Franchise Operators Deal With Kleins Jewellery Bankruptcy

AUSTRALIA (Blue MauMau) - Australian franchise chain Kleins Jewellery seems to be heading towards bankruptcy and experts and franchisees are only now beginning to grapple with what to do when their franchisor may be no more.

Kleins started business importing and retailing affordable jewelry 24 years ago and started franchising in the early 1990s. By 2008 Kleins had 50 company owned stores and 150 franchisees in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It was an international success story. Testament to this was that the franchise is listed as one of only 20 ‘Accredited Franchise Systems’ whose franchisees the National Australia Bank (Australia’s biggest bank) will let ‘franchisees borrow up to 70% of the total set up cost of a new franchise, or purchase cost of an existing franchise, without necessarily providing your home as collateral for the loan.’

Kleins should not fail, but, the lower to middle end of the jewellery market (Kleins’ tagline is ‘looking good costs so little’) is becoming increasingly competitive.

The Kleins Group comprises 3 companies.

  1. Kleins Franchising Pty Ltd - the franchisor,
  2. The Jewellery Chain Pty Ltd - that owns the Kleins trademarks and is the head lessee for all 200 of the Kleins shops,.
  3. JDA Imports Pty Ltd.- the importer and supplier of stock to franchisees and company owned stores

Franchisees sign a franchise agreement with Kleins Franchising, licences to use the Kleins trademarks and occupy their retail premises through The Jewellery Chain, and source their stock through JDA.

The Kleins bankruptcy process

An administrator was appointed to all 3 companies in the Kleins Jewellery franchise on 2 May 2008, just a few days before Mothers Day. In Australia Voluntary Administration, under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is a window of time when an administrator is appointed to the failing company. The administrator’s role it is to attempt to rescue the company from impending bankruptcy. There is plenty of information about the process on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) website.

Kleins news was conveyed by the media with headlines ranging from the prosaic ‘Kleins jewellery in administration’ (Sydney Morning Herald 5 May 2008) to the more colourful ‘Collapse exposes chink in the chain’ (Sunday Age 11 May 2008) and ‘When the ring of confidence falters’ (Sydney Morning Herald 17 May 2008) through to the one that would make you rush in to the store, pay off your lay bys and leave with the goods – ‘Kleins jewellery chain goes under with $20m owed’. (Inside Retailing 12 May 2008).

It appears that none of the 3 companies has lodged an Annual Return with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) since 2003. Kleins is thought to have debts of $A20m. It is alleged not to have passed on rent paid to it by franchisees, recently. This would put Kleins in breach of the relevant head leases. It is not known whether the franchisees provided the lease guarantees to the landlords for their franchised stores.

Some issues franchisees are grappling with.

  • Do I keep paying my rent and keep ordering stock?
  • What do I say to customers?
  • Does the Franchising Code of Conduct apply to administrators?
  • Am I a creditor?
  • Can I attend the creditors meeting in Melbourne? Or can I send a representative?
  • What can I do?
  • What next?

The administrators advertised the Kleins Group for sale on 9 May 2008, calling for expressions of interest by 12 May 2008.

The franchise agreement does not contain a provision permitting the franchisees to elect to terminate the agreement if an administrator is appointed to the franchisor, or one of the group. This means the franchisees do not have a ‘get out of jail free card’, and consequently do not have as much leverage s they might like with the administrator.

Does the Franchising Code of Conduct apply to administrators?

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is of the opinion that it does apply.This interpretation has not been tested in court. If it does apply, franchisees are ‘business consumers’ and entitled to remedies available under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) for breaches of the Franchising Code of Conduct.

If it does not apply, the administrator is regulated only by the Insolvency Practitioners Association’s Code of Professional Conduct and by its obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Are franchisees creditor?

Possibly, not necessarily.

In Kleins, some franchisees are creditors (are owed money by one of the 3 Kleins companies) and all are possibly debtors (owe money for stock or rent or store outgoings).

  • What would make a franchisee a creditor?
    1. The Kleins franchise agreement contained a guarantee that if annual turnover did not reach a certain level, the franchisor would pay the franchisee an agreed sum of money. Anecdotally, many franchisees received or were entitled to receive these payments. For this money, they are a creditor.
    2. At least one of the franchisees formally mediated for the franchise guarantee and the franchisor signed a formal IOU. That franchisee is a creditor for the unpaid part of this money.
    3. Small amounts will be owing to franchsiees by the supplier of the group in respect of the inevitable occasional faulty items of jewellery.
    4. May be a creditor in relation to any rent payments that the franchisor received from the franchisee but did not pass on to the landlord - arguably held by the franchisor in trust.

    What can the Kleins franchisees do?

    The legal alternatives seem to be reasonably unsatisfactory.

    • Wait and see.
    • Try to trigger a breach of the franchise (or one of the other agreements you entered into with the group). When the group member can not deliver, claim a right to terminate the agreement for breach, and walk away!
    • Keep honouring obligations under the franchise agreement and hope the administrator finds a buyer for the group.
    • For those franchisees that relied on the National Australia Bank’s endorsement, seek legal advice about avenues this might open up for you under the Trade Practices Act.

    No amount of due diligence by franchisees that signed on before 2004 would have given the franchisees any idea that the future of the Kleins group was not strong. Thus, the inevitable accusations that franchisees have only themselves to blame as they failed to conduct adequate due diligence, are not justified.

    The Kleins story raises so many issues. Changing trading environments, the regulators’ poor understanding of the complexities of the franchise model, the degree of risk accepted by franchisees, the limited value of pre contractual disclosure in the face of franchisor bankruptcy.

  • No votes yet

    Tags:

    There are no tags.

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    Who does Deacons / Stephen Giles represent?

    Prof. Buchan, I read today that Mr. Giles firm is returning money to f'zees which it had accepted as a retainer (though apparently not all of their money).

    But I recall reading recently that the law firm (Deacons) was representing the zor.

    I'm confused.

    Under Australian standards, can Deacons switch sides like this, or am I not properly understanding the attorney/client relationships?

    Thanks in advance for any insight.

    Paul Steinberg
    Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400

    Conflicts of interest?

    Paul,  The rules about conflict of interest apply in Australia. Let me do some of the due diligence that Stephen Giles in his former role as Chairperson of the FCA often chided disgruntled franchisees for not doing before I answer more fully.  Jenny Buchan, Australia

    Kleins is kaput

    It’s all over bar the shouting for the Kleins franchise group’s Australian and NZ operations.

    The 100 Kleins Group employees will receive some protection from a statutory income protection scheme known as GEERS .  The franchisees are without statutory protection.

    Is there any statutory recourse for franchisees of bankrupt franchisors in other jurisdictions the bluemaumau bloggers are familiar with?

    Jenny Buchan, Australia

    Mornin, Jen

    There probably isn't a legal remedy for what is really a business/market problem.

    The nicities of lease issue management and some feel good money to settle open accounts have already been discussed.

    If my speculations are correct, the franchisees won't have continuing lease liability unless they choose to keep the prmises and do something else wiht them (with the lessor's consent, of course).

    When markets change abruptly/fundamentally, there aint no going back to square one. Here in Texas we say that you just can't stuff the shyte back into the horse.--

    Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

    Richard on Leases in Bankruptcy

    Richard, in Ontario there is a provision to force the trustee to make a decision within 90 days about whether to disclaim a lease or not.  The Commercial tenancy act then gives the subtenant the ability to obtain the lease, consent of the landlord is not such a big deal.

    Any thing similar to that in Texas?

    Jen, there is a short piece in allbusiness about franchisees surviving the franchisor's bankruptcy.

    Michael Webster PhD LLB
    Franchise News

    Horses and Leases

    Richard and Michael

     Thanks for that local gem about horses Richard.. 

    Michael, if it's handy, can you send me a link to the relevant section of the Commercial Tenancy Act in Ontario?  How does that opportunity pan out in practice?  Thanks for that interesting link too.

      J Buchan, Australia

    Section 39 of the Commercial Tenancy Act

    Jenny, see: http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/l-7/20080515/whole.html#BK39

    How does it work out?

    Depends on the quality of counsel and organization of the franchisees.

    Here is a nice example, in which counsel for the Moneybest and Shoe Franchisees , brought and won the section 39(2) application, gained their leases, and tossed their franchisor.  (Notice that they actually lost the main legal case, but won the war for the leases.)

    Michael Webster PhD LLB
    Franchise News

    Ontario Commercial Tenancy Act

    Thanks for the link and the citation Michael.  Kleins leases have been disclaimed and apparently the franchisor was subsidising the franchisees' rent on a wide scale - quite a strange adaptation of the franchise model and proved not to be a sustainable one. The franchisor owed $1.5million to landlords at the time of its administration - ie 3 months' rent per store.  Jenny Buchan, Australia

    Bankruptcy in the USA is a Federal matter, not state.

    Under the Act, Chapter 11 (Reorganization) the debtor has a limited period of time within which to reaffirm or reject executory agrements. I don;t know if that is the case in a dissolution proceeding under Chapter 7.

    Pending that decision, the franchisee should meet with the landlord and work out their deal to be put into effect when the time is ripe. --

    Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

    Bankruptcy

    Bankruptcy is federal in Canada too; there are just overlapping jurisdictions with some provincial laws.

    Michael Webster PhD LLB
    Franchise News

    Recent developments in Kleins administration

    Over the weekend the majority, if not all, of the Kleins franchisees received a Notice of Default claiming payment for allegedly unpaid stock.

    If payment is not made within 14 days the administrators apparently intend to terminate the franchise agreements of those who do not pay.

    Intersestingly, at least some of the franchisees they have been invoiced for stock that they have not received, yet this is being used as a termination trigger against them.

    A number of franchisees believe they have been forced to accept an "overstocking" of their stores; now they think they know why as the administrators refuse to accept any returns of stock.

    This would appear to be the death knell for the Kleins group - when one of the most significant assets the administrator has to sell is the franchise group, setting up a mass termination appears to indicate a liquidation may be imminent.

    kleins

    the company went into liquidation today giving an expected 3-4 weeks until closure

    NAB endorsement?

    NAB refers to an accreditation process, but does not specify what this involves. How is this an endorsement, and has any previous case tried to hold NAB liable?

    NAB angst

    Dear Guest

     The accreditation process is detailed on the NAB website.  J Buchan, Australia

    A great deal of my practice is in the "fashion" industry.

    Subject to my assumptions being entirely false be cause I don't know the relationship of assets to liabilities, this is an excellent opportunity for the franchisees to quit the system.

    If Kleins is on the leases, and the franchisees sublease from Kleins, the fight is between Klein and the landlords, not between the franchisees and the landlords.

    If Kleins has also defaulted on leases for its company stores, the failure has made the name Kleins a pariah amongst the landlords.

    Junk jewelry (known in your parlance as "reasonably priced" jewelry) depends for its success upon the skill of the buyers. Kleins obviously knew how to buy. If the franchisees have stayed on over ten years without upheavel until recently, Kleins brought talent to the purchasing - something an administrator wil never have.

    It is more likely to be a liquidation than a reorganization if it is true that the business is being inundated by a wave of jewelry even junkier (more reasonably priced) than Kleins. De Gustibus Non Disputandem! The bottom of the junk jewelry barrel is known as bling in Texas.

    That probably means that it will not be practicable for the franchisees to continue in business independently anyway. If I am correct and they can walk the subleases on breach of contract over the Klein's failure to remain capable to perform the functional obligations of the franchisor, then they are home free - or maybe in a worst case mode will have to pay a little feel good money.  If there are franchisees with big payables for inventory delivered but not paid for, that could be an obligation to be dealt with, porbably with huge discounts for cash. They may need some talent in their choice of representation - all represented by the same lawyer would be strongly advisable..

    This brings back great memories of school days, when every student at my military college kept a bunch of Regimental Badges in his car as "closers" if his date seemed reluctant to make accomodations as it were. If you badged a girl, that meant that you were momentarily thinking about the possibility at some unspecified date in the future of becoming her steady Beau. When the poor girl got home and announced to her parents that she had been badged, the parents, knowing it was a scam, would roll their eyes back into their heads and just moan. --

    Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

    reason for decline of Kleins

    Richard, I think you may have hit the nail on the head.  I believe that originally Kleins was owned by 2 brothers - one (the skilful buyer) apparently died some years ago. 

    Something to add to the due diligence list when a franchisee is required to source stock through the franchisor's related company - who does the buying of stock?  How good are they at it?  How does a prospective franchisee measure these things? Jenny Buchan, Australia

    kleins

    jenny you are correct one of the brothers did die some years ago, however with the introduction of competition from other similar stores as well as many clothing stores now selling accessories the competition has just taken off. the company operates in new zealand and south africa but primarily in australia. the company is an enjoyable place to work, with a great support system however it has been in need of a 'refresh' in stock for a while.

    Jen, the entire fashion industry is like that

    You have to have someone with an "eye" Either it's a designer if you're a manufacturer or a buyer with an eye if you're a reseller. The eye is just a starter, You also have to know where the market is going "this year". In garments, a "wrong" shaped collar can ruin you for a year.

    If you are doing due diligence on any fashion business opportunity, you need to know that the nature of the business is that it is high risk - higher than non fashion/design businesses. Being able to buy elsewhere doesn't do you much good if you don't know what to buy, where to buy it and how to buy it.

    In the Klein model, however, it is Klein who has the lease exposure. Being the prime tenant can mean you are left holding the bag. Being the prime tenant and sub leasing to your franchisees is a control mechanism, better than a covenant not to compete in a business where the location is critically important. But when it goes bad, the franchisor is on the hook for the leases, not the franchisees - in a situation like this.

    That's why in the USA you don't find franchisors being prime tenants. Here you have the franchisee being prime with the landlord and the franchisor having the right to take the lease over if there is a defection. But it's the franchisor's option, not the franchisor's obligation. Big difference. You have to get the landlord's consent to that at the time the lease is signed if you want control. Later is often too late.--

    Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

    how to get spammed in German

    Since I started researching "Kleins" I am getting spammed in German as well as English. 

    Love the badging story.

     J Buchan, Australia

    Are you sure it's not Afrikans.

    Kleins is a South African company by origin, I believe.

    Tis lucky that you are, Jenny, that you did not know me when I was young.--

    Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

    Re: Are you sure it's not Afrikans.

    Kleins sth africa is owned by the one of the founders of kleins greg paul campbell's son's matthew and tim cambpell. they previously owned and ran timat imports from the kliens head office site in dandenong south. they moved out of this building on the weekend of anzac day while staff where away for the long weekend. they have now opened a new company called GDL accessories who are distributors of designer watches such as Hugo Boss, Kenneth Cole, Roberto Cavalli and more. Timat Imports was fully funded by Kleins and GDL also has a company in Hong Kong called GDL Imports which Kleins also funded and they were the company which co-oridinated all of kleins stock out of asia. Kleins has fully funded Matt and Tim's companys and has paid for ALL there outgoing expenses over the past 8 years or so. This is also one of the reasons why Kleins has been in a downward spiral.

    definitely not afrikaans

    Never believe anything you're told-It originated in Australia

    kleins

    Submitted something before, but I don't think it went through, not sure as I have never done this before.

    Anyway, the word kleins originates from the Dutch meaning little, so I can see where the Dutch/Afrikaan thing is coming from especially as Kleins has stores in Africa which are by the way all company owned, not franchise, so I wonder what has happened to those stores.

    Jenny your input was very interesting, as far as I can see, franchise
    owners have no comeback whatsoever and are at the moment just left waiting to see what happens and hoping for the best.

    kleins

    The stores in South Africa are company owned,you are right but not by JDA Imports,Kleins Franchising or the Jewellery Chain so they coninue to trade as normal and are not affected by the administration.

    Kleins SA

    Dear Guest

    You seem well informed.  Who does own the Kleins stores in South Africa? Do they rely on a licence granted by the TM owner for use of the name or do they trade under another name? Jenny Buchan, Australia

    Kleins

    As a past Franchise owner I can asure you that this company has been on a long down hill slide.

    They do own the rights over all stores.... no we did not have the lease on our stores and this is now the issue as well as if the franchise owners now do anything wrong they are them selves in breach of contract ... so stock is becomeing a issue 'no stock no sales'

    I am so glad to be out

    Junk jewelry is no more than a mere commodity.

    There is such a thing as  a super commodity in the sense that the glut is so huge that spending money to have a shop to sell it is just riidiculous.

    The globalization of markets and the flat earth labor theory - doing everything at the cheapest labor pool - coalesced to cause the collapse of notions of being able to market crap as jewelry while incurring operating expenses, and expecting to make a net profit.

    No one should contemplate being a junk jewelry retailer unless the retail location is s suitcase set up on a sidewalk.

    Are there exceptions? Yes. Are they rare and failing fast? Yes. --

    Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

    Kleins

    Just another thought the name was brough as a 'off the shelve company'

    The name has no meaning at all

      Syndicate content