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
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial