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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.