FRANCHISE LAWSUIT: Herbrand et al v. Vapiano International LLC

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

3.  Conversion

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:


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:

Herbrand et al v. Vapiano International LLC




Franchise lawsuit, franchise lawsuits, Vapiano lawsuit, franchise litigation, franchise attorney, franchise law, Vapiano franchise, TIMO HERBRAND, Herbrand v. Vapiano International, Kent Hahne,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *