Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Flood and Terrorism Insurance Reauthorization: Safe for Now
In commercial mortgage lending transactions, it is essential that, in the event the loan ends up in default, the lender has the ability to realize on the collateral upon the exercise of remedies. If the collateral is destroyed or severely damaged by, for example, a flood or an act of terrorism, the value of the underlying asset will be greatly diminished or, in some cases, fundamentally eradicated (save for the value of the land). Insurance plays a crucial role in protecting the lender from such a loss.
Federal programs have made insurance more readily accessible to protect real property in the circumstances mentioned above, specifically, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIP) and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These programs enable flood and terrorism insurance to be widely available at realistic price points by ensuring that the amount of the premiums payable for such insurance remain at a level that a borrower can afford, which in turn preserves the underwritten economics of the loan transaction.
Without further governmental action, both TRIP and NFIP were set to expire — at the end of 2020 and at the end of last year, respectively — with no alternative scheme in place. The failure to have renewed these programs mostly likely would have disrupted the stability, not only of the insurance markets, but of the real estate markets overall, including the commercial mortgage lending markets.
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.