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
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.