Penney is going to appeal the verdict that said they had violated the contract Macy's had with Martha. But Macy's then said it would appeal the part of the ruling that awarded them no punitive damages (even though they were awarded actual damages and attorney fees.) Talk about another dumb move on Penney's part.
The notion that JCP should be liable for a contract violation by MSLO and Macy*s is a reach. Tortuous interference is a part of common law that was never intended to apply in cases where sophisticated and fully informed entities, specifically MSLO, were acting in accordance with their own free will. This is the equivalent of, "The devil made me do it." And even if JCP was complicit, what portion of the damages could they possibly be liable for? Maybe 10%? I bet that MSLO got off scot-free in their confidential resolution to the issue.
If you're ticketed for speeding, do you sue the auto manufacturer for tortuous interference because the manufacturer gave you the ability to speed knowing full well that you would eventually do so? What liability do gun manufacturer's have? JCP enabled MSLO to violate its contract with Macy*s, but did not force it to do so. In that sense it did not interfere, as required by common law, but JCP only enabled a violation.
If you consider the implications of this situation to MSOL, Macy*s, if right in their claim, would effectively have complete control over certain portions of their business, though the agreement specifically provides otherwise.
JCP may save on actual damages and attorney's fees awarded by the referee. They risk having punitive damages reinstated which could be a far greater sum. And there is the publicity that will once again tell the story of how JCP conspired with Martha to violate the contract with Macy's. The appeal is a dumb move.