A franchise lawsuit was filed against Vapiano international LLC on January 16, 2013 in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division
The franchise lawsuit complaint document for TIMO HERBRAND, VAP ISTANBUL RESTORAN ISLETMELERI LTD., Plaintiffs, v. VAPIANO INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant is available in PDF format at the bottom of this post.
Herbrand et al v. Vapiano International LLC seeks relief for:
1. Breach of contract
2. Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
4. Vicarious Liability for Turkish Law Violations
The Plaintiffs are seeking awards for damages and awards for punitive damages in the area of $2,000,000
The Herbrand et al v. Vapiano International LLC complaint alleges:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action stems from the deliberate, willful actions of Defendant and its agents to breach Plaintiffs’ bargained -for right to exclusively operate Vapiano restaurants in Turkey and to cheat Plaintiffs out of millions of Euros in lost profits.
2. Pursuant to a Development Agreement signed in November 2006, Defendant granted Plaintiff Herbrand and his associates the right to open ten Vapiano restaurants in Turkey and the right to be the exclusive operator of Vapiano restaurants in Turkey. Yet, after Plaintiffs had opened only one restaurant, Defendant went behind Plaintiffs’ backs to assist a third party in opening competing Vapiano restaurants in direct breach of the Development Agreement. On top of this, Defendant misappropriated funds and confidential financial information from Plaintiff VAP Istanbul in order to open and operate the competing restaurants.
3. Defendant was able to carry out this scheme because of double-dealing by its agent, Kent Hahne (“Hahne”), who, at all relevant times, served both as President of Defendant Vapiano International and as a shareholder in a joint venture formed with Plaintiff Herbrand and others to exclusively operate Vapiano restaurants in Turkey.
Hahne advantaged Defendant to the detriment of Plaintiffs, encouraging Plaintiff Herbrand and his associates to halt development, while at the same time working to open competing restaurants.
In furtherance of this plan, Hahne directed Ertan Kirimselioglu, then-General Manager of Plaintiff VAP Istanbul, to misappropriate funds and information, without the knowledge of Plaintiffs, to open the competing restaurants.
The actions of Hahne and Defendant were intentional, deceptive and evidence a complete lack of good faith in their dealings with Plaintiffs.
Read the lawsuit (PDF) here:
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE VAPIANO FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY OR VAPIANO INTERNATIONAL LLC?
PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
Franchise lawsuit, franchise lawsuits, Vapiano lawsuit, franchise litigation, franchise attorney, franchise law, Vapiano franchise, TIMO HERBRAND, Herbrand v. Vapiano International, Kent Hahne,