If it hurts Starbucks, who cares? An overpriced progressive hangout at best. But in principle, I agree that this judge is out of order.
Rearden Mocha.
Just fire all store employees except one in each store..the one needed to open the doors at mall opening time...and then lockup at night when the mall closes. He/she can make a few teas over the course of the day, if they can find the time.
“Smith? Smith? Double half-caf iced darjeeling with lemon. Your order is ready, sir. Sorry it took me 45 minutes to make your tea.”
We don’t know the lease specifics, nor must we.
If Starbucks is in breach, they will settle/pay per the agreement. If there is still dispute, then Simon has to take this up in civil court and probably arbitrate.
I’m sure Starbucks went into this with good legal advice and counsel is surprised by this judge.
The judge trying to force starbucks to help support the failing mall by staying open when the starbucks store is not doing well? right, that’ll work well.
Venezuela anyone?
Simon has:
1) Failed repeatedly to deal with crime and thuggery in and around its properties.
2) Chased off quality merchants
3) Encouraged, accepted and promoted sellers of cheap Chinese junk in an effort to keep spaces occupied, however temporarily
4) Raised rents regardless of economic climate
5) Failed (or refused) to pay contractors
6) Allowed kiosks to proliferate selling more junk and staffed by annoying third world barkers stepping into your walking path and interrupting your conversations or merely your train of thought
In short, Simon has some brass neck making demands of one of its tenants to say nothing of claims of being damaged financially when they are in the process of committing business suicide.
WTF is a judge doing, deciding which business entity can handle losses best ??
Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.
This is absolutely unbelievable. How can any judge possibly get away with this in the US?
I’ve said that if we are lucky Trump will shape much of the judiciary for most of the rest of my life and I hope it is good and that it sticks. This out of control run amok mess of the last 25 and certainly the last 8 years has turned the country upside down.
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.
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.
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.
Man, I hate Starbucks, but I hate this MORE! Surely this will get overturned by a higher court.
Rediculos. This judge could write a 555 page ruling and still be rediculos.
5.56mm