Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Commercial Leasing Law & StrategyFeaturesLandlord Tenant LawLitigation

Considering Lease Assignment Provisions in the Light of an Enterprise's Broader Business Plan

By Terrence M. Dunn
June 01, 2018
Scenario

What Could Have Been Done

General Assignment Provisions
  • Assignments not permitted without landlord's consent, with no conditions attached;
  • Assignments permitted only with landlord's consent, not to be unreasonably withheld, with reasonability only generally defined or, more commonly, not defined at all;
  • Consent not to be unreasonably withheld, with criteria established as to what constitutes a reasonable refusal to consent, or, conversely, criteria that would require consent if standards or parameters are met; and/or
  • Assignment not permitted without consent, with certain exceptions which do not require consent or for which consent is presumed granted (sometimes referred to as Permitted Transfers):
    • To an entity resulting from the merger, consolidation or reorganization of tenant or to the entity benefiting from the sale of substantially all of the tenant's assets;
    • To an entity of net worth (or some other measured financial standard) equal to or greater than the tenant, or meeting some specific numerical standard (e.g., $1.5 million net worth and $750,000 liquidity); and/or
    • To an entity that operates a specific number of units similar to tenant's business, having five years' operating experience and a net worth equal to or greater than tenant's.
The Requirement of Consent Rowe v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. v Tailored Woman The Definition of 'Reasonability' i.e. Logan & Logan, Inc. v. Audrey Lane Laufer, LLC Astoria Bedding, Mr. Sleeper Bedding Ctr. v Northside Partnership Definitions of 'Assignment' Recapture or Termination Rights

Encumbrances and Leasehold Mortgages

Releases Changes in Terms Landlord's Share of Consideration

Conclusion

***** Terrence M. Dunn

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance 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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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 Image

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.