Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Spotlight: Negotiating a Meaningful Right of First Offer, First Refusal
Rights of first offer and first refusal are frequently sought by tenants, especially for space contiguous to the original leased premises, in order to give tenants a combination of flexibility and leverage when dealing with their potential expansion requirements. Landlords are understandably reluctant to grant such rights, as they may interfere with the landlord's ability to accommodate the future needs of existing or prospective tenants.
If a tenant is successful at obtaining rights of either first offer or refusal, it is very important for the tenant to make sure that in the event that it does lease any additional space, the term of the lease for such space is co-terminous with its original premises. For example, a tenant with a lease term that expires on July 31, 2008 may be presented by its landlord with an offer for contiguous space for a 5-year term commencing Nov. 1, 2005. The tenant may wish to expand into this additional space, but is faced with the very real, practical problem that it must make a commitment to the additional space that extends well beyond its lease term for the original premises. Unless the landlord is willing to be flexible in this situation, the tenant does not have a meaningful way to exercise its rights. A savvy tenant will insist that, notwithstanding any other terms of the landlord's offer, the term of the lease for the contiguous space must be co-terminous. This will obviously create issues for the landlord, as it may effectively be granting the original tenant the right to turn a 5-year deal with a third party into a 3-year deal with the original tenant. May the party with the most leverage (and competent representation) prevail.
William Crowe
Rights of first offer and first refusal are frequently sought by tenants, especially for space contiguous to the original leased premises, in order to give tenants a combination of flexibility and leverage when dealing with their potential expansion requirements. Landlords are understandably reluctant to grant such rights, as they may interfere with the landlord's ability to accommodate the future needs of existing or prospective tenants.
If a tenant is successful at obtaining rights of either first offer or refusal, it is very important for the tenant to make sure that in the event that it does lease any additional space, the term of the lease for such space is co-terminous with its original premises. For example, a tenant with a lease term that expires on July 31, 2008 may be presented by its landlord with an offer for contiguous space for a 5-year term commencing Nov. 1, 2005. The tenant may wish to expand into this additional space, but is faced with the very real, practical problem that it must make a commitment to the additional space that extends well beyond its lease term for the original premises. Unless the landlord is willing to be flexible in this situation, the tenant does not have a meaningful way to exercise its rights. A savvy tenant will insist that, notwithstanding any other terms of the landlord's offer, the term of the lease for the contiguous space must be co-terminous. This will obviously create issues for the landlord, as it may effectively be granting the original tenant the right to turn a 5-year deal with a third party into a 3-year deal with the original tenant. May the party with the most leverage (and competent representation) prevail.
William Crowe
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?