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
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
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.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.