Work We Do
Our services cover a variety of disciplines including commercial law, dispute resolution and labour law.
A list of specific services would do little to explain the value we deliver, so instead we have described some real-world examples of our work below…
Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication
Challenge: Our client had a national network of branches that our client wanted to franchise. They wanted to start with a uniquely centralized franchise model, with limited direct franchisor control to be transitioned later to a more traditional model once franchisees were established. Our client insisted on avoiding unnecessary complexity and legal prolix – the client wanted a franchise agreement no longer than 10 pages with easily understandable language. Traditional franchise agreements are very often at least 50 pages.
Solution: We prepared the franchise agreement in plain language, focusing on the core legal issues only, whilst clearly defining the fundamentals of our client’s model. Whilst we missed the 10-page target, we felt 12 pages was a fair compromise in the circumstances. We also ensured that the compliance documentation required under the Consumer Protection Act was easily understandable and appropriately templated to assist our client’s administration. Our client’s franchisees can clearly understand what they can expect and what is expected of them, so everyone can get on with business.
In progress: Our client’s franchise is alive, well and expanding. We continue to support their business with company registrations, agreement templates, trademark applications and debt recoveries.
Counting Chickens
Problem: Our client had two senior employees poised to become CEO. When one was promoted over the other the working relationship between them became untenable, with the unpromoted employee becoming disgruntled.
Solution: We suggested our client propose a mutual separation agreement to the disgruntled employee offering a cash payment for them to exit the business in exchange for certain confidentiality undertakings.
Result: The employee concluded the agreement but shortly thereafter breached the confidentiality provisions and shared some of our client’s confidential information with various people including a new employer. This happened before our client had paid the cash settlement in terms of the agreement. We were then asked again to advise, and we recommended that our client cancel the agreement based on a repudiation by the employee. Our client did so, and the employee then sued in the Labour Court where we represented our client. Ultimately the employee lost the case at trial and lost again on appeal, resulting in them having to pay our client’s litigation costs.
Challenge: We have multiple clients who occasionally have low value debts which traditionally would not make sense to pursue via the courts. We often advised clients not to ‘throw good money after bad’ but we shared our client’s frustration in having to abandon these debts.
Innovation: We leveraged technology and developed a debt recovery platform that our clients could use within their organisations to pursue low value debts at minimal cost. The philosophy behind the system is that if we can keep the costs below what is recovered then our clients will emerge net positive.
In progress: We have deployed several systems across different client businesses and increased our clients’ collection rates, whilst reducing collection costs significantly. We aim for an average recovery to cost ratio of no worse than 3:1, although in a few instances we have noted returns upward of 16:1.
Breaking The Status Quo
Lose Patience, Lose the Battle
Problem: Our client lent money to a friend who claimed they needed it for their business and that they would repay it within a few months. The friend then used the money for their lifestyle and never repaid the money. Our client then found out that this friend, now debtor, had regularly done this to other friends of theirs. After several demands for payment our client entered into a payment arrangement with the debtor but they ultimately did not keep to the arrangement.
Solution: We issued summons against the debtor and obtained a default judgement. The debtor tried to rescind the default judgment but failed. When we attempted to execute the judgement the debtor claimed they owned nothing. We were ultimately successful in attaching the debtor’s business assets, however, they operated a unique leasing business and the assets would not have raised much money at a sheriff’s auction. We then entered into a settlement agreement, which was made an order of court, which allowed the debtor to continue leasing the attached assets provided that the rentals were paid to our client until the judgment was satisfied. The debtor then proceeded to lease the assets but never paid any rentals to our client. On investigation we found that the debtor was using a family member’s Close Corporation to mask the rental income. We then brought an application, based on fraud, against the CC and its member personally, as well as the member’s spouse as we found that they were married in community of property. We were successful in obtaining an order against the member of the CC and their spouse. They owned multiple immovable properties, and we obtained a subsequent order allowing us to attach their immovable properties and to sell them to recover the debt, which by that stage with interest and legal costs had grown exponentially.
Result: As we were about to sell the first property at auction, other family members stepped in to settle the claim to avoid the loss of the property. In the end, because of how the debtor had frustrated the process, and avoided sticking to a payment plan, they ended up increasing the debt four-fold, costing their family a small fortune, and risking the loss of a family home. The matter took nearly 6 years, but our client ultimately received the full amount of the debt, interest and almost all the legal costs.
The Letter and the Spirit
Problem: Our client was overstaffed at one of their depots and wanted to undertake retrenchments and asked that we assist. The client had already decided that they wanted to retrench a particular person, which is not permissible in terms of the Labour Relations Act and wanted our advice on “ticking the right boxes”.
Solution: We advised our client not to treat the retrenchment as a tick-box exercise but to earnestly engage in the required consultations, and we assisted in that process. We actively encouraged the employees to give their input and suggestions on the proposed retrenchments throughout the discussion, because the law requires that it be a joint problem-solving exercise. Through this process one employee indicated that the client was understaffed at another depot which was closer to where the employee lived, and thus they proposed being moved to that other depot, saving them substantial transport costs, and solving two problems for the client.
Result: Our client accepted the employee’s proposal, which meant they did not have to dismiss anyone, and at the same time achieved a solution to the staffing issue at both depots, whilst saving the employee money in the process. Some legal requirements can seem like a burden at first blush but if engaged effectively can yield good results and avoid unnecessary risks.
Death Does Not Knock
Problem: One of our client’s shareholders passed away. Our client then noticed that it was unclear whether the deceased owned the shares personally or whether a family trust owned the shares, because the company records had not been properly maintained for many years. The problem was further compounded by the fact that the status of the trust could not be ascertained as the trust pre-dated the Master’s digitisation and the trust records had also not been properly maintained for many years. Our client needed to settle the shareholder’s loan account and ensure that the shares were lawfully transferred to the other shareholders, but without clear records of who owned what our client could face duplicated claims if they settled with the wrong party. Our client also could not wait for the trust records to be corrected as they were in the middle of a major restructuring at the time.
Solution: We investigated the trust, as far as possible with the limited information available, and prepared a settlement agreement to be concluded between our client and both the late estate and the trustees who claimed to represent the alleged trust. We ensured also that any parties who were likely to have an interest in the estate or the trust were notified and required to also accept the terms of the settlement. The settlement provided for payment of the loan account to, and sale of the shares from, the late estate, whilst also providing for certain indemnities by the trustees, the late estate, and the surviving family, to minimize the risk of future claims.
Result: The settlement was concluded and carried into effect, and the estate could proceed to finalization.
The Sweet Lie or the Bitter Truth
Problem: Our client was caught red-handed using a competitor’s confidential information to compete unlawfully with the competitor. It was very clear that our client had caused substantial damage to the competitor’s business and the competitor had secured a wealth of documentary evidence against our client. The competitor sued our client but was open to discussing settlement.
Our view: We took an honest view of the situation, considering the evidence and prevailing case law. We believed that defending the suit would have been wasteful because it would have been very costly, and our client had poor prospects of success. We advised our client to try settle the matter sooner rather than later, and whilst the settlement would be costly it would not be nearly as costly as defending a doomed case.
Result: The Sweet Lie or the Bitter Truth Result: Our client felt that we were not “aggressive enough” and cancelled our mandated. We later found out that our, now former, client approached another attorney who told them that they had good prospects of success, exactly what they wanted to hear. The attorney required an enormous deposit to start work on the case. Later that same attorney recommended settlement once the deposit had been expended. The matter was ultimately settled.
