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
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee