She cooks, cleans, does hard time AND can hold her own on the stand. What can’t she do?
The homemaker extraordinaire took the stand, in Lanvin no less, and fielded questions from both her attorney and Macy’s and told everyone why she signed with JCPenney.
She told the court that Macy’s had projected she’d make $400 million in the next three years, but had only delivered $300 million, and they were making it tough for her to get her MSLO bridal registry up as well as incorporate new products.
Macy’s countered that in her contract, she was not to go to a, quote “downscale” rival, such as JCPenney, especially because Macy’s was meant to give her brand more clout since her Kmart days.
She found a loophole, however, claiming that she was setting up a store-in-store for her company with JCPenneys, which isn’t prohibited in her contract. Essentially what that means is that there won’t be a section for her products, but a whole shop within the store, which is what JCPenney is planning to do with lots of goods, not just hers. So this isn’t special treatment.
Martha even pointed out that Macy’s has a Louis Vuitton store-in-store!
She also asked the judge why they weren’t looking at the contract since that’s what the suit is all about.
Macy’s lawyer tried one last tactic, when Martha talked about her customers’ price point, and he said that she admitted her clientele was “downscale,” to which she rebutted:
“It didn’t occur to me that there weren’t enough customers to go around.”
Throw down in Judge Jeffrey Oing’s courtroom!
Next up is MSLO’s former chairman Charles Koppelman, so we’ll see what happens!
[Image via WENN.]