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

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Go to Top