Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Landlords are regularly asked to consent to a tenant's financing, secured by the tenant's equipment and other assets. Such consent proposals are typically accompanied by a further request for the landlord to waive or subordinate its interest in the tenant's personal property, if any, in favor of the claim and lien of the tenant's lender. Today, lenders often go so far as to seek the subordination of the landlord's interest in the lease itself to the interest of the lender under the financing. In response, landlords will routinely resist any subordination of the leasehold, and will require various protections such as excluding fixtures from the lender's collateral and providing that if the lender forecloses on, or takes possession of, the collateral, it will do so peaceably and in compliance with applicable legal process, without interference with the operations of the landlord's shopping center or the businesses of other tenants, and with an obligation by the lender to repair any damage to the premises resulting from the removal of the collateral.
The documentation described above is fairly routine. However, what if the tenant's financing is secured not only by the tenant's personal property, but by a mortgage of the tenant's leasehold as well? In this case, the landlord and the lender will grapple with issues such as notice to the lender and a right to cure any tenant default. The lender will often request (and the landlord will typically resist) an additional cure period beyond any such period applicable to the tenant, together with a right to foreclose on the leasehold mortgage and step into the shoes of the tenant, while also attempting to limit or eliminate the lender's responsibility for the sins of the tenant (with the landlord again resisting such efforts).
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
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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 real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.