Erasibo Consulting

Whether you are considering buying a business for a few thousand rand or for a few million rand or whether you are considering starting up a business, a due diligence exercise will prove most useful in providing you with a degree of peace of mind prior to putting pen to paper on the business agreement.

I want to stress that regardless of the size of the deal and regardless of who the parties to the deal are, make sure you undertake a due diligence. I will always advocate for the most thorough due diligence you can afford, this is money, time and effort you should spend in order to save you money, time and effort later. Also remember, you often get the value of service you pay for, so don’t cut corners.

In researching this article I have been staggered to see how little information is readily available on public platforms on the subject of due diligence. What is available is very pricey and usually only talks to high level issues. This is worrying considering how vital a due diligence exercise is, especially to the first time business owner.

What is Due Diligence?

For the purposes of this article, Due Diligence should be understood as an exercise to be undertaken as part of the purchase of a new business. Simply put, due diligence is an investigation into a business with the purpose of proving to the initiator of the due diligence (typically the buyer) whether the facts offered up by the other party to the deal (typically the seller) are in fact a true reflection of the business.

Who should do the Due Diligence?

In order to do a due diligence well you will need two key role players:

1. Professional Assistance: Due Diligence’s exercises are technical in nature and if you have the funds available make use of a professional firm that has done these types of exercises before. Apart from all the certificates and client references that you will get from the firm you hire, check to see if any of the people who will work on your due diligence have ever run businesses before – you cannot under estimate the value of experience.
2. You: Your personal involvement in the due diligence process is vital. The professionals you bring on board work for you, but will not always understand, amongst other issues, precisely what your vision is for the business, what your appetite is for risk is and how you would deal with problems that will be encountered.

I would encourage a more hands on, engagement with your team so that at the end of the day you are getting a due diligence report that will allow you to take an effective decision. You don’t just want a report that says, “Yes do it” or “No don’t do it”. A due diligence is not simply a synopsis on the business you want to acquire or startup. In fact your due diligence report (which will be a detailed report on all aspects of the investigation) can serve as a great tool for guiding your future business plans and strategies for the business should you acquire it.
Some finance houses and banks will offer to do a due diligence for you. Be wary of this service; be wary of any due diligence exercise where the companies doing the exercise for you will profit from your deal outside of the fee you pay for the due diligence.

A Due Diligence Model

Non-Disclosure Agreement

The due diligence exercises should always start with a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). Characteristics of the NDA that you should be aware of are:

• The NDA is to be signed between yourself and the seller.
• This agreement essentially protects both parties from the having their confidential business information made public.
• A confidentiality period must be specified. Please remember that the confidentially clause does not apply to illegal activity.
• The NDA should talk to you requiring a Due Diligence and it should specify the high level areas that the Due Diligence will cover. The seller must agree to this. If the seller does not agree to this, walk away.

Due Diligence Areas

A good due diligence exercise will cover the following nine areas1. In addition you (or your team) will need to acquire from the seller the following documents for your due diligence exercise. These documents should be made available to you quickly as the seller should already have these available. If the seller is unable or unwilling to provide this information this would be a cause for serious concern. The fundamentals of running a good business are record keeping.

: *please note the Due Diligence Item column is not exhaustive*

Due diligence is your safety belt, often you only realize that you need it, when the deal has gone sour and your business is in crisis. Do not make that mistake and overlook this process.

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

Continuing on our series of articles on the franchise industry in South Africa, we want to look at the Consumer Protection act and what it’s impact is on the franchise industry?

The Consumer Protection Act is the second major development in favour of consumer protection in recent years. The first being the National credit Act which is designed to improve transparency; prohibit unfair contract terms and practices; and prohibit anti-competitive practices. The Consumer Protection Act is designed to protect consumers from exploitation and unfair practices by unscrupulous businesses, and to empower consumers to make wise purchasing decisions. Together these Acts entrench the protection of consumers as prescribed under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Rights of Consumers

Under the act, franchisees are regarded as “consumers” and franchisors as “suppliers.” Franchisees are given a number of consumer rights, including the right to equality, privacy, choice, information, disclosure, fair and responsible marketing, honest dealing, fair agreements, fair value, good quality, safety, and supplier accountability. Franchisees are also protected against undue influence or pressure; unfair tactics; and false, misleading, or deceptive representations concerning material facts. This would also apply to the contracting arrangements between franchisor and franchisee.

Franchise Agreements

Under the Act a franchise agreement is defined as an agreement where a franchisor grants to a franchisee for consideration a right to carry on business under a system or marketing plan substantially determined or controlled by the franchisor. In addition, the franchisee’s business is substantially or materially associated with advertising schemes or programs or with the trademarks of the franchisor, or any combination of these that are licensed to the franchises. The agreement must be in writing and signed by at least the franchisee. The Act allows for a cooling of period of 10 business days, wherein a franchisee may cancel a franchise agreement they have signed without incurring any cost

The right to full disclosure is entrenched in the Act. This is in recognition of the number of cases where franchisees had been devastated financially after investing their life savings into franchises that were sold to them on the premise that the franchises would be far more profitable than they ever actually would be. Under the act, franchisors will be required to disclose certain information to prospective franchisees, as provided in regulations to be promulgated by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Monopoly on the Supply of Goods

Currently, franchisees in South Africa have limited protection against unfair practices by franchisors under that country’s Competition Act, particularly in relation to the tying or bundling of unrelated products by a dominant franchisor or when it comes to exclusive dealing. Complaints stemming from these activities are, however, difficult to prove, and the franchisor in question has to be dominant or have market share.

The Act has taken the foregoing prohibitions in South Africa’s Competition Act and applied them regardless of whether the franchisor is dominant. The new law prohibits bundling or tying of products by a franchisor, unless the franchisor can show either (i) that the bundling results in economic benefits for consumers or (ii) that the convenience of bundling outweighs any restriction on consumer choice. Alternatively, the bundled goods or services must be offered separately and at individual prices.

The Act guards the right to consumer choice by generally providing that franchisors must not require, as a supply condition or as a condition of entering into an agreement, that the franchisee purchase goods or services from the franchisor or from any other designated supplier. It is a valid defense to show that products or services that the franchisee was required to purchase are reasonably related to the branded products or services that are the subject of the franchise agreement. It remains to be seen how closely linked to the brand “reasonably related” will need to be to excuse such a requirement by a franchisor. As a result, many franchisors will no longer be able to be the sole supplier of goods and services to a franchisee, unless it can be shown that the products and services are “reasonably related” to the brand.

Franchisors should take care to ensure that products and services essential to the protection of their brand are explicitly listed in their franchise agreements, to reduce any later issues regarding interpretation. In other words, the Act suggests that franchise agreements provide for core and non-core products. Core products or services would be the primary, unique products related to the brand.

With regard to transitional provisions, it appears that the Act will not apply to pre-existing franchise agreements (or transactions) entered into before the general effective date, expected to be October 2010. However it will apply to renewals of contracts. The Act highlights a number of factors relating to fair and honest dealings and unfair unreasonable and unjust contract terms. The Act allows for the cancellation of contracts, whole or part should it be deemed to have contravened these principles as detailed in the Act.

Closing

The Act will have huge implications for the franchise industry. For while it has boomed has also become a place for corrupt, fly by night operations.  The Franchise Association of South Africa has expressed concern with regard to the implication of the Act and the burden it will place on its members. This is a concerning position as the Act can only create credibility for the franchise industry by ensuring that it closes the gap for illegitimate franchisors to operate.

Surely this would be a benefit to FASA, to cleanse the industry of undesirable operators. Franchisors who lack the capacity for adequate, transparent contracting and operations shouldn’t be selling off franchises. Organisations like FASA shouldn’t be accepting these franchisors as members or providing a potential front for their operations.

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.

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

In this article we look at the rare instance of being the first franchisee. In our move into the franchise game we were approached to be the first franchisee of a new concept of stores for an established restaurant chain – the chain we are currently suing. We turned down that deal these are some of our thoughts on being the “ground breaker”

Starting a business is a tall order for most people and even a scary prospect especially for non-entrepreneurs hence the preference of starting with a proven model where the concept, business plan, and operating system are already put together in a franchise package.

However every franchise system has a first franchisee. The groundbreakers or icebreakers if we may call them, are the people who risk it all in pursuit of success and financial excellence.

And as important as success is to the first franchisee, it’s even more important to the franchise company. Their future growth will depend to a great extent on the validation and results of the first franchisee.

These are just some points to consider regarding getting involved with a startup franchise outfit, or an outfit that are expanding into new untested markets.

• Ground breaker: The first franchisee is comparable to being a first child. Being first means getting all the extra attention that normally comes with the position. The challenging thing is that the first child has to break the ice on every little thing. This makes it much easier for the children that come later, but it’s sometimes a real pain for the first child. They have to effectively train the parents to be reasonable and have realistic expectations, and this is often the same dynamic at play between the franchise company and the first franchisee.

• Acceptance of risk: As a first franchisee, you must be much more accepting of risk than a normal investor. Bold and brave, you should also be the type of person who’s willing to deal with a more fluid situation, where changing and adapting to unforeseen circumstances is a welcome part of business development. The first franchisee is usually a true entrepreneur and, much more so than later franchisees, is a partner with the franchise company in the development of the franchise system.

• Comfortable with uncertainty: It’s essential for both you and the franchise company to understand the unique role the first franchisee plays. The first franchisee is a person who’s comfortable with the uncertainty involved in being the groundbreaker for a system. The good news is that you’re undoubtedly going to receive a great deal of extra support from very senior staff of the franchise company. The bad news is that you’re going to represent a learning environment for the franchise, and you need to be accepting of that role.

• Learn by making some mistakes: Have realistic expectations. No matter how well the franchise prototype operations have performed, it’s going to be different running the first franchise unit. You aren’t going to intuitively understand everything about the business, and both you and the franchisor are going to learn by making some mistakes. There must be a fair amount of open and frank communication about what areas of the business are set in stone, and what areas will involve testing and learning as you build your business.

• Fair deal: The reality is that the franchisor is going to be using you as a learning tool. So both sides need to be reasonable about who should pay what in terms of “tuition” for this schooling. Though the support level given to the first franchisee is typically much more significant than for later franchisees, other value factors, such as the system documentation, are probably not going to be nearly as well defined or developed as they’ll be later. When negotiating the franchise agreement and other financial considerations, you should address these factors. Both you and the franchisor must feel the deal is fair and proper.

The following are the pros and cons of being the first franchisee:

Pros

• Availability of open territories: One advantage is the availability of open territories. The market has to be completely open.Today certain markets are closed and gaining entry into them is some what cumbersome however due diligence in research, realization and utilization of open markets can bring huge success to the franchisee. Give an example. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by an open market

• Financially sound franchisor: A financially sound franchisor committed to growing the franchise, and committed to the franchisees can be invaluable to the franchisee. The franchisor’s commitment has to be unquestionable as the first franchisee would rely on their support more so than later franchisees when systems are in place. (rephrase this- and the absence of such would be a tonic for disaster.  )

• Franchisor participation in risk sharing: Your success as a first franchisee is as crucial to you as to the franchisor because not only will you provide a bench mark of proven systems you will also provide a basis for a successful track record. To this regard the franchisors are likely to shoulder a larger risk in the business and operations than they would with later franchisees.

• Investor participation in risk sharing only a private investor would come on board with an unproven concept: Investors like the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) who come on board as partners until the loan is repaid provide the much needed security for first franchisees considering the unproven systems and franchisor inexperience in dealing with franchisees and the business expansion itself.

Disadvantages

• No proven systems: You can receive a lot of glory and recognition for your part in advancing the franchise system, but there are certainly trade offs. You won’t have other franchisees to consult with that have already traveled the path before you. You’ll have lots of support and assistance, but the support won’t be tested and proven on others, so mistakes are going to be made. You’ll have to make your decision to get involved with the franchise without the benefit or assurance provided by an existing system with a number of successful franchisees, and that increases the risk of getting involved.

• Expandable concept: The biggest thing you want to look for is a concept that is expandable; your best bet today is really researching the franchise opportunity for uniqueness. Does the concept have a niche, or is it a blatant copy of another concept? Can you set yourself apart from your competitors? Unless the concept is expandable, franchisees are not able to extract value out of the transaction. However most people looking to buy into a franchise  don’t consider such a crucial factor hence they buy into already saturated lines of business like the fast food outlets.

• Chances of obtaining finance: The chances of obtaining finance from any institution on an unproven concept are slim if not next to nothing and the prevailing economic conditions have forced the crafting of more stringent criteria for obtaining finance. A business which has less than ten operating outlets is usually not considered a bankable franchise entity hence making it difficult for first franchises.

Perhaps the best approach for expanding the franchise model is to open up these initial franchises as partnerships between franchisor and franchisee. This protects both interests. From a franchisor perspective they get to protect their investment and further expansion of a new model and for a franchisee, you get the support and investment needed to set up and test a new business concept.

The sharing of risk is the safest and fairest approach to expanding a franchise concept model.