Demand for warehousing expected to pick up – but facilities must be up to date
Global warehouse demand is expected to pick up at the end of the year, according ...
TFII: SOLID AS USUALMAERSK: WEAKENINGF: FALLING OFF A CLIFFAAPL: 'BOTTLENECK IN MAINLAND CHINA'AAPL: CHINA TRENDSDHL: GROWTH CAPEXR: ANOTHER SOLID DELIVERYMFT: HERE COMES THE FALLDSV: LOOK AT SCHENKER PERFORMANCEUPS: A WAVE OF DOWNGRADES DSV: BARGAIN BINKNX: EARNINGS OUTODFL: RISING AND FALLING AND THEN RISING
TFII: SOLID AS USUALMAERSK: WEAKENINGF: FALLING OFF A CLIFFAAPL: 'BOTTLENECK IN MAINLAND CHINA'AAPL: CHINA TRENDSDHL: GROWTH CAPEXR: ANOTHER SOLID DELIVERYMFT: HERE COMES THE FALLDSV: LOOK AT SCHENKER PERFORMANCEUPS: A WAVE OF DOWNGRADES DSV: BARGAIN BINKNX: EARNINGS OUTODFL: RISING AND FALLING AND THEN RISING
Interesting analysis from investor website Fool, exploring the lawsuit Amazon has launched against Target and its recruitment of former top Amazon supply chain executive Arthur Valdez. Amazon has requested that Mr Valdez be barred from taking up his new role for 18 months, as per a non-compete clause in his previous employment contract, which Amazon claims has been breached. But the “genie might already be out of the bottle”, according to this article, which argues that the real winner in this three-way spat is Target. “Non-competes are notoriously hard to enforce, and in this case, even if Valdez is found at fault, which could lead to him having to pay Amazon’s legal bills, it’s impossible to put the genie back. This seems like a big risk for the employee, with very little downside for Target. Even if Valdez loses and has to sit out 18 months, it seems likely he could have already set his new employer on a changed path – it’s impossible for his new associates to unlearn anything he has shared with them.”
Comment on this article