A Primer on Anti-Terrorism Requirements in Leasing Transactions: Complying with Executive Order 13224
August 01, 2003
Shortly after September 11, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13224 (the "Order") to combat terrorism. The title of the Order, "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism" aptly describes the protective measures contemplated by the Order. Among other things, the Order applies to all real estate transactions, including commercial leases. All owners, tenants, guarantors and other parties to lease transactions, as well as their respective agents and affiliates, are obliged to comply with this Order. Given the critically important national interest at stake, as well as the stern penalties that can be encountered for noncompliance, it is essential for all parties involved in real estate transactions to be aware of the Order's requirements and to include compliance measures in all dealings.
In the Spotlight: Landlords Should Not Overlook the Importance of Estoppel Certificate Provisions
August 01, 2003
Estoppel Certificate Provisions are usually given little, if any, attention during lease negotiations.As long as a lease contains basic language requiring a tenant to provide an estoppel certificate from time to time, most parties to a lease negotiation simply gloss over the provision and move on to weightier issues. In certain situations, particularly where a tenant is the major, if not the only, tenant of a particular real estate project, a landlord seeking to sell or refinance its asset needs to be in the position of requiring the tenant to timely deliver an estoppel that will pass muster with its lender or purchaser (and such purchaser's lender).
The Leasing Hotline
August 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
In The Courts
August 01, 2003
Analysis of recent cases that affect your practice.
When Image Is Everything: PR Firms in White Collar Cases
August 01, 2003
You are a public figure whose ability to earn a living depends upon your reputation for integrity and talent. Almost without warning, you become caught up in a highly publicized business scandal that threatens your livelihood and public image. The media's fascination with the details of the scandal has caused a public furor and led federal officials to open parallel criminal and civil investigations. You hear rumors that a Congressional committee is about to hold public hearings. You need help - and fast.
Creating Ethics and Compliance Programs That Work with Sarbanes-Oxley
August 01, 2003
Last month, we discussed how brightly the spotlight is shining on ethics and compliance programs. We explained that Sarbanes-Oxley has a provision that provides Federal protection for employees of SEC registrants who report wrongdoing to the government and/or law enforcement. The Act has created a situation in which anyone who reports wrongdoing to the government and/or law enforcement is protected from employer retaliation under Federal Statute. And we urged that companies assess the effectiveness of their ethics and compliance efforts.
The Value of 'Research Tool' Patents in View of <i>Integra v. Merck</i>
August 01, 2003
On June 6, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seemingly breathed new life into research tool patents when it held that the use of patented peptides for drug discovery was not exempt from infringement under the "safe harbor" provision of 35 U.S.C. '271(e)(1). <i>Integra Lifesciences, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,</i> 331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In an earlier case, <i>Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.,</i> No. 95 Civ. 8833, 2001 WL 1512597 (S.D.N.Y 2001), a district court had ruled that the use of patented intermediates for drug screening was non-infringing, thereby implicating that the use of other research tool patents for drug discovery was likewise sheltered from infringement liability under '271(e)(1).
Bankruptcy: What Happens to the Royalty Payments?
August 01, 2003
In a decision interpreting for the first time certain provisions in the Bankruptcy Code, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that royalty payments belonged to the estate of the bankrupt debtor/licensor rather than to the new owner by assignment of the underlying intellectual property covered by the licenses. <i>In re CellNet Data Systems, Inc.,</i> 327 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2003). The Third Circuit held that the debtor/licensor was permitted to sever the right to receive the remaining royalty payments due on the license from the transfer of the underlying intellectual property rights.
