Loading...

Corporate finance · 7 min read
Running your own due diligence before someone else does turns surprises into a manageable to-do list. Here is what to check first.
Due diligence is the structured investigation a buyer, investor or lender runs before committing money to a business. Most promoters only encounter it from the receiving end — answering someone else's questions under someone else's timeline. Running an internal version of the same exercise first, well before a transaction is on the table, converts diligence from a source of anxiety into a checklist that can be worked through calmly. This article sets out that checklist across the areas a professional diligence team actually looks at.
Every issue found during a live transaction's due diligence becomes negotiating leverage for the other side — a reason to lower the price, add an indemnity, or delay closing. The same issue, found by the promoter's own team six months earlier, is simply a task with an owner and a deadline. The financial cost of fixing most gaps is small; the cost of them surfacing at the wrong moment is not.
Statutory registers, board and shareholder resolutions, and filings with the Registrar of Companies should be current and complete. A surprisingly common gap is share transfers or allotments that happened in practice — money changed hands, ownership shifted — but were never properly documented or filed.
Key customer and supplier contracts, leases, and regulatory licences should be reviewed for whether they are current, assignable (relevant if the business is being sold or restructured), and held in the company's name rather than a promoter's personal name. Udyam registration status and category should also be current, since it affects eligibility for various support measures.
Pending litigation, arbitration, labour disputes and tax demands under appeal should be listed with their current status and realistic exposure, rather than left undisclosed in the hope they resolve quietly before anyone asks.
Undisclosed is worse than unresolved
An ongoing dispute that is disclosed clearly, with its status and exposure explained, rarely derails a deal on its own. The same dispute discovered independently by the other side, after it was not mentioned, damages trust in everything else the promoter has said.
A commercial credit report should be pulled and reviewed the way an outside lender or buyer would see it — checking for any missed payments, restructured facilities, or entries that need explanation. All personal and corporate guarantees given by promoters or group entities in support of company borrowings should be listed, along with any cross-default clauses linking one lender's facility to another's.
| Area | Typical gap found |
|---|---|
| Financials | Years of provisional-only statements never audited |
| Corporate records | Share transfers not filed with the Registrar |
| Contracts | Key licence held in a promoter's personal name |
| Credit history | Guarantee obligations not tracked centrally |
| Related parties | Group company rent or loans priced informally |
Trademarks, designs, domain names and any proprietary processes should be checked for who actually owns them on paper — it is common in founder-led businesses for a brand name or trademark to have been registered in a promoter's personal name early on and never formally assigned to the company, which becomes a real complication the moment a buyer, investor or lender wants clarity on what the company actually owns.
A hypothetical textile exporter's pre-diligence sweep
Imagine a mid-sized textile exporter in Tiruppur planning to raise growth capital eighteen months out. A self-run diligence sweep might turn up three items: a factory extension built without an updated fire safety approval, an old promoter loan to the company sitting on the books with no formal agreement, and export incentive claims that had not been reconciled against shipping bills for two years. None of these are fatal on their own — each is a manageable fix given time, and considerably harder to explain away if an investor's diligence team finds them first.
A tax position that was defensible when it was taken can look aggressive in hindsight to an outside reviewer, particularly around related-party pricing, expense classification, or claims made under specific incentive schemes. Reviewing the last several years of assessments, any positions under active dispute, and whether provisioning for contingent tax liabilities is adequate is worth doing before someone else's tax specialist does it first and treats every finding as a red flag rather than a known, managed position.
Provident fund, ESI, gratuity and bonus obligations, along with statutory registers for contract labour where used, are commonly under-checked areas in smaller businesses. A gap here rarely threatens a deal outright, but it does invite an indemnity or price adjustment, and it is far cheaper to regularise voluntarily than to negotiate around after a diligence team has already flagged it as a liability.
| Severity | What it usually means |
|---|---|
| Low | Documentation gap with no real financial exposure — fix and move on |
| Medium | Real but quantifiable exposure — provision for it or disclose with a number attached |
| High | Structural issue (ownership, title, undisclosed liability) — needs advice before proceeding |
Physical assets — plant, machinery, vehicles, inventory — are worth walking through against the fixed asset register at least once before any transaction conversation starts, checking that assets recorded on the books actually exist, are in the location the records suggest, and are insured for something close to their real replacement value rather than an outdated figure carried forward year after year. Under-insurance is a common, easily fixed gap that otherwise sits quietly until a claim or a buyer's survey exposes it.
Businesses that plan to raise capital, sell a stake, or eventually list benefit from running this kind of review annually rather than only when a transaction becomes likely. It keeps the gap between how the business actually operates and how it would look to an outsider consistently small, rather than letting it widen unnoticed over several years.
Questions
Most buyers, investors and lenders look at three to five years, so that is a reasonable internal review window, extended further for anything unusual like a major restructuring or a large one-off transaction.
Not everything can be resolved on a short timeline; the goal of self-diligence is to know about it, quantify it and be ready to disclose and explain it, not necessarily to eliminate every issue before talking to anyone.
No. It reduces surprises and speeds up the buyer's process, but a buyer, investor or lender will always run its own independent diligence rather than relying solely on the seller's internal review.
No, it is a separate report on the company's and often the promoters' credit history with lenders, distinct from an individual's personal consumer credit score.
Typically the promoter, the finance head or CFO, company secretary where one exists, and an external advisor who can bring an outsider's eye to what insiders have stopped noticing.
Questions
Related offerings
Keep reading
Share a few details and our team will follow up.