On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Negotiating Commercial Leases 2018

Released on: Mar. 9, 2018
Running Time: 12:12:33

Leases, known as the building blocks of value for all real estate, are a primary business and investment asset, but also contain landmines of liability and hidden risks as well as opportunities for malpractice and mistake of the parties.  If written poorly, negotiated by inexperienced counsel or administered without expertise, they can be the downfall of an otherwise sound real estate investment and generate considerable material litigation as well as malpractice actions. From the tenant’s perspective, lack of attention or in depth knowledge can derail leasehold and operations financing, impair anticipated operations, increase costs, add operational or financial risk and possibly limit growth. For those drafting and negotiating for landlords and owners, mistakes can cost considerable amounts and if poorly drafted, can ultimately impair ownership of the asset. Attending this course should be a priority for anyone representing users or occupiers of space, or owners as investors in real estate. There’s no disputing the importance of intimately knowing the lease as a multidimensional financial tool, hell or high-water financial instrument, and contract of limitations and regulations. This program will help you to feel truly competent to negotiate these lengthy and sophisticated instruments, along with spotting the hidden costs, risk shifting and common law demising. Your client is depending on you to help preserve their investment in today’s world. This program will cover “what’s hot and what’s not,” help you stay on the “cutting edge” of current market negotiations. With the changing market, and rise of cleverly drafted leases, learning how to stay a step ahead and fine-tune your skills, techniques and strategies is certainly a wise investment of your time.


Lecture Topics [Total RunTime: 12:12:33]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:10:57]
    Michael E. Meyer, John Busey Wood
  • Changing Lease Forms and Negotiating Tactics in the New Improving Economy [01:00:21]
    Michael E. Meyer, Gerald R. Uram, John Busey Wood, Marc E. Betesh
  • Unanticipated Limitations in Long-Term Planning and Lease Restructuring [01:31:43]
    Nancy Ann Connery, Amy Farber, Soo Yeon Lee, Michael E. Meyer, Gerald R. Uram, John Busey Wood
  • Commercial Leases: Fundamentals of Structuring for Buildability and Financing [01:14:14]
    Gerald R. Uram, John Busey Wood
  • Hot Topics for Dealing with Long Term Lease Structures, Audits and Credit Support [01:03:17]
    Marc E. Betesh, Alfred Erdmann, John Busey Wood
  • Ethical Gaps, Mishaps and Traps in Real Estate Practice [01:02:33]
    Robert J. Bergson, Michael E. Meyer
  • Commercial Leases: Building Today’s Tenant Improvements – Interrelationship of Commencement Date and Work Letter [01:47:43]
    Joseph Fabrizi, Meyer Last, Kelly Merino, Michael E. Meyer, John Busey Wood
  • Complex Commercial Real Estate Issues: Arbitration vs. Litigation [01:02:19]
    Michael A. Marra, Michael E. Meyer, John Busey Wood
  • Commercial Leases: Dealing with Large Hidden “Big Ticket” Items [00:58:24]
    Joseph Fabrizi, Meyer Last, Kelly Merino, Michael E. Meyer, Ruth A. Schoenmeyer, John Busey Wood
  • Hot Issues in Retail Leasing in the Current Environment [01:17:33]
    Karen O'Malley, Ruth A. Schoenmeyer, John Busey Wood
  • Commercial Leases: Issues Surrounding Insurance and Damage and Destruction [01:03:24]
    Alan M. Di Sciullo, James A. Fenniman, Christine Chipurnoi, Meg Errickson, John Busey Wood

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • How to Structure and Negotiate the Commencement Date and the Work Letter
    Michael E. Meyer
  • Fifteen Pragmatic and Practical Tips for Negotiation of Small Leases
    Michael E. Meyer
  • Must a Commercial Landlord Act Reasonably When Responding to a Request by a Tenant Under a Lease to Assign or Sublet?
    John Busey Wood
  • Supplement to: Must a Commercial Landlord Act Reasonably When Responding to a Request by a Tenant Under a Lease to Assign or Sublet?
    John Busey Wood
  • Stanley E. Ginsberg and John Busey Wood, Presentation on Cash Flow and Tax Structuring of Leases
    John Busey Wood
  • Excerpts from Navigating the Dangerous Shoals of a Commercial Lease
    John Busey Wood
  • Basic Leasing Fundamentals: Theft by Lease Provisions
    John Busey Wood
  • Subleases: Double the Pleasure, Double the Fun, Triple the Work (November 25, 2017)
    Amy Farber
  • Agreement of Sublease
    John Busey Wood
  • Lease Exit, Strategy and Marketability
    John Busey Wood
  • Form of Improvable, Buildable and Financeable Ground Lease with Imbedded Base Building Core and Shell Rehab Loan from Lessee to Lessor with Amortization Against Rentals—Case Study
    John Busey Wood
  • Anatomy of a Good Guy Guaranty
    John Busey Wood
  • New Lease Accounting Standard on the Horizon
    Alfred Erdmann
  • Negotiating Today’s Tenants’ Options: Fair Market Rental Rate; Option to Renew; Option to Expand; Right of First Offer; Etc.
    Michael E. Meyer
  • Hot Topics for Dealing with Long Term Lease Structures, Audits and Audit Rights and Credit Support
    John Busey Wood
  • PLI Ethics Engagement Hot Topics Issues
    John Busey Wood
  • Scope of Services in Engagement Process
    John Busey Wood
  • New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics: Opinion 621 (April 18, 1991)
    John Busey Wood
  • New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics: Opinion 738 (April 16, 2001)
    John Busey Wood
  • The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics—Formal Opinion 2008-1: A Lawyer’s Ethical Obligations to Retain and to Provide a Client with Electronic Documents Relating to a Representation (July 2008)
    John Busey Wood
  • CBRE, LatAm Fit-Out Cost Guide, Occupier Projects, 2016–17 Edition
    Kelly Merino
  • CBRE, Asia Pacific Occupier Cost Guide, 2017–18 Edition
    Kelly Merino
  • CBRE, EMEA Fit-Out Cost Guide, 2017–18 Edition
    Kelly Merino
  • CBRE, North America Fit-Out Cost Guide, 2017–18 Edition
    Kelly Merino
  • CBRE, Project Management
    Kelly Merino
  • Requests for Proposals and Letters of Intent—When and How to Use
    Michael E. Meyer
  • Mixed Use Property: Retail / Office / Residential (Chart)
    John Busey Wood
  • Saga of Superior Interests: Article 27—Subordination
    John Busey Wood
  • American Arbitration Association, Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses: A Practical Guide (September 1, 2007)
    Michael A. Marra
  • American Arbitration Association, Press Release, American Arbitration Association Launches Online Clause Building Tool (December 4, 2012)
    Michael A. Marra
  • American Arbitration Association, Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes) (October 1, 2013)
    Michael A. Marra
  • Susanna S. Fodor and Steven C. Bennett, Arbitrating Commercial Real Estate Lease Disputes
    Michael A. Marra
  • American Arbitration Association, International Dispute Resolution Procedures (Including Mediation and Arbitration Rules) (June 1, 2014)
    Michael A. Marra
  • Rona G. Shamoon, Top 10 Mistakes to Avoid When Drafting Dispute Resolution Provisions
    Michael A. Marra
  • The Promise of the Process: Ways to Capture the Promised Benefits of Arbitration
    Elizabeth J. Shampnoi
  • Drafting Arbitration Clauses: Practical Considerations for In-House Counsel
    Elizabeth J. Shampnoi
  • Neil Steinkamp, Elizabeth J. Shampnoi and Robert Levine, Dollars and Common Sense—Understanding Reasonable Certainty in International Arbitration
    Elizabeth J. Shampnoi
  • Utilizing Damages Experts to Make for a Successful Mediation
    Elizabeth J. Shampnoi
  • The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, Theft by Lease: Electricity Consumption Or Fiction—Or How To Make More Money For The Landlord Without Really Trying (February 1997)
    John Busey Wood
  • Audit Rights and Operating Expenses: Protecting Both the Landlord and the Tenant—Proper Inclusions and Exclusions—Doing the Gross-Up Correctly
    Michael E. Meyer
  • Substandard Service Specifications/Costs
    John Busey Wood
  • Hidden Operating Costs from Rentable Re-Measurements
    John Busey Wood
  • Hidden Commencement Date Costs
    John Busey Wood
  • Retail Leasing: Special Concerns (Substantive Outline)
    Karen O'Malley, Ruth A. Schoenmeyer
  • Proforma Offer Letter
    John Busey Wood
  • Standard Term Letter Concepts
    John Busey Wood
  • Additional Financial Terms for Mixed Use Buildings or Retail Properties
    John Busey Wood
  • Casualty and Insurance, Chapter 25, Negotiating and Drafting Office Leases
    John Busey Wood, Alan M. Di Sciullo

Presentation Material


  • Subleases: Double the Pleasure, Double the Fun, Triple the Work
    Amy Farber
  • US GAAP Reporting: New Accounting for Long-term Leases – Are You Ready?
    Alfred Erdmann
  • Construction Cost - Interiors
    Joseph Fabrizi, Kelly Merino
  • Complex Real Estate Issues: Cost Effective and Timely Dispute Resolution Alternatives
    Michael A. Marra, Elizabeth J. Shampnoi
  • Transaction Timeline: Relocation to an Existing Building
    Joseph Fabrizi, Kelly Merino
  • Hot Issues in Retail Leasing
    Karen O'Malley, Ruth A. Schoenmeyer
  • Casualty and Insurance Issues in Commercial Leases
    Alan M. Di Sciullo
Chairperson(s)
Michael E. Meyer ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
John Busey Wood ~ Akerman LLP
Speaker(s)
Robert J. Bergson ~ Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP
Marc E. Betesh ~ President, KBA Lease Services / Visual Lease
Christine Chipurnoi ~ Senior Vice President, USI Insurance Services
Nancy Ann Connery ~ Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Gerber LLP
Alan M. Di Sciullo ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
Alfred Erdmann ~ WithumSmith+Brown, PC
Meg Errickson ~ Vice President, Regional Claims Manager - North, USI Insurance Services
Joseph Fabrizi ~ Executive Vice President, CBRE, Inc.
Amy Farber ~ DLA Piper LLP
James A. Fenniman ~ Area Executive Vice President, Construction Practice Senior Director, Gallagher
Meyer Last ~ Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Soo Yeon Lee ~ Gordon & Centracchio, L.L.C.
Michael A. Marra ~ Vice President, American Arbitration Association
Kelly Merino ~ Director, CBRE, Inc.
Karen O'Malley ~ Goulston & Storrs PC
Ruth A. Schoenmeyer ~ Pircher, Nichols & Meeks LLP
Gerald R. Uram ~ Davis & Gilbert LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Negotiating Commercial Leases 2018 Michael E Meyer, DLA Piper LLP (US)
John Busey Wood, Akerman LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.