Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Notes
Despite State Law, Merger Extinguishes Renewal Rights of Successor in Interest
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, has determined that, despite the general rule that a successor tenant fully takes on the rights and responsibilities of the previous tenant, a successor tenant does not have the right to exercise an option to extend its lease if the lease between the landlord and the original tenant specifically reserved that right for the signing tenant only. Simmons Bank v. Vastland Dev. P'ship, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 321 (6/27/2019).
In 2003, First State Bank (original tenant) entered into a lease with Vastland Development Partnership (Vastland or landlord) for a portion of Vastland's building in Nashville. The lease specifically defined "Tenant" as "First State Bank." An addendum to the lease granted First State Bank a renewal option under the following conditions:
Provided that as of the time of the giving of the First Extension Notice and the Commencement Date of the First Extension Term, (x) Tenant is the Tenant originally named herein, (y) Tenant actually occupies all of the Premises initially demised under this Lease and any space added to the Premises, and (z) no Event of Default exists or would exist but for the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both; then Tenant shall have the right to extend the Lease Term for an additional term of five (5) years (such additional term is hereinafter called the "First Extension Term") …. Adhering to same above, the Tenant shall have the right to extend the Lease term for an additional term of two (2) five (5) year options, hereinafter called the "Second Extension Term" and the "Third Extension Term." (Emphasis added).
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.