Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

In commercial real estate financing, lenders frequently rely on personal guarantees to secure performance when principals pledge their resources. Oral guarantees can be tempting for speed and flexibility, but they face a high risk of being challenged for lack of written form, specificity, or clarity about scope, duration, and enforceable terms. Successful enforceability hinges on ensuring the underlying promise is unequivocally tied to a tangible obligation. Borrowers and guarantors should also consider how collateral, financial covenants, and timelines interact with the guarantee's reach. By anticipating potential defenses at the outset, parties can design a framework that minimizes ambiguity and strengthens remedies if breaches occur.

A practical starting point is documenting the guarantee in a formal written agreement, even when the principal offers only an oral commitment initially. The writing should identify the guarantor, the principal debtor, and the exact obligations guaranteed, including monetary limits, interest, and late fees. It should specify the transaction or facility it secures, the term for performance, and the events triggering default. Additionally, the agreement should clarify whether the guarantee is joint or several, and whether it remains in effect if the underlying contract changes or is amended. Thoughtful language prevents later disputes about scope and obligation.

Beyond pure wording, parties should align the guarantee with governing law and jurisdiction provisions. Different states apply varying rules about formation, consideration, and statutory disclaimers. The guarantee may be enforceable if it is supported by consideration, such as a loan extension, additional credit, or a waiver of subrogation. Documentation should also address any required signatures, authenticity, and capacity of the guarantor to bind personal assets. If the guarantor is a corporate officer or LLC member, organizational approvals are critical. Absence of proper authority can derail enforcement later.

To minimize challenges, include evidentiary support demonstrating the guarantor’s awareness of the transaction’s terms and consequences. This can involve contemporaneous correspondence, meeting minutes, or acknowledgment letters that reference the guarantee and the principal’s intent to be bound. Acknowledgments reduce the likelihood of disputes over misrepresentation or lack of consideration. In complex financings, a guaranty annexed to the main loan documents, with cross-referencing to the facility agreement, creates a cohesive package. The more integrated the documents are, the less room there is for contradictory interpretations.

Consider sequencing guarantees to reflect risk levels and liability allocations. A senior facility might require a primary guaranty with broad scope, while a subordinate arrangement could be more limited. By tailoring guarantees to the risk profile of each debt tranche, lenders can protect themselves without imposing excessive burdens on principals. This approach also clarifies remedies in case of default, including accelerations, cure periods, and replacement guarantees. When structuring multiple guarantees, ensure that the most restrictive terms govern the entire arrangement to prevent strategic withdrawals or partial performance that could undermine collateral.

It is essential to define what constitutes “default” and how it triggers remedies in the guarantee. A robust outline should mention payment failures, covenant breaches, insolvency events, or material adverse changes, along with the procedures for notice and cure. The contract should specify whether defenses available to the debtor extend to the guarantor and whether subrogation and reimbursement rights are reserved. In transactional settings, indexing guarantees to the instrument governing the loan helps preserve consistency across documents and reduces the likelihood of later reformation disputes.

For enforceability, consider adding express waivers of certain defenses that might otherwise be raised against a guarantor. Common waivers include courses of dealing, lack of notice, or the right to require enforcement of all security first. However, these waivers must be reasonable and clearly stated to withstand scrutiny. Defensive strategies like discharge by novation or material modifications that release the guarantor from liability should be anticipated. Explicitly stating that the guarantor remains liable despite amendments to the debt or changes in the borrower’s structure helps maintain continuous coverage.

Practical due diligence should extend to examining the guarantor’s financial capacity and history. Audited financial statements, up-to-date credit information, and personal net worth attestations can support the likelihood of repayment. Lenders may also require periodic reaffirmations of the guarantor’s commitment, ensuring ongoing awareness of obligations as market conditions evolve. In a layered security framework, asset-level protections—such as liens on real property, equity interests, or other collateral—should be documented in concert with the guaranty to avoid gaps between security and guarantee.

The choice of governing law matters, especially when guarantees span multiple jurisdictions. Negotiators should weigh the benefits of choosing a single governing law or providing for governing law with venue provisions that facilitate enforcement. Clarifying how the law interprets ambiguous terms like “material impairment” or “proceeding” reduces the risk of protracted litigation. Additionally, consider whether the guarantee should include a choice of forum or arbitration clause to resolve disputes efficiently. Clarity on these points helps both sides assess risk and contributes to smoother enforcement if a dispute arises.

Documentation should address notice requirements for claims against the guarantor. Specify how claims are calculated, when interest accrues, and what costs may be recovered by the prevailing party. A well-defined notice mechanism protects the guarantor from surprise demands while preserving the lender’s ability to pursue prompt enforcement. In practice, notices should be delivered by reliable means and include detailed computations, loan balance, and reference to the specific triggering events. Transparent communication accelerates resolution and reduces opportunistic litigation tactics.

Finally, counsel should insist on a thorough review process before execution. Counsel can verify the guarantor’s legal capacity, ensure all necessary consents are in place, and confirm that the guarantee aligns with corporate governance rules. A redline review helps identify inconsistencies across the loan package, while a standalone guaranty may be appropriate when a broader security stack exists. Attorneys should also validate the alignment between the guarantee and any related personal guarantees or cross-default provisions, preventing duplicative obligations or ambiguous liability.

As a closing precaution, parties should maintain meticulous records of amendments, amendments, and communications affecting the guaranty. Documenting every modification, extension, or waiver preserves enforceability and provides a clear audit trail for future disputes. In volatile markets, continuing diligence, periodic reaffirmations, and updated financial disclosures help sustain confidence in the guarantee’s reliability. By embedding these practices into routine deal execution, lenders and principals create a durable framework that supports swift, predictable enforcement of oral assurances once reduced to writing.