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

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.

By Jeroen Sterk|02-11-2017|Categories: Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Goodwill at end of franchise agreement

In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the

Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee

An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the

Go to Top