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
Infringement of non-competition clause, where is the limit?
In this matter, a former freelancer of massage parlor Doctor Feelgood started his own massage parlor under the name Feelgood-store.
Research into numbers of franchise procedures
We recently published a brief survey of franchise jurisprudence over the past six years on the website.
Violation of duty of care affects exoneration
In a dispute about an appeal to an exoneration clause in the franchise agreement by the franchisor, it was considered that the nature of the franchise agreement should be taken into account
Supermarket letter – 5
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court.
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court
On 25 April 2014, the Supreme Court confirmed for the second time that the waiting period of three years for termination of the rental agreement for retail space due to urgent personal use after the purchase of the property
Unauthorized unilateral collective fee increase by the franchisor
In an important decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 23 April 2014, the question was whether a franchisor was allowed to implement an increase in a contribution.