Indiana judge writes law ordering Starbucks to keep its stores open!!!

[ShootSpeeders]

This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/judge-bars-starbucks-from-closing-77-failing-teavana-stores/

dec 1 2017 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.

The case is being closely watched by retailers and landlords alike amid a retail meltdown that has resulted in a record number of bankruptcies this year.

The retail failures have left landlords scrambling to find new tenants and retailers in the difficult position of breaking their leases.

Still, it is rare that a judge orders a retailer to keep stores open, retail experts said.

 

[Montrovant]

I'd like to see what law(s) the judge used to justify this decision. Very odd.

 

[Esmeralda]

This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/judge-bars-starbucks-from-closing-77-failing-teavana-stores/

dec 1 2017 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.

The case is being closely watched by retailers and landlords alike amid a retail meltdown that has resulted in a record number of bankruptcies this year.

The retail failures have left landlords scrambling to find new tenants and retailers in the difficult position of breaking their leases.

Still, it is rare that a judge orders a retailer to keep stores open, retail experts said.

Based on the article, it sure doesn't sound like the booming economy you claim Trump has created. LOL

 

[mdk]

This ruling should be tossed. Malls are on their way out as more and more people shop online.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

The judge makes it sound like them locations closing up is the worst thing to ever happen.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Vastator]

This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/judge-bars-starbucks-from-closing-77-failing-teavana-stores/

dec 1 2017 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.

The case is being closely watched by retailers and landlords alike amid a retail meltdown that has resulted in a record number of bankruptcies this year.

The retail failures have left landlords scrambling to find new tenants and retailers in the difficult position of breaking their leases.

Still, it is rare that a judge orders a retailer to keep stores open, retail experts said.

Based on the article, it sure doesn't sound like the booming economy you claim Trump has created. LOL

The economy is spiking. But malls have been dying for a decade plus...
Not to mention... Tea? This ain't europe, or Asia... Unless you're in the South, and your tea is practically hummingbird nectar... This fail was all but guaranteed.

 

[Montrovant]

This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/judge-bars-starbucks-from-closing-77-failing-teavana-stores/

dec 1 2017 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.

The case is being closely watched by retailers and landlords alike amid a retail meltdown that has resulted in a record number of bankruptcies this year.

The retail failures have left landlords scrambling to find new tenants and retailers in the difficult position of breaking their leases.

Still, it is rare that a judge orders a retailer to keep stores open, retail experts said.

Based on the article, it sure doesn't sound like the booming economy you claim Trump has created. LOL

The economy is spiking. But malls have been dying for a decade plus...
Not to mention... Tea? This ain't europe, or Asia... Unless you're in the South, and your tea is practically hummingbird nectar... This fail was all but guaranteed.

Hey, I drink tea almost exclusively! Of course, I've never been to and had no plans to go to a Teavana.....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'd like to see what law(s) the judge used to justify this decision. Very odd.

Maybe the leases?

 

[Montrovant]

I'd like to see what law(s) the judge used to justify this decision. Very odd.

Maybe the leases?

That's the only thing that came to mind for me when I read the article. Would a lease be likely to include some sort of clause that the store actually has to remain open, or would it just be that they keep paying for the space, I wonder? I've never dealt with that sort of thing before.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I'd like to see what law(s) the judge used to justify this decision. Very odd.

Laws?? HAHAHA. The odds are he simply took a bribe.

 

[Montrovant]

I'd like to see what law(s) the judge used to justify this decision. Very odd.

Laws?? HAHAHA. The odds are he simply took a bribe.

Bribed or not, it seems unlikely for a judge to make a decision like this, which is almost certain to gain at least local media attention, without some sort of justification.

 

[WillowTree]

I'd like to see what law(s) the judge used to justify this decision. Very odd.

Maybe the leases?

Leases have endings. If my lease was up I would tell the judge to put up the money to keep them open, then I’d close them anyway.

 

[Dragonlady]

This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/judge-bars-starbucks-from-closing-77-failing-teavana-stores/

dec 1 2017 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.

The case is being closely watched by retailers and landlords alike amid a retail meltdown that has resulted in a record number of bankruptcies this year.

The retail failures have left landlords scrambling to find new tenants and retailers in the difficult position of breaking their leases.

Still, it is rare that a judge orders a retailer to keep stores open, retail experts said.

The leases contain “continuous operation clauses” whereby the tenant agrees to remain open and fully operational for the entire term of the lease. Starbucks can close the stores one by one as each of the leases runs out, but some of these leases run until 2027.

This is the first time a judge has ruled in favour of a landlord on these clauses in regards to a non-anchor tenant. (Anchor tenants are large retailers like Walmart or other large grocery or department stores which draw large numbers of shoppers to malls).

I fully expect Starbucks to appeal this ruling.

 

[my2¢]

I see no problem with forcing a business to honor its contracts unless it was declaring bankruptcy.

 

[AsherN]

The leases contain “continuous operation clauses” whereby the tenant agrees to remain open and fully operational for the entire term of the lease. Starbucks can close the stores one by one as each of the leases runs out, but some of these leases run until 2027.

This is the first time a judge has ruled in favour of a landlord on these clauses in regards to a non-anchor tenant. (Anchor tenants are large retailers like Walmart or other large grocery or department stores which draw large numbers of shoppers to malls).

I fully expect Starbucks to appeal this ruling.

Leases also have a "sales per sq ft" clause. That allows the mall to terminate the lease of under performing tenants. Starbucks can close and shutter the stores. That will drive the sale/sqft way down.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/judge-bars-starbucks-from-closing-77-failing-teavana-stores/

dec 1 2017 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.

The case is being closely watched by retailers and landlords alike amid a retail meltdown that has resulted in a record number of bankruptcies this year.

The retail failures have left landlords scrambling to find new tenants and retailers in the difficult position of breaking their leases.

Still, it is rare that a judge orders a retailer to keep stores open, retail experts said.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

 

[Dragonlady]

The leases contain “continuous operation clauses” whereby the tenant agrees to remain open and fully operational for the entire term of the lease. Starbucks can close the stores one by one as each of the leases runs out, but some of these leases run until 2027.

This is the first time a judge has ruled in favour of a landlord on these clauses in regards to a non-anchor tenant. (Anchor tenants are large retailers like Walmart or other large grocery or department stores which draw large numbers of shoppers to malls).

I fully expect Starbucks to appeal this ruling.

Leases also have a "sales per sq ft" clause. That allows the mall to terminate the lease of under performing tenants. Starbucks can close and shutter the stores. That will drive the sale/sqft way down.

Yes but those clauses are optional. The mall owner can choose not to exercise that option. Given the number of stores going out of business due to online sales, mall owners aren’t pushing low performing tenants out as long as they’re paying their rent.

My understanding of this ruling is that Starbucks is being ordered to honour the continuous use clause which means they can’t close or shutter these stores.

I’ll admit my personal bias. I loathe shopping malls and avoid them like the plague. They’re all chain stores selling the same goods and they’re expensive. That’s because mall leases are expensive.

The basic rent is high, and then there’s common area costs - your store is paying for heat, electricity and clean up costs for the walkways, seating areas, staircases and elevators in the mall, and the park lot as well. There’s also an advertising fee for the mall. None of which costs are applicable to a stand alone store. The advertising fee is not to advertise your store, but the mall as a whole. Any store advertising you do is on your nickel too.

But it’s the sameness of them all that makes them a terrible place to shop. I like buying interesting and unique things and you can’t find that at the mall.

 

[Esmeralda]

This ruling should be tossed. Malls are on their way out as more and more people shop online.

That just doesn't sound right. I have never been a mall person: don't like them and avoid them. But I have been to them when necessary.

I don't shop much online. I go to downtown shopping areas to shop, or local shopping areas. Just hate malls, always have. However, it seems to me people go to malls for more than just shopping. They provide a day of entertainment for some people, especially women and kids: shopping, eating, movies, hair dressers and manicurists, coffee shops, and so on.

I think the problem is probably the economy and that the people running the malls need to adapt to changing times by developing more businesses in the malls that appeal to those who are looking for spending the whole day there doing more than just shopping.

When it's hot, you can spend the day there in air conditioned comfort. When it's cold or wet, you can get away from the unpleasant weather in a controled climate.

That tea shop doesn't sound like a very good bet anyway. And, no business should be forced to keep a shop open to help the other businesses in the mall stay afloat.

 

[Slashsnake]

This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

 

[westwall]

I'd like to see what law(s) the judge used to justify this decision. Very odd.

Maybe the leases?

They are liable for the lease payments but there are plenty of corporations that pay the lease payments on closed up shops. The employee overhead would put them out of business but they can support an empty store front lease payment.