Interview Mr. AW Doplphijn in Distrifood: “Legal consequences of merger Plus-Coop for entrepreneurs.” – dated September 12, 2021
“Dolphin hereby cites a theory that is also alive among various Plus and Coop entrepreneurs with whom Distrifood has spoken in recent days. For the smallest Coop stores with (too) low weekly turnover, there simply does not seem to be a future at Plus. Spar then seems to be the ultimate destination, also because Plus Holding owns 45 percent of Spar. Plus boss Duncan Hoy and Coop CEO Fred Bosch, of course, did not come up with the Spar theory during the virtual press conference about the impending merger, but when the duo says that there will always be optimization in the store base. of course the rumours. Especially when a target number of 550 supermarkets is mentioned in the same presentation, while the two parties currently manage 584 stores together.
…”
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email 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.