IL for www.theindianalawyer.com

In an unusual legal move, Simon Property Group Inc. has sued Starbucks Corp. over the coffee giant’s plan to close 78 Teavana stores in its malls across the country.

Indianapolis-based Simon, the country’s largest shopping mall operator, says in the lawsuit that Starbucks is breaching its leases by closing the Teavana stores and “shirking its contractual obligations at the expense of Simon’s shopping centers and the dozens of communities they serve and support.”

In the suit, filed Aug. 21 in Marion Superior Court, Simon said it is seeking temporary and permanent injunctions preventing Starbucks from closing the stores.

Seattle-based Starbucks announced July 27 that it planned to close all 379 of its Teavana stores in the next year, with most closures taking place in the spring of 2018.

Simon, though, said Starbucks recently indicated that it intends to close the stores no later than Dec. 31. The mall landlord said only two of its Teavana leases expire prior to the spring and the other 76 extend as far as January 2027.

“In order to successfully operate its shopping centers, Simon depends upon each tenant fulfilling the covenants in their respective leases,” the company said in its suit. “Crucially, each of Simon’s tenants promises that it will open and operate continuously for the entire term of its lease.”

In the Indianapolis area, Teavana operates at Circle Centre mall, the Fashion Mall at Keystone, Castleton Square Mall and Greenwood Park Mall.

In January 2013, Starbucks—then led by Howard Schultz—bought the Atlanta-based tea retailer for $620 million. At the time, Teavana had about 300 stores. Schultz predicted the business would swell in size and that his company “would do for tea what we did for coffee.”

In April, the same month Kevin Johnson took the helm as CEO, Starbucks said it was disappointed in the performance of the Teavana stores and was reviewing its options. Three months later, Johnson cited declining foot traffic in malls as a reason for closing the stores. With “that headwind and with all of the work we have done to reinvent the store, it just couldn’t overcome that,” Johnson said.

That comment didn’t sit well with Simon, which said in the lawsuit that it was intended “to deflect blame from itself and avoid adverse investor reaction.” Simon noted that just a year ago Starbucks had boasted that its tea business was growing rapidly.

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.

“Starbucks’ decision to close its Teavana stores is simply an effort to further increase its economic gains at the expense of others,” Simon said. “Starbucks does not contend that Simon breached any lease or that Starbucks cannot remain viable if it continues to honor its promises in its leases for stores in Simon’s shopping centers. Instead, Starbucks simply believes it can make more money if it violates the leases than if it honored its contractual promises and obligations.”

IL for www.theindianalwyer.com

Two attorneys are no longer practicing law in the Hoosier State after the Indiana Supreme Court accepted their resignations late last week.

On Thursday, the high court accepted the resignation of Elkhart attorney Anthony J. Iemma, then did the same for Richmond attorney Edward T. Kemp on Friday.  The order accepting Iemma’s resignation said he acknowledge there was a pending investigation or proceeding involving alleged misconduct that he could not defend himself against. Iemma’s entry on the Indiana Roll of Attorneys shows his resignation as the only disciplinary action against him.

Kemp’s entry, however, shows nine concluded disciplinary actions, including his resignation, a 2015 suspension, show cause orders and dismissals. According to the order accepting his resignation, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission entered a “Notice of Finding of Guilt and Request for Suspension” against Kemp on June 28, when it requested an interim suspension based on his conviction for theft. That request was denied as moot after Kemp tendered his resignation.

Both Iemma and Kemp can petition for reinstatement after five years, and any allegations of misconduct may be considered in the reinstatement process. In order to be reinstated, the attorneys must prove their remorse, rehabilitation and fitness to practice law. The costs of the proceedings were assessed against them.

In addition to accepting the resignations, the high court also imposed a 30-day active suspension Thursday against Fort Wayne attorney Kenneth A. Schenk, who has been convicted multiple times of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and has pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana. According to the disciplinary order, Schenk did not report his first two convictions to the commission. Schenk’s OWI prosecution has been deferred pending his completion of the Allen County Alcohol Deterrent Program.

The parties agreed Schenk violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) and Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11.1)(a)(2) (2016), and also agreed the appropriate discipline would be a 180-day suspension, with 30 days actively served. The remainder of the suspension will be stayed subject to the completion of at least 24 months of probation with monitoring by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

Schnek’s discipline also prohibits him from using alcohol or other mind-altering substances and requires him to report any violations of his probation to the commission. If he violates his probation, the stay on Schnek’s suspension may be vacated and he can be required to serve his suspension with or without automatic reinstatement.

Schnek’s suspension will begin on Oct. 5, and his probation will remain in effect until it is terminated pursuant to a petition filed under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.