Insolvency Filings, Australia's Franchisors

The list below is of Australia's franchisors that have become insolvent. The data is gathered from Prof. Buchan's dissertation. The study finds a number of problems for franchisees. Buchan, a franchise and legal scholar, observes, Buchan observes, "It is rare for franchise agreements to contain clauses that allow a franchisee to terminate it if the franchisor becomes insolvent."

However, the list is not comprehensive of all Australian franchisors that have failed from 1990 to 2005. Buchan writes, "Franchisees disappear from the public records when the franchisor’s business fails. This makes it very difficult to identify these franchisees and the issues which affect them. This report documents the results of the first empirical research that has been conducted of the effect of franchisor failure in Australia on franchisees."

When the Franchisor Fails: A research report prepared for CPA Australia by the University of New South Wales (pdf, 44 pgs), Appendix 1. Page 14 lists the information sources for this list.

Brand Problem
A1 Mobile Radiator Repairs 1999
Century 21 1998
Collins Booksellers 2005
Cut Price Deli 1995
Danoze Direct Retail 2005
Data Vault Services 2005
Delifrance Australia (Australian arm) 2003
The Furniture Wizard 1999
Great Australian Ice Creamery 1998
ie Networks 2005
Juice Station 2005
Kernels Popcorn 2005
King of Croissant King 2002
Lloyd Scott Enterprises 2001
Mini Tankers International 2003
Mobile Computer Cleaning 2003
Modern Garages 1999
Mystic Crystals Franchises 1999
NoRegrets 2002
Nrgize Nrgize 2005
Offi ce Support Services 2004
Old Papa’s Café 2002
On Time Copy Centre 2000
Only $2 Only $2 2005
Party Land 2005
Personal Actions 2003
Photo Safe 2004
Rugs Galore 2002?
Sam’s Seafood 2005
Simply No-Knead 2000
Snow Deli 1990
Soils Ain’t Soils 2003
Speeds Shoes 2004
Synergy in Business 2002
Tokyo Joe’s 2003/4
Top Snack Foods 2000
Traveland 2001
TRIMit 2001
Wonderland of Pets 1996

--

After nearly 20 years as a commercial lawyer in private practice, Jenny Buchan became an academic at the University of New South Wales. Both as a lawyer and as an academic, her focus has been on franchising. This has led to her ongoing research on the challenges that franchising, as a relatively new business model, poses for insolvency law.

Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comment viewing options

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

Franchisor failures in Australia

There are some things to be aware of in franchisor failure:

  1. not all of the franchisors actually became insolvent (Australia's equivalent to chapter 7); some of them went into Administration (Australi's equivalent chapter 11).  Either way, the immediate and long term consequences for franchisees are similar - uncertainty and possibly loss of their business, together with minimal rights vis a vis the administrator or liquidator.
  2. Australia's mandatory franchising code of conduct was enacted in 1998; there seems to have been no abatement in the number of franchisor failures since then.
  3. well established franchisors (Kleins) fail as well as young networks.
  4. The highest number of franchisees affected in a single Australian franchisor failure to date is 1160 (Allied Securities in 2001)
  5. It is impossible to access meaningful data about franchisor failure (Ch7 or Ch 11) on any public reord in Australia; this makes research in this area very time consuming and the numbers imprecise.

A failure by legislatures to address franchisor failure is the single biggest weakness in the franchise model.

Jenny Buchan, Australia

Add to the Australian list ...

Klein's Jewellery.

If Gloria Jean's Coffee cannot fix the levels of rent that make many of their franchises unviable then they will be next. We, and the ACCC, have seen a large number of their franchisees fail due to high rents. It wasn’t considered a big deal but now it is catching up with the franchisor just as it did with Klein’s.

What we have here is another situation where a franchise financial model that appeared to be viable in the past; didn't cut it because no one took the time to consider the effects of rental growth and renewal increases.

Franchisees will be told to target something below 10% of gross but then they have to accept that a new business cannot achieve such a figure initially. By the time they grow the business they then have to factor in increases. Sometimes it works but in shopping centres it often doesn’t.

In Australia the ACCC regulate franchising where we see a failure to provide effective protection to franchisees. This can be directly attributed to the influence of the FCA on our lawmakers and their fear of negative impact upon an industry that generates $130B to the Australian economy.

The ACCC, through the Trade Practice ACT, should offer some semblance of fair trading in rental agreements but shopping centres have even greater influence then the piddling $130B produced by franchising. So there will be more; many more, that follow the same path as franchisees in shopping centres get sucked into the void along with their franchisor.

Who is at fault

Those who sign such agreements should take most of the responsibility unless they spoke to an accountant or financial adviser. If the advice was bad then they probably got what they paid for.

    Syndicate content