It's not a rule; it's a criminal exception. And shame on you for considering taking advantage of the same statist policy.

Greetings, Lucky.

How about a "karma is a bitch" view 3?

View 3:
In the past Starbucks management has championed progressive left wing causes "for the common good" and is now getting a lesson in what they were really supporting.

Wow, I wish I would have know about that rule when I lost a tenant in my 4-plex (apartment). I had to actually go and put in an ad to find a new one. "Unfair".

View 1:
An interventionist progressivist judge tells Starbucks how to run their business
since they can afford it, and presumably 'for the common good'.
Gross, but there is another view.

View 2:
A court rules that a contract agreed between two parties must be complied with
even if compliance is unexpectedly unprofitable for one party.

I go for View 2.

The observance of freely agreed contracts is crucial for all business and private relations.

I thank CBJ for mentioning that possibility.
It is too easy to jump on a bandwagon.

the globalist/totalitarians want govt to control all areas of your life...big brother knows best

this judge wants to get her(?) 15 minutes of fame.
if starbucks is in any other malls owned by this company they should close them.

A page right out of Atlas Shrugged. It's amazing to me that Rand saw this coming.

It sounds like Starbucks wanted to prematurely break the lease. It wasnt stated whether this was allowed in the lease document. But in any event, if I were starbucks, I would certainly not staff the store and I would clear it out of inventory during this forced "opening".

Directive 10-289 is here.

Where is Judge Narragansett? Oh, he shrugged already?

The US taxpayers have been bailing out prominent companies of the banking system repeatedly for decades (although it wasn't always stated that way.)

While I cannot say with certainty, I'd be very surprised if any lease (I've paid for a few commercial leases over the years) didn't have a penalty clause for early termination.

We must examine the 55 page ruling to discern the facts. The news story does not provide enough detail on the contract or if the judge is ruling within the terms of the contract.

But did the lease contract actually spell out a penalty for early termination of the lease? In my view, the answer to this question is key to deciding whether Starbucks has the unrestricted right to walk away.

That's why a judge has ruled on the issue . 2 entities entered into an agreement. One wants out. I suppose paying for the commitment you make might avoid a judgement.

Even so, paying a penalty for breaking the lease would save Starbucks money. Forcing them to stay open violates their rights. Starbucks is in no way responsible for the solvency of the malls/buildings they lease, only paying their rent for the space they use or the penalty for breaking the agreement.

With a continuous operations clause , Starbucks agreed when signing with Simon . To me it is kind of like consigning on a loan .Don't be shocked when your on the hook for a payment expected.

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.

Oh, some judge here or there in the USA can tell American free enterpise to not close stores it can't afford.
Now me dino be waiting for some judge here or there to tell the public where it is mandatory shop so stores can stay open. Hey, even what restaurants we must eat at to support.
Oh, and landlords, wait for some judge here or there to tell you that you can't have vacant space. Not ever. Or else!

Before rushing to judgment, consider this paragraph:

(Judge) Welch admitted that “no court has ever entered preliminary or permanent injunctive relief to specifically enforce a continuous operations covenant against a non-anchor tenant” — but she did so anyway.

If there was a "continuous operations covenant" in the lease, that puts a somewhat different light on the issue. "Absorbing the financial hit" should have had nothing to do with the Judge's decision, but enforcing a lease covenant might be a legitimate exercise of judicial power.

In the long term I can see the domino falling from such a ruling. I do believe the first domino was the US bailout of the banking system.

So does that mean I can't sell any of my assets (Stocks, Real Estate, Personal Property) to prevent a loss since I could absorb the financial hit?

Amerika is doomed.
I can't even express how angry this makes me (unless there is something really weird in the lease contract and the media has misrepresented the ruling.)