The right must be used for the purpose for which it was written. The purpose of bankruptcy law is to prevent people or companies from continuing to accrue debt that they cannot pay off.

Bankruptcy law is often used by a franchisor as a means of pressure to induce the franchisee to pay promptly. If payment is not made on time, the franchisor immediately threatens to file for the bankruptcy of the franchisee. No room is left for a possible counterclaim or to contest the claim.
In short, the bankruptcy law indicates that bankruptcy can be declared when there are several creditors and the debtor is in a state in which he has ceased to pay. The requirement that there must be more than one creditor will often be met when a franchisor claims to have a claim against a franchisee. As a creditor, for example, the current account credit already counts. However, the fact that there are several creditors is not a sufficient condition to be declared bankrupt. In addition, there must also be a situation in which payment has ceased.

When a franchisee leaves an invoice unpaid and the franchisee has a reason for this, it is therefore advisable to properly communicate and record the reason for non-payment. If the franchisee does not pay for a reason, he is not in the situation that he has ceased to pay, so the reason must be known. In this way, the franchisee avoids being wrongly put under pressure to file for bankruptcy or, more annoyingly, that, after the franchisor has already filed for bankruptcy, the situation has to be explained to the court, where there is actually a discussion about the amount of the invoice or the quality of the service or goods provided.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017

On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Forecasts at startup franchise formula

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the

Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?

On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation

Transfer customer data to franchisor

In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.

Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?

The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,

By Alex Dolphijn|10-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”

Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.

Go to Top