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 ...
That’s like forcing someone to buy insurance they don’t want.
Thank God for the 2A
“Maybe BLM could start a chain of Purple Drank shops to replace them.”
ROFLMAO!
I just envisioned a young black girl in pigtails being escorted by LEOs into a Teavana Store in the mall!
*SMIRK*
As much as I hate Starbucks, I have got to take their side in this. Besides, the Teavana stores I’ve been in have all been understaffed or staffed with surly, clueless kids and none have been as CLEAN as they should be, IMHO.
There is a big difference between a commercial lease and an apartment lease.
Malls purposely stagger their leases so they can bring in new tenants and avoid having empty stores when a business leaves.
Starbucks suddenly deciding they don’t like selling tea anymore doesn’t mean they can get out of a commercial lease.
Judges also look at commercial leases much differently than residential.
Good grief. Clearly, you have no idea that some judges are elected. For example, this judge was elected in 2012 and will be up for reelection in 2018. I find it awful suspect that you are running your mouth about taking judges lifetime appointments away with Trump as President and we are FINALLY getting decent Judges to the judiciary. I believe that you are really a Democrat and giving stupid opinions to support your agenda.
No judge can force a business to stay in business.
Starbucks can tell the idiot to screw itself.
It is a state court. An experiment by Indiana and it looks like it is a turd to me especially with judges and rulings like this that are unprecedented.
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/31022424/commercial-court-pilot-project-begins
The child is supposed to have lots of business acumen. Bull.
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Courts/Superior/CourtInfo/Judges/Pages/Welch.aspx
Just unbelievable that Starbucks can be forced to stay even though they have broken the lease and I’m sure they have paid or would pay penalties to do so. Heather’s rationale is just pure communism.
Legal principle? From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Starbucks can afford it, the mall operator can’t. That is where the judge is coming from. Pure #!+&%$= communism.
For the entire eight years of Obama‘s reign of terror, I fully expected a judge or two to issue rulings forbidding layoffs just to keep unemployment as low as possible.
Judging outside the box again. Letting emotions override the rule of law.
Forcing a failing business to stay open has other consequences, some of which are unforeseen until their impact is felt. Not the kind of laws I want in my life.
This could bankrupt the parent corporation. I guess the parent corporation could go into debt to survive. As long as investors (sheep) are willing to buy stocks in corporations that have no assets, no profits and dividends, impending large lawsuits, or large unpaid debts, they would be viable. A sort of virtual entity posing as a business.
After Obama’s fiasco with GM investors, you never know what to expect from the courts. Maybe the corporation can qualify for a government bailout at our (taxpayer) expense.
Bitcoins, yes, that the solution to the problem. Virtual money invested in a virtual corporation. What could go wrong.
Sounds like slavery to me.
#deadmall.
CC
“Welch, in a 55-page order, found that the very profitable Starbucks could absorb the financial hit”
What’s that got to do with the law? Zip, zilch, nada.
Welcome to the clear Marxist indoctrination embedded throughout the college education system.
I hate Starbucks. Regardless, I hope they appeal this decision and win on the appeals.
Just clean them out and make them into lounges with no chairs.
You have a capital idea.
This ruling is just communist but I still don’t like charbucks.
Generally, there’s also a percentage of sales that goes to the landlord/mall owner, as part of the lease payment.
No presence = no sales = no additional $ as lease payment.
I’d love to read the lease also.
Reminds me of “Atlas Shrugged”!
But still...’tis sweet that it is Starbucks being hurt by this “Directive”!
Sooner or later someone has to ignore such a patently illegal order. Throw it right back in the damned judges face. This is getting ridiculous and dangerous.
Agree but commercial leases are far more likely to provide for termination of the lease with penalties pre-defined. What is a judge doing in a contract dispute?
“Actually if you sign a commercial lease the entity commits to staying open during the term of lease. This is a judge sticking to the terms of the contract.”
I hadn’t thought of that.
If true, I can feel good about Starbucks being damaged.
“What legal principle could justify this ruling?”
Sounds like Starbucks was trying to break its lease. So the ruling doesn’t sound all that unreasonable.
“Simon argues that if Starbucks is allowed to “prematurely” break its lease, it could be forced to fill the vacancies with “less creditworthy tenant(s)” or less desirable tenants “who will only agree to less desirable lease terms, and/or a shorter-term lease,” according to the court filings.”
Man, I hate Starbucks, but I hate this MORE! Surely this will get overturned by a higher court.
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.