Monterey Bay, California
+1 831-761-0700
info@in3capital.net

Practitioner Series: Demand Guarantee Rules for Project Finance — ICC URDG 758

Inspire | Innovate | Invest

Practitioner Series: Demand Guarantee Rules for Project Finance — ICC URDG 758

This article is for any stakeholder seeking In3’s project funding using a financial guarantee as completion surety.  It defines the underlying legal venue, a set of well-proven rules for international “demand guarantee” practices, with independent legal analysis.

What is a financial or “demand guarantee” (DG) and why might you need one?  Quick Guide

How does a DG compare to a Standby Letter of Credit (SbLC)?  

Similar to the commercial LC or a SbLC, a DG is an independent (for example, independent from the underlying contract) and irrevocable “undertaking” (a bank-involved transaction with an implied agreement that cannot be arbitrarily canceled or changed once issued) provided by an issuer to a beneficiary, that provides “assurance of payment upon receipt of complying document presentations.”  From https://icc.academy/sblc-guide:  “DGs and SBLCs are extremely similar undertakings with the key differences provided by its governing rule set.” SbLCs are more common in the Americas, however they remain globally issued and/or accepted.

How are DGs — whether as SBLCs or Bank Guarantees (BG) — used in practice? 

URDG-based financial guarantees stand as an excellent mechanism to obtain advantageous terms and access to funding that might otherwise be out of reach to developers seeking project finance, the main area of focus for In3’s capital partners.  Such guarantees streamline due diligence, ensures continuity and certainty of project acceptance (once pre-approved using our 3-stage process), improve investment terms and expedite closings, simply by acting as a source of assurance or “surety” that the project will be successfully completed and commissioned to begin commercial operations.

Synopsis of this more technical article: CAP Funding Guarantees use well-proven URDG ICC 758

Detailed Analysis and Significant Findings

Well proven since 2010, per independent legal review (more), URDG has gained popularity as the best method for bringing in project capital (among other uses), protecting both the guarantor and lender/investor.  Developers/owners enjoy better terms than would be otherwise available, which leaves room for others (EPC / construction firms, or “at large” guarantors) to also get paid well.

Practitioners may want to know how URDG compares to the other widely-used international standards for such instruments, as each serves a slightly different purpose — ICC 758, 600 or 590.  Developers/owners have lots of choices available, which can be confusing, when all they really care about is achieving the most affordable, flexible and advantageous project financing, such is available through In3 CAP.

A variety of instruments can be used to qualify, but what is actually required happens to be less stringent than most realize. A financial guarantee (bank-related or sovereign) used for project finance through our capital partners relies on these established international rules for such “demand guarantees,” where the the issuer is well protected, with such clearcut rules, tested and proven since 2010, that they would not need to doubt or investigate the legitimacy of any potential demand.  This means the instrument cannot be called arbitrarily, and in practice, it would not need to be called.

What about Cash-backed Trade Finance Instruments?  Are those handled like Demand Guarantees?

In sharp contrast to either
(a) Traditional loan guarantees (left in force during the life of the loan, serving as long-term credit enhancement for the borrower) or
(b) For import/export trade finance transactions, the so-called “fully funded” Documentary Letters of Credit (DLCs),
most often underpinned by the Uniform Customs & Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP ICC* pub no 600), neither of these are what we are doing for In3CAP (Completion Assurance Program™) funding.

Instead, we mainly use instruments that conform with the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees ICC Publication No. 758 (short name URDG 758), as a type of bank-issued “performance” Standby Letter of Credit (SbLC), Bank Guarantee, Payment Guarantee or Performance Guarantee, … or alternatively, or as an Avalized Promissory Note (AvPN or PN with Aval introduction), which in either case, are well tested to actually protect the issuer/guarantor more than other types of guarantees or other models.

Why don’t we accept non-financial guarantees, such as performance or completion bonds?  See FAQ 5.2.

For “standby” letters of credit (a type of demand guarantee, typically issued by a bank or credit union), BGs, etc., we combine URDG’s efficacy with the customary Brussels SWIFT system for bank-to-bank transactions, as SWIFT controls the legitimacy of the documents.  More on how SWIFT is used for these transactions, and a definition of “financial guarantee” used for project finance here.

How this “Standby” or “Demand Guarantee” differs from a Documentary Credit

There is a sharp contrast between what we use for financing projects and the practices used by commodity traders to buy and sell goods.  We are not using a “documentary” type of letter of credit (sometimes just called a “documentary credit), which sharply differs in terms of verbiage and practice.  For reference, such a documentary credit can be defined as a written undertaking given by a bank to a seller on the instruction of the buyer to pay a stated amount of money. Such Documentary Credit instruments are conditioned upon the seller’s compliance and a ‘complying presentation’ of documents. There are no commodity buyers or sellers involved in project financing.  Further, money moves (gets “cashed in” and transferred to the seller) upon completion.  Not so with project finance.  Project capital moves from the investor/lender’s bank to the project’s Special Purpose Vehicle bank account per a pre-approved draw schedule, while the SbLC or AvPN must not be touched except in extreme cases of fraudulent use of the funds or similar malfeasance.

Summarizing and expanding on these key points:

  • At the end of a transaction, a “Documentary” Letter of Credit, under ISP98 (ICC pub 590), UCP (ICC600), or even URDG 758, the instrument is cashed to complete the transaction. By contrast, only if the developer is in breach of contract can there be a demand made on the SbLC or AvPN under URDG 758 that results in the guarantor paying, which in the case of our project finance, would be as a result of our funding being delivered but then fraudulently used. URDG ensures that the guarantor (the party issuing the guarantee) is protected from arbitrary or frivolous claims — only under extreme cases of fraud, gross negligence, or uncured/incurable breach of contract can there be a claim, if properly written, thus used as a last resort. Aside from this “default” on the governing contract (which with CAP funding is a Loan Agreement) the instrument cannot be called. The purpose of most Guarantees is to serve as security or surety, and this one is no different. It is actually quite difficult to make a claim with URDG — the beneficiary (our capital partners) would have to prove their case. Note that in our entire history, no BG/SbLC or AvPN has ever been called by us, that doing so would be a strong negative reflection on all parties involved (indicating that somehow we misjudged the client’s legitimacy), and thus it really must not happen. If you are non-fraudulent, then there’s nothing to worry about.
  • This “Documentary” LC is in sharp contrast to what we are asking – a BG/SbLC or AvPN used to backstop the project’s funding, as a way of ensuring the project assets get completed. Developers and their sponsor may not care which LC – Standby versus Documentary – is used, but bankers typically won’t issue the more-familiar Documentary LC without cash on deposit because the LC itself is destined to get cashed in to complete the underlying trade transaction. Project finance, however, is entirely different. We use the BG/SbLC or AvPN to offset the risk of project non-completion. Once the project reaches Commercial Operation Date (COD), the guarantee is allowed to expire, and the underlying asset (if any) is released, not taken.
  • URDG 758 sets a balance in the legitimate and competing interests of the applicant, the guarantor and the beneficiary; it limits the risk of unfair calls and demands on guarantors and counter-guarantors. In particular, it protects the issuer (the project developer, not the funder or “beneficiary”) by making a BG/SbLC or AvPN more difficult to draw upon in the event of default or breach of contract. URDG requires that the beneficiary prove (provide evidentiary documentation) that the issuer/applicant has indeed breached the contract and that there is thus a legitimate reason that the instrument can be called/drawn. It is otherwise not callable.
  • Moreover, URDG 758-based guarantees give a 30 day ‘extend or pay’ window for negotiation before payout due to such failure would be required. Note that events like “breach” and “default” are worst case scenarios, and must be avoided, as such outcomes would be a strong, negative reflection on all parties involved. We raise this topic here in hopes of clearing up a common misunderstanding and expressed concern by some issuers (especially those more familiar with Documentary LCs under ICC 600, or other rules that are simply not applicable here), so this is really quite good news that URDG 758 actually helps protect the issuer more than most people even realize.
  • Generally, the URDG 758-based BG/SbLC or AvPN combined with the referenced Loan Agreement (per binding contractual terms established as a result of our due diligence, before the BG/SbLC would be issued) cannot be called arbitrarily, where cash-backed funds provided by the guarantee cannot be drawn at the issuing bank’s counter.  More at our FAQ on this topic, “What reassurance is there that the BG/SbLC, once sent, will not be misused, called or cashed in?”
  • Lastly, URDG itself brings much needed consistency and uniformity to construction projects, among others, harmonizing how such guarantees are interpreted within the various legal venues (a given country’s national rules or laws), now that internationally-respected courts have tested and endorsed the clarity and simplicity it offers. More (principles of two cases decided in 2020)
Our partners only require the guarantee to be in force up to the completion of the project assets … until reaching Commercial Operation Date (COD). Then, as mentioned above, the BG/SbLC or AvPN goes away; technically, it is allowed to expire. Again, the collateral used to issue the BG/SbLC is released, not “cashed in”, as it often would be with trade finance guarantees (commodity/commercial or Documentary LCs or Standbys). Trade-related payment guarantees can use similar ICC rulebooks — URDG ICC 758, or the more generic Uniform Customs & Practices (UCP) for Documentary Credits (ICC Pub 600) or International Standby Practices, (ISP98, ICC Pub 590).

Conclusion:  The above URDG 758 points work in the project developer/sponsor’s favor, as the type of guarantee most widely used, such that most bankers would initially assume was being requested, is either A) Traditional “documentary” LCs that can be drawn upon at the counter of the issuing bank at the completion of the transaction (so the seller of goods can be paid), as described above, or B) A loan guarantee used to protect the lender after COD, during project operations, as additional credit enhancement, assuring that the lender does not go away empty handed in the event the borrower defaults on the loan. Such guarantees are not needed or usable here for project finance. What we require is far less stringent, and in practice does not involve moving the guarantee’s underlying collateral, if any, at all. This is an important facet of CAP funding’s “faster, easier, better” advantages, which is much more than just a slogan, about which we encourage careful scrutiny, clarifying questions, and respectful challenges to our claims. References:

Contact us for further information on how to take advantage of Financial “completion assurance” Guarantees to accelerate project finance closings and obtain the best terms. More at options & resources for new In3 Clients

* The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is an official body that provides such banking rules, endorsed by the United Nations.  

Still hungry for more?
  1. Decision-making Support for developers on this pathway.
  2. See our 4-page whitepaper, Introduction to Financial Guarantees for Project Funding through In3
  3. Download this comprehensive ICC Academy guide to UCP, ISP and (honorable mention) URDG Standby Letters of Credit.  URDG discussion starts on page 11.