Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to the in November
judge, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. The franchisees
accused the State Secretary of negligent weighing of interests
made. Where the Secretary of State submitted a bill to
protection of the franchisees, Sandd’s franchisees become in
the whole thing was left behind in the merger with PostNL by the same
Secretary of State.
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) says in a response that the
judgment of the Rotterdam court is a form of satisfaction, although
reversing the merger ‘unrealistic’. President Mario de
Koning: ‘But it is a paper settlement. We want our gram
and we have not been so much against the merger as against it
unilateral termination of contracts in the very short term. On a neat
saying goodbye to each other was not an issue. Some
franchisees had to liquidate their businesses. That has been a drama
for these family businesses.’ DeVFS has another civil case against Sandd
and PostNL at the court in Arnhem. Bet is an indemnity
for suffered (contract) damage.
See also the Financieele Dagblad of 12 June 2020 (download at the bottom right of this message).
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
Article in Entrance: “New owner”
“The catering company where I work has been taken over. The new owner now says that I no longer have to work for him, but can he refuse me as an employee?”
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.