Features
In the Spotlight
During lease negotiations with an anchor or other national tenant, it is customary for the tenant to slap on a laundry list of prohibited or 'noxious' uses and to require the landlord to subject the shopping center to the restrictions contained therein. However, before the landlord concedes several other historically noxious uses, the owner of a modern-day lifestyle center or mixed-use center, particularly one still under development, should look carefully at these standard restrictions and consider softening the restrictions to allow certain types of uses which are finding their way into upscale and first-class shopping centers.
Features
Should I Stay or Should I Go?
The purpose of a 'cure period' provision is to allow the tenant an opportunity to cure a default under the lease before further action can be taken unilaterally by the landlord. However, what happens if the landlord attempts to terminate the lease before the tenant has cured the default and before the end of the cure period? Is this early notification invalid or does it become effective immediately upon the expiration of the cure period without cure?
Features
Quarterly State Compliance Review
This edition of the Quarterly State Compliance Review looks at some legislation of interest to corporate lawyers that went into effect during the last three months. It also looks at some recent decisions of interest, including two decisions from the Delaware Supreme Court involving challenged stock options.
Features
Advance Notice Bylaws: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It!'
In two recent decisions, the Delaware Court of Chancery found advance notice bylaws to be ineffective in preventing stockholders from nominating alternative director candidates without providing the requisite advance notice, indicating that any ambiguities in these bylaws will be construed against the corporation and in favor of activist stockholders.
Features
Parent Corporations and Their Subsidiaries' Liabilities: Guidelines
In February 2007 the Illinois Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held as a matter of first impression that a parent corporation could be directly liable for its negligence to the estates of two employees of its subsidiary corporation. <i>Forsythe v. Clark USA.</i> The Illinois Court relied extensively on the unanimous 1998 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in <i>U S v. Bestfoods.</i> Both courts limited the reach of their opinions by making explicit the common law principle that corporate shareholders are not generally liable for the acts and omissions of their subsidiaries in the absence of active involvement of the parent in those acts or omissions.
Features
<b>Cameo Clips</b> Lawsuit over 'Hairspray' Agent Fees to Continue
An actress who played a leading role in the film 'Hairspray' may owe her former managers commission fees for landing her the role, a Long Island, NY judge has ruled.
Features
Orphan Works Legislation: Real Time Bomb
The federal 'Orphan Works' legislation (S2913 and HR5889) creates an entirely new law favoring the 'opt in' fundamentalists who prefer as many copyright formalities as possible, thereby increasing the likelihood that works will fall ' intentionally or unintentionally ' into the public domain. Some have characterized the import of the Orphan Works legislation as creating a new rateless compulsory license, or at a minimum a 'safe harbor' for libraries (such as the Library of Congress), museums, public broadcasters and universities, as well as commercial entities.
Features
Court of Appeals Affirms Owner Occupancy Rights Under Rent Stabilization
In its June 3, 2008, decision in <i>Pultz v. Economakis</i>, the New York State Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no limit on the number of rent-stabilized units an owner can attempt to recover for owner occupancy. The ruling was a major victory for rent stabilized landlords, and a sharp rebuke to tenant advocates who claimed that multiple recovery for owner occupancy violated the letter and spirit of the Rent Stabilization Law. Indeed, the case continues a recent trend of favorable Court of Appeals decisions for landlords.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis 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.Read More ›
- 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.Read More ›
- Players On the MoveA look at moves among attorneys, law firms, companies and other players in entertainment law.Read More ›
- The Stranger to the Deed RuleIn 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.Read More ›