Converted C-1000 entrepreneurs to AH not profitable
‘New’ AH’ers think about sales
‘Exploitation not feasible’
ROTTERDAM – Various ex-C1000 entrepreneurs who are now active under the AH flag are considering selling their supermarket. “Even with a subsidy from AH, profitable operation is not feasible,” says lawyer Jeroen Sterk, in Distrifood – an independent newspaper for supermarkets.
As a legal adviser, the lawyer from the Rotterdam firm of Ludwig & van Dam assists various ‘new’ AH entrepreneurs. The lawyer does not want to say how many entrepreneurs are negotiating with AH about the sale of their supermarket. ‘It concerns several entrepreneurs who, after conversion, have to deal with heavily loss-making operations. Albert Heijn does come to their aid with subsidies, but even with that a profitable operation is not feasible,’ says Sterk .
The option to sell the store back to AH is the last life buoy for those entrepreneurs, albeit an unattractive one. In this way, they risk incurring a double loss. They have suffered serious damage in the operation and, because of the existing agreements on goodwill compensation, are also at risk of having to sell their shop at a much lower price. At the beginning of this year, Wim Brouns from Helmond already sold his shop back to AH because the switch from C1000 to AH cost him €70,000 in turnover per week.
In addition to talks about selling shops, AH is at risk of ending up in legal proceedings with various entrepreneurs. The supermarket company has already received the first summons and, according to Sterk , more are being prepared. It concerns an entrepreneur who reproaches AH that the company has issued careless turnover forecasts and that it does not feel sufficiently responsible for the damage suffered. AH has now responded to that summons. Sterk is not impressed by that reply. “AH thinks it has done enough to limit the damage.” The case is now expected to be continued before the (civil) court. Whether that leads to a verdict is uncertain. In many cases, the court will initially aim for a settlement.
Mr. J. Strong – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Mail to Sterk@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a