Case Study : The Mall Of America ( Mall )

973 Words4 Pages
The strength of a claim is in the empirical evidence presented and this case study “The Mall of America” (Mall) is no different. The Si-Minn Developers Limited Partnership (Si-Minn LP) defense and disclosure of their decision to purchase the material interest in MOAC LP are reflective of their fiduciary duty to Melvin Simon & Associate stakeholders their parent company. On the other hand, Triple Five Minnesota Inc. (Triple Five) indifference in the investment returns was reflected in their tacit indolent response to the initial offering by “Teachers”, confirming that Si-Minn LP acted in the beneficial best interest of both the seller (Teachers), and partnership with Triple Five in spite of their dissatisfaction.

Before the existence of the “Mall of America Associates” MOAA partnership and throughout its operation Si-Minn LP offered continuous tangible value, where as, though important, Triple Five only secured development rights and seemingly fade in the position of an inactive participant.

The nature of Triple Five with Si-Minn LP initial involvement is unknown, but clearly stated are two facts related to financing. First, Triple Five had trouble securing financing. Secondly, at the point of Si-Minn LP involvement, Teachers agreed to finance construction of the Mall. Though speculative, this inability to arrange to finance is the possible reasoning behind Triple Five unresponsiveness to Teachers offered in March 1998. It is important to note that inherent in the
Get Access