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 ...

These cross-guarantees and set-off rights are a feature of an arrangement which would not occur between independent parties. Each guarantor is providing a guarantee for all members of the pool but will not have control over membership of the pool, has no control over the quantum of the debt which it is guaranteeing, and may not be able to access information on the parties for whom it is providing a guarantee. With other parties providing guarantees on the same loans, it may not be possible for the guarantor to evaluate its real risk in the event of a default. Thus, the practical result of the cross- guaranteeing arrangement is such that the formal guarantee may represent nothing more than an acknowledgement that it would be detrimental to the interests of the MNE group not to support the performance of the cash pool leader and so, by extension, the borrower. In such circumstances the guaranteed borrower may not be benefitting beyond the level of credit enhancement attributable to the implicit support of other group members. If the prevailing facts and circumstances support such a conclusion, no guarantee fee would be due, and any support, in case of a default from another group member, should be regarded as a capital contribution ...

As part of the cash pooling arrangement, cross-guarantees and rights of set-off between participants in the cash pool may be required. This raises the question of whether guarantee fees should be payable. It will always be appropriate to consider the particular facts and circumstances in any situation but there are certain factors which are likely to be common to many cash pools: there will be numerous members of the pool, there may be both entities with debit positions and entities with credit positions in the pool, each pool member may have a different stand-alone credit rating, and the pooling agreement with the bank is likely to require full cross-guarantees and rights of set-off between all pool participants ...