The hardness of a non-competition clause in bankruptcy
Most franchise agreements contain post-contractual non-competition clauses, meaning that the former franchisee may not operate in the industry in which he operates, whether or not limited to the former location, exclusive territory, or even broader designation. Does this clause now also work if the franchisor goes bankrupt?
In the event of bankruptcy of the franchisor, the trustee assumes the rights of the former franchisor. The trustee represents the interests of everyone involved in the bankruptcy, including the creditors. In his capacity, the trustee is entitled to demand compliance with the post-contractual non-competition clause. Contrary to popular belief, the franchisee is therefore not released from its non-compete obligations on the grounds that the franchisor has gone bankrupt.
However, bankruptcy does not just happen. It is not uncommon for the franchisor’s conduct to be relevant to the cause of the bankruptcy. If that is the case, the franchisees suffer damage that can in principle be attributed to the franchisor. This line can then be extended to the trustee. The franchisees can therefore hold the trustee liable for the damage suffered. An important condition for successfully addressing the trustee is that the estate offers the necessary redress. That is not always the case. However, it is indeed possible for franchisees to do what is necessary against the invocation of the non-compete clause by the receiver. In practice, this usually leads to consultation between the trustee and the franchisees, in which an arrangement is reached that is satisfactory to all parties. However, a satisfactory settlement is never really realized in a bankruptcy. Damage has occurred for all parties, and there is usually little choice but to limit the negative consequences as much as possible. Alert franchisees are therefore advised to take the right steps in the event of an impending bankruptcy, as outlined earlier in this section.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.