Franchisees are also increasingly setting up private limited companies. Usually prompted by reasons of a fiscal nature. However, not all franchise agreements are tailored to the fact that the franchisee is no longer a natural person, but a private company. This can lead to all kinds of ambiguities. For example, to whom are the obligations in the franchise agreement addressed insofar as they are personal in nature? Is the quality of the management sufficiently guaranteed?

It is therefore recommended in such a situation to carefully check the text of the franchise agreement and to adjust it if necessary, or to agree on an addition to it.

A problem of a different nature is that due to the contribution of the franchise company to a private limited company, recourse against the private assets of the franchisee is no longer possible. It is therefore wise to make additional arrangements for this with the director and major shareholder of the private limited company. Examples include guarantees and/or joint and several liability.

Finally, franchise organizations benefit from knowing who is being franchised with. In the case of a private company, this is by no means certain. After all, the articles of association can contain many provisions whereby the shares can be alienated and/or the control in the private limited company is transferred to another person or pledged. In the worst case, the bank and/or the competitor can exert a major influence on the franchise business to be operated. It is therefore also recommended that the contribution of a franchise agreement be partly dependent on the prior approval of the articles of association of this company. By amending the articles of association and/or additional provisions regarding the control of the company in the franchise agreement itself, an attempt can be made to create more guarantees against unintentional alienation of the franchise company.

Of course, when amending the franchise agreement and/or amending the articles of association, it should always be remembered that the franchise entrepreneur remains independent and does not create a disguised employment contract because too much influence is exerted on the franchisee’s business. From a competition law perspective, the formation of cartels must also be prevented. If both franchisor and franchisee properly consider the mutual opportunities, threats and opportunities in advance when entering into a franchise relationship with a private limited company and/or contributing the existing franchise business to a private limited company, then the risk is minimized that third parties unintentionally exercise influence on the franchise company and/or it is unclear who has which obligations, as well as recourse in problem situations appears to be illusory.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

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: , , |
Go to Top