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

The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?

On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

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.

Go to Top