The bankrupt franchisor
In the penultimate contribution to this column, the phenomenon “Franchisor in difficulties, what to do?” discussed. Recently, unfortunately, another bankruptcy has been declared for a leading franchise organization in its industry. Following on from the penultimate contribution, it will therefore now be discussed; what to do if the bankruptcy is a fact?
The first days after the bankruptcy order are often decisive for the answer to the question of whether a restart is possible. Although all emotions on the side of both the bankrupt franchisor and the franchisees are usually, and understandably, still very high, it is good to realize that a bankruptcy can also herald a new beginning by shaking off old ballast. A collective and integrated approach together with the curator can then offer an opening for a solution. A strong franchise association can then provide good services.
Incidentally, a franchise agreement does not automatically end due to bankruptcy, at least not if nothing has been arranged in this regard in the franchise agreement. The franchisee must set a reasonable term in writing to the trustee within which the trustee must indicate whether he still wishes to comply with the franchise agreement. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case. If the answer is yes, the trustee must also provide security for compliance. If there is no, or no positive, answer and/or insufficient security is provided, the franchise agreement may, in principle, be dissolved, i.e. if the failure to comply with it continues, and the franchisee may submit a claim for additional compensation. at the curator. Since that claim can only be paid if the preferential creditors have been paid, it is often not necessary to expect too much from that claim.
In addition, it is important to realize that due to the bankruptcy there is a wider power of settlement, so that it is sometimes worthwhile to submit a claim for that reason alone. For example, claims that are not yet due and payable and claims whose justification cannot be easily determined in advance can be settled (provisionally). However, a contractual exclusion from the set-off also remains in force in the bankruptcy. Such an appeal to set-off must also be made in writing, clearly indicating which claims and debts will be set off. If the claim for compensation is contested by the trustee, it will eventually have to be litigated, if it is worthwhile doing so.
If a collective restart scenario is not possible, the franchisee in subletting situations will have to assess for himself to what extent his company is still viable on its own or by joining another organisation. In subletting situations, it is also important to determine whether and under what conditions the main tenancy rights can be obtained. This may require intensive negotiations with the owner of the property and the trustee.
Finally, in the case of a restart, one should always realize that the bankruptcy in principle also leaves the post-contractual obligations, such as a non-competition clause, unaffected. After all, the trustee can retain an interest in the sale of the formula and thus retain the establishments. It is therefore not self-evident that a restart can be made without or with a competing organization. In this respect too, agreement must be reached with the trustee, or suspension and/or ineffectiveness of the post-contractual prohibition of non-competition must be claimed.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
![238shatter](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/238shatter.jpg)
Other messages
Supermarket newsletter -28-
Supermarket newsletter -28-
Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020
As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.
Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.