A 'Partnership in Pain' for Landlords and Tenants
Given the difficulty of predicting how force majeure clauses will be interpreted, considering the breadth of the health care emergency, both landlords and tenants may be motivated to negotiate a re-structuring of their respective lease obligations.
May 12, 2020 at 11:48 AM
5 minute read
Commercial landlords and tenants face unprecedented challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact has been most acute to businesses deemed "nonessential." Shuttered by government "safer at home" directives since mid-March, many cannot afford to pay the rent. The specter of mounting lease defaults is forcing an examination of arcane lease provisions such as force majeure, bringing fresh attention to legal principles often overlooked in a robust economy. Saddled with a large backlog of cases, courts are unlikely to address these claims anytime soon. Given the difficulty of predicting how force majeure clauses will be interpreted, considering the breadth of the health care emergency, both landlords and tenants may be motivated to negotiate a re-structuring of their respective lease obligations.
Force Majeure
A force majeure provision allocates the risk for events outside the parties' control, such as war, terrorism, disasters, labor strikes and governmental prohibitions, which render performance impossible, impracticable from a commercial perspective, or not serving the contract's primary purpose. These clauses typically suspend performance for a period equal to the period of the delay. Notably, the obligation to pay rent and other charges continues in most leases, notwithstanding the occurrence of a force majeure event.
The pandemic is so extraordinary in scale and scope that courts can be expected to go beyond the actual lease language to invoke equitable doctrines and public policy in deciding COVID-19-related claims. Businesses closed by governmental orders will seek relief under Civil Code Section 1511(1), which excuses a delay or prevention in performance by operation of law even though parties may have contractually agreed to the contrary.
Party Motivations
Many tenants need rent relief now. Their willingness to pay is tied to the income their businesses generate. Besides an agreement on rent, tenants will be looking opportunistically for other potential lease modifications. Going forward, a tenant who envisions more of its employees working remotely may be interested in returning some portion of its space to the landlord.
For landlords, each tenant request must be examined on its own merits, with a view toward the exposure that a default may create. If the landlord is carrying debt on the property, the loan terms may be a complicating factor, limiting the landlord's flexibility in modifying lease obligations without lender consent.
Landlords will be more amenable to a rent deferment if the tenant offers documentation that supports their inability to pay and a meaningful plan for repayment. At the outset, they will insist on showing that governmental restrictions related to COVID-19 were, in fact, the actual cause of the tenant's default, as opposed to some other circumstance. Some landlords have already started requiring tenants to submit applications to SBA for Paycheck Protection Program loans, which can be used in part to pay rent, as a condition to making a rent concession. Confidentiality surrounding these discussions will be important, as landlords will not want to treat all tenants equally.
Restructuring Options
There are many options for a lease restructuring, which can be used in combination with one another. The parties may agree that payments are deferred for a specified period, with the accrued rent being repaid in installments or a lump sum before the lease expires. Tenants will want that period linked to the lifting of governmental restrictions, and preferably, to the re-opening of businesses. From the landlord's perspective, a fixed period of deferral is more advantageous, leaving the possibility of additional relief for future discussion.
Similarly, the parties may negotiate a rent abatement. One scenario is that an abatement applies only to base rent, without affecting the tenant's responsibility to reimburse ongoing property expenses for maintenance, taxes,and insurance.
Either a deferral or abatement can be coupled with a lease extension. This may be important to the landlord, as well as its lender and a prospective buyer, who set a property's value based on an evaluation of its income stream. In the context of an extension, a landlord might offer a tenant allowance to improve or refurbish the premises, or even relocate the tenant to a more desirable location in a retail center or office building, in return for an updated personal guaranty.
Another alternative is to introduce or modify a percentage rent component which, in effect, protects the tenant from current obligations it cannot afford while giving the landlord the benefit of a potential upside when the market improves.
These options and more are ripe for mediation. Parties can develop proposals tailored to their specific needs, in a confidential setting and avoid the time and expense of having lease defaults adjudicated by an overwhelmed judicial system.
Conclusion
Hampered from exercising their traditional court remedies and facing unprecedented uncertainty, landlords and tenants have many reasons to cooperate in restructuring leases during the pandemic. As one real estate insider put it, a new "partnership in pain" is emerging.
Mark Loeterman is a mediator at Signature Resolution. He has more than 30 years of experience handling real estate, employment, contract and complex business disputes. He can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readHawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement
4 minute readState Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250