring, whether voluntarily or involuntarily or "by operation of law" the tenant's interest in the lease and the leased premises (or subjecting the prohibition to landlord's consent, sometimes not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned).
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?