Erasibo

This is the third article in our series on franchising (especially restaurant franchising). Best to familiarise yourself with our other articles which sets our tone.

Commercial banks are part of legitimate business. We trust them with our savings, we store our incomes in them, and we borrow money from them, all the time assuming that the transactions are legitimate and reasonable and regulated to some extent. We rely on them for every aspect of functioning of civilised life-homes, cars, business, school fees and personal events.  We also expect that they will exercise reason in their interactions with us because their survival depends on the patronage of their clients. So their responses to us are based on good credit lending praFFrctices and when banks make errors in planning, governments are hard pressed not to finance their recovery with taxpayer’s money, as in the case of the US recently. Banks are essential to the stability of our economy; citizens and the banks share a common investment in our economic future.

But have banks gotten too big for us. Do they represent something untouchable? So when they repossess homes and cars in a panic about the money that is being lost like a waterfall without following the specified due processes outlined in those contracts is this acceptable under the circumstances or is this just a case of bullying. And what really is their responsibility as the credit provider?

In responding to this question I will share with you our own insightful experience with the banking environment recently, which has been the cause of much debate within our own inner circle.

We took out a loan to finance a franchised restaurant. After the bank evaluated our application they informed us that we were not disadvantaged enough to qualify for any form of BEE preferences (the words used were “not black enough”). This opinion of the banks was nether policy nor constitutionally justifiable. However, we were in love with the business idea, so we didn’t make a scene. We put up 40% of the financing required for the franchised restaurant we wished to buy. The bank confirmed that it had done a due diligence on the restaurant and the franchisor and was extremely happy with the results and would finance the deal.

In fact the franchisor was so highly credible to the bank, that the bank offered them great deals on banking and transacting facilities for their franchisees and they offered the group an approved financing facility for all new franchise restaurant setups. Since we knew what the obligations placed on the bank were by law to thoroughly assess any new deal we felt extremely confident in all the new “benefits” the bank was offering the franchisor.

So when the figures provided to us and the bank by the franchisor turned out to be deliberately exaggerated and show that a fraud was committed by the franchisor so as to ensnare us in the business deal the issue of what exactly is the responsibility of banks in this circumstances was raised by us. The answer apparently is that the banks have no obligation. The bank completed a FICA assessment of the franchisor; their results didn’t cry out any kind of foul – it should have. There was evidence of their foul practice’s aplenty, which at the time was outside of our sphere of access.

Now that the bank is aware that there was a fraud committed by the franchisor does it discontinue giving out loans to new franchisees wishing to purchase restaurants in the same group or does it blacklist the group? No of course it does not.

Granted our matter hasn’t been to trial yet, but we can supply details (irrefutable forensic evidence) to the banks legal department and they can make a judgment about the caliber of clients they want to maintain or their obligation to new investors. If the bank continues to give out loans to unsuspecting buyers wishing to take up opportunities within the same group, would the new franchisees be able to sue the bank for facilitating a fraud since the bank has knowledge that the franchisor is suspected of fraudulent behaviour?

At the very least the bank should consider suspending any new deals pending our case going to trial and being decided on, because should we win our case the franchisor may not be able to operate anymore and new franchisees would be placed at risk of defaulting on their loans, which is a risk to the banks bottom line.

At the very minimum this franchisor has committed FICA fraud? Should the bank not have called in SARS immediately? The bank leverages their risk on personal sureties signed by borrowers – the franchisees, so whatever happens with the business, the bank will get its money one way or the other. But should they? The National Credit Act outlaws irresponsible lending and by this it means that the banks assessment of whether a borrower is suitable for credit has to do with an assessment of the borrower’s ability to pay. If the borrowers ability to pay has everything to do with the business’s capacity to generate a certain profit, and the business was in fact never able to do that as the figures provided were a fake. Is the bank not responsible for irresponsible credit provision?

I’m not suggesting that the banks share responsibility for your business decisions or mine. You go to the bank for financing not buying into your idea. But they do have a role to play in not perpetuating a fraud when they know about it and they do have a job to ensure that there facilitation is not being used for money laundering or other such activities. The new Consumer protection Act certainly talks to the issue of facilitating fraud and specifies the right to have contracts cancelled in this case. What does that mean for a bank that knowingly provides financing to fraudulent franchisors. Can those loans be cancelled and they held responsible for the transaction?

On the cross side asking the banks to take more responsibility will be ensuring that loan facilities become even harder to access and you will pay for this risk in the repayments.

If you are hoping to see your banker as a partner in your business, best check out the development bankers, such as the Industrial Development Corporation or National Empowerment Fund. Since they accept a high percentage of risk they are better at evaluating the risk with you. If the business collapses they lose their cash too. So if you have to go after a franchisor that has defrauded you have a big partner on your side and you are out a considerably less amount of cash.