Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tenants that seek the future ability to sublease a portion of their space frequently settle for language to the effect that the landlord will not unreasonably withhold, delay, or condition its consent to a proposed sublease by the tenant. Unfortunately, this typical language only provides a tenant with minimal protection. Most sophisticated prospective subtenants of large premises will seek a nondisturbance or recognition agreement from the master landlord, assuring the subtenant that, in the event of a default by the sublandlord or other event giving rise to the termination of the master lease, the subtenant may continue to occupy the sublet premises pursuant to the terms of the sublease. Particularly where a subtenant is investing significant tenant improvement dollars in the subleased space, or the location of the subleased space is important to the subtenant's business, the subtenant needs the assurance of such a nondisturbance or recognition agreement to ensure that the terms of its sublease remain in effect for the entire sublease term.
An aggressive or ornery master landlord that wishes to hamper its tenant's ability to sublease will either refuse to provide such a nondisturbance or recognition agreement or insert conditions in the proposed agreement which are unacceptable to most subtenants. Such conditions may include a requirement that in the event of a termination of the master lease, the subtenant must assume liability for the entire leased premises, as opposed to only the subleased premises, for the balance of the entire lease term, as opposed to the sublease term. Such a condition may effectively prevent a tenant from subleasing its space upon reasonably favorable terms. Potential tenants with leverage may wish to consider inserting a requirement in their lease that obligates the landlord to deliver a commercially reasonable nondisturbance or recognition agreement to any subtenant that otherwise meets the requirements described in the lease.
Tenants that seek the future ability to sublease a portion of their space frequently settle for language to the effect that the landlord will not unreasonably withhold, delay, or condition its consent to a proposed sublease by the tenant. Unfortunately, this typical language only provides a tenant with minimal protection. Most sophisticated prospective subtenants of large premises will seek a nondisturbance or recognition agreement from the master landlord, assuring the subtenant that, in the event of a default by the sublandlord or other event giving rise to the termination of the master lease, the subtenant may continue to occupy the sublet premises pursuant to the terms of the sublease. Particularly where a subtenant is investing significant tenant improvement dollars in the subleased space, or the location of the subleased space is important to the subtenant's business, the subtenant needs the assurance of such a nondisturbance or recognition agreement to ensure that the terms of its sublease remain in effect for the entire sublease term.
An aggressive or ornery master landlord that wishes to hamper its tenant's ability to sublease will either refuse to provide such a nondisturbance or recognition agreement or insert conditions in the proposed agreement which are unacceptable to most subtenants. Such conditions may include a requirement that in the event of a termination of the master lease, the subtenant must assume liability for the entire leased premises, as opposed to only the subleased premises, for the balance of the entire lease term, as opposed to the sublease term. Such a condition may effectively prevent a tenant from subleasing its space upon reasonably favorable terms. Potential tenants with leverage may wish to consider inserting a requirement in their lease that obligates the landlord to deliver a commercially reasonable nondisturbance or recognition agreement to any subtenant that otherwise meets the requirements described in the lease.
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 DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.