Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?

The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated October 12, 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank) focused on the question whether the franchisor could claim the proceeds of the sale together with the bank with a departing franchisee. The franchisee was in serious payment arrears with the franchisor and the bank. In order to claim the proceeds of the sale and thus to pay off the debt(s), an agreement was concluded. The purpose of this was that the proceeds of the sale would be used to pay the franchisor and the bank. However, the court ruled that the proceeds must be divided among all creditors, given the bankruptcy of the franchisee. The franchisor and the bank will therefore make a mistake. 

What was going on? The (group company of the) franchisor had provided financing to the franchisee, whereby a right of pledge was also established on the goods delivered (by another group company). The bank also provided financing. The (group company of the) franchisor and the bank have made agreements between themselves and with the franchisee, on the basis of which a retention of title has been established against the stock. This retention of title would replace the existing right of pledge. The sale brings in a significant amount. 

The franchisee also files for bankruptcy and ends up in debt restructuring. If the sale had taken place under the lien, the proceeds would accrue to the franchisor and the bank. In other cases, the proceeds would fall into the estate, which the administrator will then distribute among all creditors. Then the franchisor, just like the bank, would (probably) receive much less.

The franchisor and the bank are therefore only fully entitled to the sale proceeds if the sale must be regarded as an exercise of the right of pledge. There must therefore be a right of pledge in respect of which the pledgee is authorized to proceed to enforcement and an agreement showing that the pledgee and pledgor have agreed that the pledgee sells the pledged goods in the context of the execution of that right of pledge. Because the right of pledge was replaced by a retention of title in a further agreement, precisely in the context of the clearance sale, there was no exercise of a right of pledge. An appeal to the sale proceeds on the basis of the retention of title also does not apply. The retention of title no longer existed, precisely because it expires with the sale.

The conclusion is that the franchisor and the bank have no claim to the sale proceeds, but the administrator can include it in the estate for the settlement of all joint creditors. Franchisors would do well to make sure that clearance agreements are legally sound. 

mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .

Other messages

Ludwig & Van Dam in De Nationale Franchisegids 2018

The basis of a franchise relationship is the franchise agreement. This contains a number of conditions that the parties must comply with.

Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten exhibitor (no. 2) at the franchise fair Onderneem ‘t! dated 19 & 20 April 2018

For more information click on the link below:

Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will present “Onderneem ‘t!” on April 19, 2018 at the franchise fair. a seminar on: “Improving the legal position of franchisees? About trends and developments in legislation and regulations.”

For more information click on the link below.

Duty of care franchisor in the pre-contractual phase

The District Court of Limburg ruled on 6 April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2016:2843, that the franchisor has a duty of care towards the prospective franchisee in the pre-contractual phase.

Franchisee avoids joint and several liability in private

In a judgment of 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2913, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled on the meaning of the clause in the franchise agreement stipulating that

Incorrect prognosis due to lack of location research

The District Court of The Hague ruled on 21 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor's forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor

Go to Top