At least half guilty of something.
Posted on 12/03/2017 8:41:50 AM PST by Maceman
An Indiana judge has taken an unusual step and temporarily barred Starbucks from closing 77 failing Teavana stores in Simon Property Group malls because the real estate giant was less able to handle the financial pain.
Starbucks said in July it planned to shutter its 379-store Teavana operation — but Simon rushed to court to block 77 stores in its malls from going dark — claiming such a move by a high-profile tenant could spark other stores in its malls to close.
Starbucks, after trying to turn around its stumbling tea chain, said last August it was pulling the plug on Teavana.
It wanted to close all the stores by the end of the year.
But Indianapolis-based Simon, in an environment where hundreds of stores across the country are closing, rushed to a local court to ask Judge Heather Welch to stop the store closing.
Welch, in a 55-page order, found that the very profitable Starbucks could absorb the financial hit — estimated by Starbucks to be $15 million over five months — better than Simon could. The mall operator did not provide an estimate of how much the closings of the Teavana stores would hurt them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
How can a County Judge shutter 77 stores of the Simon Group, if some of the 77 are not in her county district?
Are some of the Simon Group 77 stores, in other counties?
Starbucks owned the Tazos brand as well. They just sold it to Lipton.
That actually makes the most sense... otherwise I don’t know what possible legal reason a judge would have to force a store to stay open.
At least half guilty of something.
Unbelievable. This is what you do when you have power, but no skin in the game.
It's the ancient, (dis)honorable principle of "I'm a JUDGE, dammit! I can do anything I bloody well please! Grovel before me, peasant!"
The decline of the American Republic began when we abandoned the practice of tar and feathers.
More here. Starbucks cannot close their stores before their lease runs out.
Might want to look at that contract they signed...
I looked Judge Welch up. She’s an elected county judge. Starbucks, I’m sure, has the money and lawyers to appeal this decision.
Getting rid of Federal lifetime appointments requires an amendment to the Constitution. Doubt that’s going to happen.
My guess is that this is a contractual dispute and is fake news.
I’m not so sure this is judicial overreach so much as lease breaking.
I wonder if it’d be enough to satisfy the ruling if Starbucks closed the stores but paid out the remainder of the lease.
Just turn off the lights, lock the doors and just leave it like that. Store is not closed, it just doesn’t open for business.
Well, this is a first (and likely the last) but I have to side with Starbucks on this. How can a judge stop a business from closing?
This is just redistribution/socialism.
Starbucks likes redistribution/socialism, so this should be OK with them.
You might want to take a look at the Federal Law regarding the closing or the substantial reductions in force by businesses. I worked for a company that was being sold to one of it’s major investors which was a foreign entity. Their plan was to move manufacturing out of the US and into idle factories in it’s own country. This meant a wholesale loss of jobs in the US. By reason of the numbers of people who were going to be displaced, Federal Law mandated certain processes and financial consideration to minimize the negative effect on the laid off workers.
Gee. A liberal company gets forced to lose more money by their liberal judges their liberal politicians FORCED on the rest of the taxpayers!
>>Unbelievable! A judge can force a failing business to stay open? WTF?!! America’s judiciary is completely out of control and needs to be reigned in.
It will be interesting to see how “capitalism for me, but socialism for thee” Starbucks will respond to this. Everyone is a villain in this case, so I don’t care how it turns out.
Might want to look at their lease contract.
Starbucks may be obligated to keep operating their store until their lease runs out.
They could get out of it if they were in bankruptcy, but they're far from it.
One would think "real estate giant" Simon Property Group would be able to handle anything. They're huge. Back when I went to the mall, it was one of theirs.
i don’t agree with it but Starbucks-oh well karma
The penalties for not staying for the term of the lease are in the lease agreement.
It would be interesting to see the agreement, but that won’t happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.