Please note that this site includes Google Adsense advertisements. In doing this Google uses the DoubleClick DART cookie:
- Google’s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to my users based on their visit to my site and other sites on the Internet.
Google uses third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, go to the NAI Self-Regulatory principles for publishers (PDF)
Mr. Jones’ company is bound by an agreement that is vital to the operation of his business. It could be a space or equipment lease, or some sort of financing, supplier or service agreement. The agreement says that its transfer or assignment is prohibited or permitted only with the other party’s approval. Consider these situations: (i) his business is doing very well and he wants to sell it or its assets while they are most valuable, (ii) his business is doing poorly and he wants to get out by selling it or its assets, (iii) for accounting, management or other purposes he wants to transfer the agreement to another company he owns, a subsidiary or parent company, or to merge his company with another, or (iv) he wants to bring in a few other investors or take his company public.
In all these cases Mr. Jones’ ability to transfer the agreement can be a critical factor in whether he succeeds. A buyer might not be interested in the company or its assets if it cannot take advantage of the agreement. The other transfers might not be possible if the agreement labels them as prohibited assignments or as ones requiring the consent of the other party, either of which occurs frequently in agreements proposed by the other party. Unless these issues are properly dealt with during negotiation of the agreement Mr. Jones could have a big problem. What could he have done?
One solution would have been to define some of some of the activities as not included in the definition of “assignment.” This can sometimes be achieved for transfers to a parent or subsidiary of Mr. Jones’ company, transfers that do not result in a change in the control of his company, or for transfers to or a merger with a company owned or controlled by Mr. Jones.
Another solution would have been to set criteria which if met by the intended transferee would permit the transfer without first having to obtain the other party’s consent. An example would be where the transferee has a specified net worth or at least a net worth greater than Mr. Jones company’s at the time of the transfer, and also has a specified number years of experience in Mr. Jones’ company’s business. Satisfying these criteria could provide comfort to the party on the other side of the agreement that it will be doing business with a responsible and qualified replacement for Mr. Jones.
Even if the desired transfer is allowed Mr. Jones could still be concerned about whether his company will remain liable for his replacement’s compliance with the agreement. That will be the subject of one of my future Legal Briefs.
With over 35 years experience Stu Heller helps his clients understand and improve their business and real estate transactions. His website is at http://www.theleasinglawyer.com. He can be reached at 206-623-0579 and email@example.com. Contact him for a free initial consultation. Be sure to consult your lawyer before applying any of the above to a particular situation.
Posted in commercial lease, improving new commercial lease, improving proposed retail lease, landlord, landlord/tenant, lease negotiation, leasing new commercial space, leasing new retail space, leasing new space, lessee, lessor, negotiating new commercial lease, negotiating new lease, negotiating new office lease, negotiation, new lease, new office lease, office lease, proposed commercial lease, proposed lease, proposed office space lease, proposed retail space lease, retail, retail lease, tenant, Uncategorized
Tagged commercial lease, lease, lease negotiation, leasing, retail lease
[clearspring_widget title=”The OFFICIAL Dilbert Widget” wid=”478bf96b7bf0b5a2″ pid=”494dba45e2f560ae” width=”160″ height=”300″ domain=”widgets.dilbert.com”]
When the landlord insists that you agree to allow its lender to subordinate your lease to the lender’s lien, that is, to make the lender’s rights superior to yours, insist on a Anondisturbance” provision requiring the landlord to provide you with an agreement from its lender that if the lender takes over the property it and any of its successors will continue to respect your lease rights so long as you satisfy your lease obligations.
You may be required to provide an “estoppel” certificate or letter at the demand of the landlord. In it you must state whether certain things about your leasehold relationship are true, such as whether the landlord is in default, the rent has been paid more than one month in advance, and whether and if so how the lease has been amended since it was originally signed. It is intended to be relied on by a third party such as a bank or purchaser. Have a qualified attorney review it because the third party can come after you later if your statements are untrue. Specify that your statements are made only “to the best of your current knowledge and belief.” You might try to get the landlord to promise to provide you with a similar statement or certificate which you can give to your lender when you are trying to refinance your furniture, fixtures, equipment or tenant improvement loan.