A similar issue arises in respect of cross-guarantees, where two or more entities in an MNE group guarantee each other’s obligations. From the lender’s perspective, it has access to the assets of every cross-guaranteeing entity in the event of a default by a guaranteed borrower. This potentially gives the lender greater comfort than a single guarantee as it can choose where within the cross-guaranteeing MNE group it seeks, if necessary, to make its recoveries. The effect of a cross-guarantee from a borrower’s perspective is that it now has multiple guarantees on its borrowings and may stand as guarantor for multiple borrowings itself. This can give rise to questions on how to evaluate each guarantee. Not only is this complex from the perspective of potentially large numbers of guarantees to be evaluated but also because each party providing a guarantee may in turn be guaranteed by the party for whom it is now acting as guarantor. Evaluating the effect of a cross-guarantee arrangement is difficult and as the number of parties involved increases, may be practically impossible. It may not be possible to determine the effect of the guarantee between any two parties where the same risk is subject to multiple guarantees. An analysis of the facts may lead to the conclusion that such an arrangement does not enhance the credit standing of an MNE group member beyond the level of passive association, in which case any support in the event of default from another MNE group member should then be regarded as a capital contribution ...

A similar issue arises in respect of cross-guarantees, where two or more entities in an MNE group guarantee each other’s obligations. From the lender’s perspective, it has access to the assets of every cross-guaranteeing entity in the event of a default by a guaranteed borrower. This potentially gives the lender greater comfort than a single guarantee as it can choose where within the cross-guaranteeing MNE group it seeks, if necessary, to make its recoveries. The effect of a cross-guarantee from a borrower’s perspective is that it now has multiple guarantees on its borrowings and may stand as guarantor for multiple borrowings itself. This can give rise to questions on how to evaluate each guarantee. Not only is this complex from the perspective of potentially large numbers of guarantees to be evaluated but also because each party providing a guarantee may in turn be guaranteed by the party for whom it is now acting as guarantor. Evaluating the effect of a cross-guarantee arrangement is difficult and as the number of parties involved increases, may be practically impossible. It may not be possible to determine the effect of the guarantee between any two parties where the same risk is subject to multiple guarantees. An analysis of the facts may lead to the conclusion that such an arrangement does not enhance the credit standing of an MNE group member beyond the level of passive association, in which case any support in the event of default from another MNE group member should then be regarded as a capital contribution ...

X BV  jointly participated in a third party credit arrangement with other group companies. X BV was jointly and severally liable for all the receivables that the creditor had on the other group companies under the credit arrangement, and the recourse (of X BV against the other group companies) that arose from such joint and several liability could not be claimed until the full amount outstanding under the credit arrangement had been repaid. The Supreme Court found that it could be assumed that a third party would not be willing to provide a guarantee only if, at the moment of granting the guarantee, no guarantee fee could be determined. The Supreme Court found that the cross guarantee was an arrangement that originated from shareholder interests. Hence a credit loss resulting from a cross-guarantee agreement was not deductible for tax purposes. Click here for translation ...