Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Real Estate Leasing Lawyer's Role In an M&A Deal With a Reps & Warranties Policy
It has long been the case that whenever the targeted assets in a merger and acquisition transaction include lease rights as to real property, a leasing lawyer has an opportunity to provide valuable services to the client in that M&A transaction. Leasing lawyers educate buying clients about the current status of the target's leased real property assets, operations, rights, obligations, and liabilities and assist with plotting post-closing options. When representing sellers, leasing lawyers help their clients respond to diligence requests, evaluate and negotiate the sellers' representations proposed by the buyer, and craft disclosure schedule content. For many years, these roles have remained largely unchanged. Over the past decade, however, the rising popularity of representations and warranties insurance (RWI) policies invites even the most sure-footed real estate leasing lawyer to consider whether (and if so, how) his or her role changes if the subject M&A transaction includes an RWI policy.
This article provides an overview of the most commonly-accepted purposes of an RWI policy and an overview of the RWI policy underwriting process. Then, a discussion follows regarding matters of which real estate leasing lawyers should be particularly mindful when performing their role in such a transaction.
Overview of RWI Policies
Generally speaking, an RWI policy provides a pool of funds from which the insured can obtain recovery if a representation and warranty of the seller in an M&A transaction's purchase agreement is inaccurate and if that inaccuracy damages the buyer. In many cases, M&A deal parties have embraced an RWI policy to take the place of a hold-back of a portion of the purchase price intended to provide the buyer comfort that accessible funds existed from which the buyer's post-closing indemnity claims (if any) against the seller could be satisfied.
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.