Termination Replacement And Restatement Agreement

Recently, in Bash v. Textron Financial Corporation (In re Fair Finance Company), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that an amended and adapted loan agreement did not constitute a novation of the original loan agreement. The District Court found that, by largely reversing the rejection of adversarial proceedings resulting from chapter 7 insolvency proceedings, the District Court found that the amended and adapted loan agreement in fact constituted a novation of the original loan agreement (or at least that it was not clear whether it represented it). If the amended and adapted loan agreement did indeed constitute novation, the guarantees granted under the original loan agreement would be extinguished at the time when the parties concluded the amended and adapted loan agreement2. 2 The District Court referred the question of annulment of the district court`s decision to the first instance for further proceedings. which came into force after defaults following the global financial crisis. It was a lot about the interpretation of the facility documents and the guarantee itself, although the case is as interesting for financiers, lawyers as it is for guarantors, given that it was a standard guarantee used by one of the four big banks and the situation is frequent in practice. The other member of the Court found that there had indeed been an amendment which did not resolve the previous agreement and therefore did not arise from the guarantor`s agreement. His honour, however, ruled in favour of the guarantor, as the “variation” required the agreement of the guarantor, since carve-outs based on the Ankar principle apply in this case. .

. .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.