Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Lockdowns, Landlords, & Litigation: Abercrombie & Fitch Flips The Script on Simon Property Group Inc.

Client Alert

Novel litigation between commercial property owners and tenants arises from COVID-19 lockdowns. Typically, owners sue for nonpayment of rent. But in Franklin County, Ohio, a large retail tenant turned the tables and sued the owner to recoup payments.

Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F), Columbus-based apparel retailer, recently filed suit against one of the nation’s largest landlords, Simon Property Group Inc. A&F, which leases properties from Simon, alleges that Simon “wrongfully extracted” rent payments on those properties during the lockdowns that covered the nation. The amount of rent and number of stores impacted by the lawsuit is not disclosed, but according to public filings, A&F demands return of all rent payments to Simon during a specified period.

A&F essentially argues that it was not obligated to pay rent because it was locked out of its premises. More specifically, A&F argues that “the government-mandated closures amounted to ‘prohibitions’ under the terms of the lease agreements such that A&F was, and is, entitled to an abatement of any and all rent and other charges” during the lockdown. A&F maintains that Simon’s mere demand for payment during the lockdown constitutes a breach of contract, and any/all payments remitted were “under protest” and should be returned.  

Seeking to gain leverage by adopting an aggressive posture is a classic litigation technique that is now being applied in these unprecedented times. Whether the tactic will be fruitful depends on innumerable variables that begin with the contract language between the parties. Given the size and sophistication of the litigants, copycat actions and/or landmark precedents are likely to result.

For more information, please contact our Real Estate or Litigation teams.

To stay updated, please visit our Resources page regularly.


Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.

January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.