Details so far are sketchy, but here is what I have learned.
Simon asserted litigation in Indianapolis against Teavana, to prevent the coffee company’s store closing. Simon claimed that Starbucks (Teavana’s parent) was not financially stressed, unlike other retailers who had departed before the lease term had officially ended. Simon concluded that Teavana could well afford to continue operating the 77 Teavana stores in malls owned or operated by Simon.
Starbucks offered testimony that it would cost Starbucks approximately $15 million to continue to operate 77 Teavana stores over a five-month period. And that Simon had adequately protected itself with lease covenants, requiring Starbucks to compensate Simon for its losses should Teavana close its stores.
Simon requested a temporary restraining order and injunction, to force Teavana to continue in operations. The court agreed, forcing Teavana to remain open – at least until the next hearing.
I’ll report back when I have more intel. But at this moment, all commercial tenants have cause to be nervous.
Stuart A. Lautin, Esq.*
* Board Certified, Commercial (1989) and Residential (1988) Real Estate Law,
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Licensed in the States of Texas and New York
Reprinted with the permission of North Texas Association of Realtors®, Inc.