Kim Kardashian was in full business-mode on Tuesday evening as she swung by her Los Angeles office in her $600K custom Lamborghini.
The SKIMS founder, 42, exited the driver’s side in her favorite pieces from Balenciaga’s collaboration with Adidas, including a pair of skinтιԍнт black running shorts.
The curvy beauty added glamour to her sporty look by carrying her essentials in a tiny rhinestone Baleciaga purse.
She paired her tiny shorts with a Balenciaga x Adidas hoodie.
Kim’s decision to rock pieces from the high-priced collaboration comes after both Balenciaga and Adidas severed ties with her ex-husband Kanye West following his anti-Semitic rants and erratic behavior.
With the SoCal chill in full force, Kim further bundled up with a heavy duty black leather coat that devoured her peтιтe 5foot2inch frame.
It dragged on the pavement as she strolled towards the office building in a pair of black leather thigh-high boots.
She shielded her eyes from the flashbulbs with large, black shades and her icy blonde hair was worn wavy.
Despite her hectic schedule, Kim still managed to look flawless.
Her plump pout was perfectly lined and topped with a ɴuᴅᴇ lipgloss.
Meanwhile the rest of her face was warmed up with bronzing powder and blush.
The outing came as Balenciaga apologized for a pH๏τoshoot with a child holding a teddy bear dressed in a BDSM outfit that outraged hundreds of people online.
On Wednesday, the globally-renowned Spanish high-fashion brand appeared to be laying the blame on Italian pH๏τographer Gabriele Galimberti for their controversial campaign.
Perhaps even more bizarrely, a Twitter user discovered that one of the pH๏τos in the shoot contained an excerpt from the 2008 US Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Williams, which upheld part of a federal child pornography law, which Twitter’s own fact-checkers confirmed.
The ruling determined that offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade child pornography did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Consтιтution, even if a person charged under the code did not in fact possess child pornography with which to trade. The late Justice Antonin Scalia noted specifically that offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.
