Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Sandd Franchisees Association (VFS) is fighting in court
Rotterdam announces the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to de
post-merger between PostNL and Sandd. The VFS blames the
minister to have made a careless weighing of interests. The
The position of the nine franchisees is completely ignored
through and after her decision. “Where Secretary of State Keijzer with the
bill for the Franchise Franchisees Act against
wants to protect franchisors, she lets in Sandd’s franchisees
standing out in the cold”, said Mario de Koning of the VFS.
Initially, the proposed merger was prohibited by the Consumer Authority
and Markt because a monopolist would emerge on the postal market.
State Secretary Keijzer rejected that ban by using
Article 47 of the Competition Act. She did, however, attach some conditions
On. For example, the merger must not cause a shock effect in the postal market and must
transition gradually. In that regard, the eleven thousand
deliverers who are now employed by Sandd will be employed by PostNL and
in this way the ‘vulnerable in society’ are protected.
The nine franchisees, who own more than 20% of Sandd’s network
operate, however, fall by the wayside. In fact, Sandd is after one
blatant breach of contract without adequate compensation for her
franchisees. These SME companies employ 3,000 mail deliverers
with an OVO contract and employs four hundred and fifty employees. It
could result in them being without any form of transition compensation and
guidance are dismissed. The majority of the merger is due to the merger
these ‘forget’ people to be on the street on February 1 or March 1
2020. Finally, not PostNL NV but PostNL Holding BV appears to be the
acquiring party. This is contrary to Keijzer’s decision. PostNL
NV is supervised by DNB and AFM, while PostNL Holding BV is not.
What does the VFS want?
The VFS is challenging the decision as long as the following is not met
conditions.
1. The franchisees will be entitled to the transitional arrangement for a
shocks to the postal market.
2. In this transitional arrangement, the existing franchise contracts, which
not expire until three or four years from now. That is an alternative
the franchisees receive a market compensation.
3. This compensation includes an amount for the redundant employees
sufficient guidance and offer a transition payment.
4. In the spirit of the decision, PostNL/Sandd takes the interests into account
of the three thousand mail deliverers, just as was done with the
Sandd delivery drivers.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond?
Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The benchmark for franchise forecasts – dated 29 May 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 19 March 2019, the Den Bosch Court of Appeal, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:1037, listed the case law of the Supreme Court on prognosis in franchising.
Franchise arbitration: too high a threshold? – mr. M. Munnik
When entering into an agreement, it is possible for the parties - contrary to the law - to designate a competent court. This also applies to the franchise agreement. Of this possibility
Franchise appeal for error due to incorrect forecasts and lack of support rejected – dated April 25, 2019 – mr. K. Bastian
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:697) on the question whether the mere fact that forecasts did not materialize justifies the conclusion that the franchisee has been shortchanged...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Increasing protection against recruiting franchisees” – dated 2 April 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
It is becoming increasingly apparent that recruited franchisees can be protected on the basis of the Acquisition Fraud Act.
The Franchise Association and Franchise Binding – Contracting 2019, No. 1
A contribution on common provisions in franchise agreements that require a franchisee to be a member of a franchisee's association.
Deception in recruiting a franchisee?
A ruling on whether the franchisor had made a misrepresentation when recruiting a franchisee.