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
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled
Supermarket letter – 18
Can an entrepreneur be obliged to operate a different supermarket formula?