Franchisees who litigate on behalf of a dissolved and/or bankrupt general partnership –

By Published On: 24-06-2016Categories: Statements & current affairs

If the franchisee is a general partnership and the general partnership is dissolved, can litigation still take place? And what if one of the partners is bankrupt?

On 15 June 2016, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant clarified in two cases (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2016:3732 and ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2016:3723) against the same franchisor, when on behalf of a dissolved vof ( general partnership) can be litigated.

The situations in both lawsuits are similar. Two people had entered into a franchise agreement together in the form of a general partnership as a franchisee. After the general partnership has been dissolved, the two partners jointly start proceedings against the franchisor.  In one case (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2016:3732) it was also discussed that the general partnership had gone bankrupt and the partners had been granted the statutory debt rescheduling scheme (WSNP).

A partnership has no legal personality. It is a legal relationship entered into by agreement for the purpose of conducting a business under a common name in a long-term partnership. Despite the lack of legal personality, a general partnership is treated in legal transactions as an independent legal subject with separate assets that can independently participate in legal transactions.

With the dissolution of a general partnership, a so-called property law community remains. This community needs to be settled. It is absolutely possible to act in the capacity of partners in a community of a dissolved general partnership, and therefore not in the capacity of partner. Pursuant to Article 3:171 of the Dutch Civil Code, each partner is in principle authorized to institute legal proceedings in order to obtain a court decision for the benefit of the – in this case dissolved, but still existing – community. In short, the mere circumstance that a general partnership has been dissolved does not mean that no successful procedure can be started.

The foregoing also explains that a general partnership, although it has no legal personality, can be declared bankrupt as such. The bankruptcy of a general partnership does not imply bankruptcy of the partners. See also HR 6 February 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:251.

Pursuant to Section 25 Fw in conjunction with Section 68 Fw, only the trustee, after authorization from the supervisory judge, is authorized to institute legal proceedings relating to rights of the estate of the dissolved general partnership. Litigation on behalf of a bankrupt general partnership is therefore, in principle, reserved for the trustee. The partners cannot then start proceedings.

Although a partner in a dissolved community of a partnership would be authorized to litigate if the partnership were not bankrupt, a partner cannot do so if the WSNP has been declared applicable to this partner. Also with regard to this, pursuant to Section 313 Fw in conjunction with Section 25 Fw, only their administrator is entitled to institute legal proceedings, after permission from the supervisory judge.

From the foregoing it appears that if a franchisee is a general partnership and the general partnership has been dissolved, the partners can, in principle, litigate as joint partners before the community. If the partnership is bankrupt, or if the relevant partner is bankrupt or has been admitted to the WSNP, this is in principle not possible.

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

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

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?

Go to Top