Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Too many tenants' businesses have suffered severe financial consequences or lost leases as a result of poorly drafted provisions. Therefore, it is imperative that tenants negotiate better leases in order to protect their interests. The suggestions in this article provide proposed remedies for a few of the harshest lease provisions. Although market conditions always play a factor in providing negotiating leverage to a landlord or tenant, some of these proposals should survive scrutiny in any real estate market.
Exclusive use provisions form the foundation of the economic relationships between tenants and landlords in shopping centers across the United States. Landlords make use of these provisions to obtain the right tenant mix in their shopping centers as well as to demand premium rents from the tenants that desire these economic protections. Tenants desire exclusive use provisions to gain the competitive advantages and protections that such provisions afford to their products and services. With the proliferation of so-called 'big box' retailers in shopping centers and the phenomena of over-retailing in communities throughout the United States, exclusive use provisions are increasingly coming under attack. In <i>Tippecanoe Assocs. II, LLC v. Kimco Lafayette 671, Inc.</i>, 829 N.E.2d 512 (Ind. 2005), the Supreme Court of Indiana entered the fray on this issue with a decision that affects the way these provisions should be drafted. This article, through a discussion of the court's decision in <i>Tippecanoe Assocs. II, LLC</i>, describes how exclusive use provisions are coming under attack and practical ways to draft around these issues and to protect landlords and tenants with exclusive use provisions in retail leases.
Features
Last month's article addressed patent attorneys' subservience to deadlines and WIPO help. This month's installment concludes with unplanned events and the virtual world.
Applicants for U.S. patents are not always aware that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO') generally takes two to four years — and often even longer — before granting a patent. Although the USPTO has long had a rarely used program enabling an applicant to request examination of a case out of turn, that program changed markedly in August 2006, when the USPTO implemented a procedure called 'Accelerated Examination.'
A rare U.S. Supreme Court decision in January 2007 may change the way parties negotiate patent license agreements in the future. The <i>Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.</i> decision has reversed the mainstream position that a patent licensee must discontinue paying royalties to challenge its obligation to pay royalties in a court of law. At face value, the decision might appear to be of little impact to parties of a patent license agreement. However, it could have a dramatic effect on how they approach the negotiation of a license agreement. In addition, the <i>Medimmune</i> decision has already been applied to patent infringement cases outside of the scope of licensing arrangements.
In June 2005, the Florida State Legislature amended its modification and enforcement statute, ' 61.14, Fla. Stat., to provide that a 'court may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings ' that ' a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides.' While the statute obviously only applies to the State of Florida, it raises issues for drafters of marital settlement agreements in other states. The purpose of this article is to explore some of the questions that a family-law practitioner should be asking and considering in the drafting of a marital settlement agreement given the Florida experience in the area of post-judgment cohabitation of a recipient spouse.
Features
News about lawyers and law firms in the product liability field.
Features
As the May edition of <i>LJN's Product Liability Law & Strategy</i> went to press, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sought to 'unravel some of the mysteries of CAFA's cryptic text' with respect to the 'mass actions' provisions — which the court characterized as an 'opaque, baroque maze of interlocking cross-references that defy easy interpretation.' <i>Lowery v. Alabama Power Co.</i>, __ F. 3d __, 2007 WL 1062769, at *1, *8 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2007), affirming <i>Lowery v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.</i>, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2006). In affirming the grant of remand, the Court of Appeals (in dicta) addressed some of the issues presented in our article 'CAFA: Finding a Method to the Madness of 'Mass Actions'':