Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Spotlight: Tenant Improvement Allowance — Two Perspectives
How a tenant is permitted to apply its tenant improvement allowance for its build-out is frequently a controversial topic during lease negotiations.
From the landlord's perspective, the landlord is “giving” an allowance to the tenant in order to finance the tenant's construction of certain improvements to the landlord's space. These improvements are theoretically beneficial to the landlord at the end of the tenant's lease term. Because of this perspective, the landlord usually requires that the allowance be spent entirely on costs directly attributable to actual leasehold improvements, such as the hard costs of construction and certain circumscribed soft costs such as design and construction management fees. This requirement provides the landlord with the comfort of knowing that the entire amount of the allowance is invested in the landlord's building.
The tenant, not surprisingly, has a different perspective. The tenant's rent payments over the life of the lease provide the landlord with the funds necessary to advance the tenant improvement allowance dollars to begin with, so, in essence, the landlord is really “giving” the tenant its own money with which to construct the tenant improvements. Taken from this perspective, a tenant wants the unfettered ability to spend these dollars as it sees fit, including, without limitation, expenditures for cabling, furniture, moving expenses, legal fees, and, in the case of unused tenant improvement allowance dollars, a credit against future rents. Furthermore, the tenant wants the right to offset against future rents any portion of the tenant allowance that is not timely paid by the landlord.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.