The intended merger will mean that the COOP supermarkets will be converted to the PLUS formula. In that case, the supermarket entrepreneurs of COOP will become members of the cooperative of PLUS.

The proposed merger is subject to various approvals, including the following:

  • the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM);
  • the Council of Members of COOP;
  • the General Assembly of PLUS.

It is by no means certain in advance that these required approvals will be obtained without further ado. PLUS and COOP seem to expect few problems here and indicate that they will have completed the transaction in early 2022.

For the individual entrepreneurs of COOP and PLUS, the proposed change will have a major impact on their operations.

  • existing PLUS entrepreneurs may see a competitor appear under the same formula in their market area;
  • existing COOP entrepreneurs will have to convert the store, with all the associated costs and divestments.

In the meantime, numerous supermarket formulas have been taken over and “swallowed up”. These include Edah, Super de Boer, C1000, Emté and more recently DEEN. In each of those processes there were supermarket entrepreneurs who successfully resisted the transformation. Ludwig & Van Dam successfully assisted supermarket entrepreneurs.

  • See the successful resistance of an Emté entrepreneur who was forced to convert to COOP, but preferred to convert to PLUS: https://bit.ly/3jNrh8V
  • See also the successful resistance of an Albert Heijn entrepreneur against the conversion of a DEEN to the Albert Heijn formula: https://bit.ly/38KaVHY

Transition processes in supermarket formulas are complicated processes that can turn out very differently per supermarket entrepreneur and per market area. The legal merits are complex and often subject to short deadlines and with far-reaching consequences. Expert legal assistance to supermarket entrepreneurs is an absolute must here.

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a

By Ludwig en van Dam|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Article Franchise & Law No. 7 – Franchise agreement as general terms and conditions

Uniformity of the franchise formula and (therefore also) uniformity of the agreements with the franchisees will often be of great importance to the franchisor.

By Alex Dolphijn|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

The franchisee’s customer base

If the partnership between a franchisee and a franchisor ends, the question of who will continue to serve the customers may arise.

The healthcare franchisor is not a healthcare provider

The Healthcare Quality, Complaints and Disputes Act (WKKGZ) creates the possibility of government measures being imposed on healthcare institutions to guarantee the required quality of healthcare.

The restructuring within the Intergamma formats from a legal perspective

The legal reality is sometimes more unruly than the factual. The controversial issue at Intergamma is a good example of this.

Go to Top