Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Environmental Issues in Leasing Transactions
Due to the potential for extraordinary liability associated with contamination problems, landlords and tenants in commercial leasing transactions should address environmental concerns in the leasing documents. Subsurface contamination involving soil and groundwater concerns could result in substantial costs and liabilities for both parties. In addition, asbestos can present unique issues for both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord should be concerned that the tenant's operations will result in the contamination of the premises. The tenant should be concerned that existing contamination, whether soil, groundwater, the presence of asbestos, or other problems, could present liability issues for itself.
Environmental liability may be imposed under a number of federal, state, and local laws, including common law principles. However, environmental liability stems mainly from the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. Under CERCLA, the present and prior owner or operator of property contaminated with hazardous substances may be held strictly liable for cleanup costs. The defenses under CERCLA are limited. In accordance with CERCLA liability, the owner could be liable for the tenants' resulting contamination. Similarly, tenants are concerned that, as an operator under CERCLA, they could be held liable. It must be noted that there is very limited case law under CERCLA holding a tenant liable where the tenant did not cause the contamination.
A landlord could substantially mitigate concerns associated with possible contamination caused by tenants' operations through a number of lease provisions. The landlord should consider requiring the tenant to agree to a number of provisions as follows:
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?