Originally posted by @vivify
"Simon has a point, doesn't it?"
Absolutely. Whodey's article left out such details, and made it seem like the judge was trying to save the mall money at the expense of Starbucks.
I'm completely at fault for not looking more into this before forming an opinion.
EDIT: Is there any provision allowing retailers to end their lease early if profits are ...[text shortened]... nario, and that stipulations exist for that. Otherwise, those leasing could be in quite a bind.
I left out this part of the article which is responsive to your EDIT:
In the lawsuit, Simon said it has seen a long line of retailers close mall stores in recent years because of “financial distress,” including Sears, Sports Authority, Gap, Ralph Lauren, Finish Line, Macy’s, Nine West, Rue 21, Jones New York, American Eagle and others.
“Those retailers, at least, claimed closure was necessary to avoid bankruptcy, and that staying open and fulfilling their leases would cause them financial ruin,”
Simon said in the suit. “That obviously is not the case with Starbucks, which is one of the largest and most recognized companies in the world.”
Teavana isn’t losing money, Simon said in the suit—it just isn’t growing fast enough to fit into Starbucks’ business strategy.
Starbucks is a “thriving company” with a market capitalization of more than $80 billion that is coming off a record quarter in which it opened 575 net new stores, Simon said.
Apparently if fulfilling the conditions of a lease would cause a company's "financial ruin", it can get out of it.