Overall, the outcome depended on the regularity of the rules documented in the “modification and reassessment”: many changes can be made to the terms of a commercial financing facility over its duration. They are sometimes contained in a brief change document that covers only the various changes. There may be a number of cases, and for more complex and longer transactions, it is customary for the original agreement to be “modified and revised” with its amendments – in other words, consolidated and contained in a single document. It`s as much for the lightness of reading as anything else. The decision will surprise many financiers and lawyers, who would generally view an “amendment and recovery” as a continuation of the existing facility agreement, rather than as a new agreement that terminated the old one. The distinction can have radically different consequences, as has been the case here. Under common law, the essential elements of innovation are: (1) a valid prior obligation; (2) an agreement between the parties to a new contract; (3) the removal of previous commitments; and (4) a new valid contract. To satisfy the second and third elements, all parties must have “clearly expressed their intention to replace or replace an old agreement.” 3 The key to innovation analysis is therefore the intention of the parties. The Bank submitted that a guarantee for the purposes of the facility, as originally documented, had been extended to the “revised and revised” facility agreement that came into force following a default when the global financial crisis hit. Much on the interpretation of the documents to the ease and the guarantee itself, although the case is both interesting for financiers, lawyers and guarantors, since it was a standard guarantee used by one of the big four banks and the situation is common in practice.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Auditors for circuit of Six in Bash v. Textron Financial Corporation (In re Fair Finance Company)1 overturned a decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that an amended and revised loan agreement was not an innovation in the original loan agreement.