Supermarkets COOP and PLUS merge
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.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled