Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Most retail and shopping center leases contain a provision — which appears fair and reasonable on its face — to the effect that the tenant's proportionate share of the center or retail area is fixed at a certain percentage, <i>eg,</i> 35%. This percentage is then utilized by the landlord for the purpose of calculating the tenant's contribution to real estate taxes, common area maintenance expenses, and insurance premiums incurred by the landlord in operating the center or building. However, it's not always simple to calculate that share. For example, assume a theater tenant negotiated a lease in a center under construction, which provided that its proportionate share of the center was 35.2%, based upon the detailed plans and specifications for the center then in existence. Upon completion of the center, the tenant was presented with a statement by the landlord advising that the theater occupied 50%. In addition, when the theater tenant was negotiating the lease, it was advised by the landlord that its share of the common area maintenance charges was estimated at approximately $250,000. The bill the tenant received for its share of common area maintenance charges for the first year of operations was approximately $3 million. How could this happen? And how can you prevent this from happening? Read on.
In most shopping center leases across the country, there is a provision that relates to the landlord's right to modify, change, add to, subtract from, and/or alter the size, dimensions, character, and construction of the shopping center. Very often, these provisions further grant the landlord the right to change the entrances, the number of parking spaces, the dimensions of hallways and corridors, the number of floors, the placement of kiosks, carts and retail merchandising units in the common areas, the location and arrangement of the common areas, and the merchandising mix of tenants. Generally, this type of a provision is viewed as boilerplate within the lease document and does not receive a great deal of negotiation from tenants.
Features
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Features
<b>Part One of a two-part article</b>. Proper malpractice coverage is essential to any physician's practice. When that coverage is not readily available or premiums skyrocket, that essential can seem like a luxury. Physicians facing other economic pressures in their practice not infrequently opt to reduce their insurance limits, increase their deductible, drop their coverage altogether, retire or leave the area, or discontinue what they view as high-risk portions of their practice (eg, serving on ER call rosters or accepting Medicaid or indigent patients). As a result, physicians' personal assets (and careers) are more at risk, hospitals face more liability exposure as the "deep pocket," and patients face significantly reduced access to care.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
<b>Part Two of a two-part article.</b> In last month's issue, we discussed the defense problem of increasingly high med-mal verdicts. This month, we explore strategies that defendants anticipating their personal day in court should consider if they hope to buck the trend toward high jury verdicts in medical malpractice actions.
In medical malpractice cases, it is a matter of hornbook law that health care providers bear no liability for poor outcomes resulting from the exercise of professional judgment, as long as they adhere to the relevant standard of care. In an attempt to facilitate jurors' understanding of this concept, courts across the country have given "mistake" or "error-of-judgment" charges, which typically instruct the jury that physicians are entitled to exercise their professional judgment in choosing either of two reasonable options.
Last month, the state's Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that, if passed, will help indigent parents involved in child removal and placement proceedings.
Features
Last month, the New York City Council passed a bill by a margin of 43 to 5 that would require contractors doing business with the city to offer same-sex partner benefits to their employees if their contracts with the city are valued at more than $100,000.