Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements that the franchisor makes about a proposed restructuring of the franchisor’s organization, as has recently been determined in court.
In the internal franchisor organization, drastic changes can sometimes be made in the structure and governance. It therefore not only concerns changes in brand strategy, but also, for example, with regard to (collective) purchasing conditions and the entanglement of interests with purchasing organizations or competitors. All this can mean that a lot will change for franchisees.
The following case happened recently. A franchisor of a do-it-yourself formula was looking for support from its franchisees for its restructuring plans. Initially, there was insufficient support for the intended restructuring. When the franchisor wanted to adjust its restructuring plans, the question for various franchisees was what the adjustments would be. However, in the opinion of the franchisees, these questions were insufficiently answered. The franchisor went ahead with the restructuring, but the franchisees did not accept it. It came to a lawsuit. On that occasion, the Court of Appeal underlined the franchisor’s duty in such situations to inform its franchisees in a timely manner and in advance, generously and adequately about the changed restructuring plans.
Other case law also shows that franchisees must, under certain circumstances, be generously and adequately informed in the event of reorganizations within the franchisor’s organisation. In many cases, the franchisee’s association or franchise council takes this on. Of course that’s a good thing. The collective interests of the franchisees must then be parallel to the individual interests. In any case, individual franchisees should determine their own legal position for themselves.
Franchisees would do well to be alert, to keep in touch with the franchisor and to document the questions and answers in writing as well as possible. If it turns out that there was a misunderstanding or lack of clarity afterwards, it can be established on the basis of the documentation whether adequate and generous information was provided.
See also: The National Franchise Guide (click here)
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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.