Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

In the Spotlight: Address Exclusions from Operating Expenses Prior to Lease Negotiations

By William Crowe
March 22, 2004

Exclusions from operating expenses are frequently the subject of much wrangling between landlords and tenants in lease negotiations. Many sophisticated parties will deal with such exclusions in the Letter of Intent, a method which allows the business people to focus on the issue early, rather than having the lawyers argue about it during the lease negotiation.

One way for tenants with leverage to protect themselves against significant increases in operating expenses (and also to avoid some of the hassle of negotiating exclusions) is to agree upon an annual cap on tenant's liability for increases in operating expenses. Landlords may be willing to entertain such a concept, but generally will insist that any cap apply only to items that are not “controllable.” Letters of Intent will sometimes include a cap on “non-controllable costs” and leave the definition of “controllable” up to the negotiating lawyers. Not surprisingly, lawyers are quite likely to disagree on this point. It may be prudent for the parties to address the issue directly, rather than paying for their respective counsel to argue. At a minimum, controllable costs should expressly exclude real estate taxes, insurance, seasonal maintenance such as snow removal, sanding, etc., and utility costs. Landlords may also attempt to exclude wages and benefits pursuant to collective bargaining agreements, non-insured casualties, and legal compliance, but savvy tenants (particularly those with leverage) will not necessarily accept such exclusions to an expense cap. As in any other lease negotiation, the more attention given to the issue by the parties when the deal is struck, the less likelihood for misunderstanding when the lease is negotiated and executed.



William Crowe

Exclusions from operating expenses are frequently the subject of much wrangling between landlords and tenants in lease negotiations. Many sophisticated parties will deal with such exclusions in the Letter of Intent, a method which allows the business people to focus on the issue early, rather than having the lawyers argue about it during the lease negotiation.

One way for tenants with leverage to protect themselves against significant increases in operating expenses (and also to avoid some of the hassle of negotiating exclusions) is to agree upon an annual cap on tenant's liability for increases in operating expenses. Landlords may be willing to entertain such a concept, but generally will insist that any cap apply only to items that are not “controllable.” Letters of Intent will sometimes include a cap on “non-controllable costs” and leave the definition of “controllable” up to the negotiating lawyers. Not surprisingly, lawyers are quite likely to disagree on this point. It may be prudent for the parties to address the issue directly, rather than paying for their respective counsel to argue. At a minimum, controllable costs should expressly exclude real estate taxes, insurance, seasonal maintenance such as snow removal, sanding, etc., and utility costs. Landlords may also attempt to exclude wages and benefits pursuant to collective bargaining agreements, non-insured casualties, and legal compliance, but savvy tenants (particularly those with leverage) will not necessarily accept such exclusions to an expense cap. As in any other lease negotiation, the more attention given to the issue by the parties when the deal is struck, the less likelihood for misunderstanding when the lease is negotiated and executed.



William Crowe

This premium content is locked for Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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 DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

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.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

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.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

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.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

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.