Buy/sell Albert Heijn franchise company
A judgment of 28 July 2016 by the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:6138, concerned the sale of shares in two companies in which an Albert Heijn supermarket was operated. The dispute was about what exactly was included in the purchase/sale.
Shortly before finalization, the parent company of the sellers appears to be the lessor of one of the supermarket premises. They exercise the pre-emptive right to purchase. The buyers of the shares demanded that they receive the supermarket business space as part of the share purchase. The sellers argue that the pre-emptive right to purchase the supermarket business space does not rest with the companies that are the subject of the intended transaction. Moreover, the buyers had never inquired about the pre-emptive right and the sellers had never communicated anything about it. The preliminary relief judge therefore rejected the claim and ruled that the purchase must go ahead without the supermarket business space, so that people know what is and what is not included in the purchase/sale.
This judgment shows the importance of expert assistance in negotiating the takeover of supermarkets.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.