Reed Smith

Page 1 of 3

Reed Smith

Alert 10-156

Wednesday, 7 July, 2010

Mobile and Print-friendly version

URDG 758 A facelift for the Demand Guarantee Rules

Following what most observers feel has been a successful revision of ICC's Uniform Customs
and Practice for Documentary Credits ("UCP 600") which, has led to a significant revival in the
fortunes of the documentary credit, the ICC has launched on 1 July 2010 the revised Uniform
Rules for Demand Guarantees ("URDG 758").

The new rules - why were they needed?

In a competitive market where the standby credit has, for many, become the demand guarantee
of choice employing either UCP 600 or the International Standby Practices 1998 ("ISP 98") as
its underlying rules, the URDG based demand guarantee has had relatively limited penetration.
Part of its lack of popularity stems from a perception that the rules are pro-applicant/guarantor
(generally the contract counterparty and its bank) and not user-friendly for banks. One issue of
debate has been the requirement of a beneficiary to justify a demand by reference to a
contractual breach (while UCP 600 for example distances the payment obligation in a standby
credit from the facts of the underlying contractual performance). The rule was created to protect
applicants and guarantors from unjustified calls on guarantees but is unattractive to
beneficiaries. There is also anecdotal evidence that less than 5% of these instruments ever
result in a pay out so it is unsurprising that the ICC felt it was time to give the old rules ("URDG
458" a 1992 revision) a makeover.
The new rules came into effect on 1 July 2010 and the most striking change is the adoption of
the drafting style and language of UCP 600 to give the rules broader appeal among those used
to the well established documentary credit terminology. So who should be looking to use
demand guarantees issued subject to the new rules and why?
We look below at some of the key features introduced or changed by URDG 758 and consider
where the applicant/guarantor and the beneficiary respectively gain or lose under the new
wording.

URDG 758 Articles in the Beneficiary's favour

Presentation (Article 14)
This is a new feature, previously silent in URDG 458. Presentation of a claim must be made at
the place of issue or such other specified place on or before expiry of the guarantee. If a
presentation indicates that it is incomplete, it can then be completed on or before expiry. An
incomplete presentation is unlikely to occur in practice but if it does happen the beneficiary does
not suffer a technical knock-out for failing to provide everything in one envelope.
Currency of Payment (Article 21)
Where the guarantor is unable due to illegality or other cause beyond its control to make
payment when due and in the currency of the guarantee then, notwithstanding any provision in
the guarantee to the contrary, the guarantor can pay in its local currency at the prevailing rate of
exchange. If payment is delayed, the beneficiary can require payment to be made in such
increased sum as so as to reflect the amount which would have been received according to the

http://reedsmithupdate.com/ve/ZZ72818097zL74Y58e6

26/07/2010

Reed Smith

Page 2 of 3

exchange rate prevailing when payment was originally due rather than the date of payment if the
exchange rate has moved against him.
Non-complying Demand (Article 24)
A major innovation is the new rule that if a guarantor rejects a non-complying demand it must
send a rejection notice with five business days setting out all of the discrepancies, as in a UCP
600 documentary credit rejection. Failure to do so results in the guarantor losing its right to claim
that the demand does not comply and it is then obliged to pay.

URDG 758 Articles in the Applicant/Guarantor's favour

Requirements for Demand (Article 15)
Demands must be accompanied by such documents as the guarantee specifies and contain a
statement setting out "in what respect the applicant is in breach of its obligations under the
underlying relationship"1. The statement required is slightly simpler than under URDG 458 that
may reduce the risk of a non-complying or inaccurate demand. However, the requirement for
such a statement at all means that this rule continues to act as a pro-applicant/guarantor
provision because it provides a basis upon which a guarantor can challenge a demand claim in
court by alleging that an accompanying statement is false while a standby credit could provide
for a statement of fact on a payment trigger there is no requirement under VCP 600 or LSP 98
that it does so. As in URDG 458 it remains open to the parties to expressly exclude this
provision and it frequently is excluded.
Extend or Pay (Article 23)
The rule on "extend or pay", where the beneficiary makes a demand close to the expiry date
and permits the guarantor to extend the validity of the guarantee as an alternative to immediate
payment, has also changed. The guarantor now has the option to pay up immediately or to
suspend payment for a period not exceeding 30 calendar days following receipt2 to allow
negotiation. Previously it had no choice but to suspend payment while consulting with the
applicant in relation to the extension. The guarantor now has a discretionary right to refuse to
grant any extensions, "even if instructed to do so"3 by the applicant, and may simply proceed to
pay. Banks will welcome this change.
Transfer of guarantee and assignment of proceeds (Article 33)
Partial transfers of a "transferrable" guarantee which were previously allowed are not now
possible and the guarantor has the right to refuse to give effect to a request to transfer a
guarantee at all unless it has expressly consented to the transfer. In addition, the agreement of
the guarantor is required for the assignment of proceeds under Article 33(b). Failure to obtain
such agreement gives the guarantor the right to refuse to pay the assignee in question. The
parties can negotiate to exclude this provision if they wish.

Winners and losers

Despite the stated aim of striking a greater balance between the competing interests in any
demand guarantee, URDG 758 is still noticeably tilted in favour of the interests of the
applicant/guarantor.
The UCP style language should make it easier to use but many beneficiaries who operate within
the international trade market will continue to regard the URDG based guarantee as of lesser
value than guarantees or standby credits issued without URDG.
__________
1.
2.
3.

Article 15a.
Contrast with URDG 458 which required the guarantor to suspend payment in order to allow the negotiation of an
extension.
Article 23e

Robert Parson

Geraldine Butac

http://reedsmithupdate.com/ve/ZZ72818097zL74Y58e6

26/07/2010

Reed Smith

Page 3 of 3

Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 3514

Associate, London
+44 (0)20 3116 2856

Other Contacts:
Suzanne Bainbridge
Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 2815

Paul Dillon
Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 2893

Kyri Evagora
Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 2914

Sin Fellows
Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 2809

Diane Galloway
Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 2934

Richard Swinburn
Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 2933

Shai Wade
Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 3620

John Varholy
Partner, London
+44 (0)20 3116 2933

reedsmith.com

About Reed Smith

Reed Smith is a global relationship law firm with nearly 1,600 lawyers in 22 offices throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and
the Middle East. Founded in 1877, the firm represents leading international businesses, from Fortune 100 corporations to mid-market
and emerging enterprises. Its lawyers provide litigation and other dispute resolution services in multi-jurisdictional and other highstakes matters; deliver regulatory counsel; and execute the full range of strategic domestic and cross-border transactions. Reed
Smith is a preeminent advisor to industries including financial services, life sciences, health care, advertising, technology and media,
shipping, energy trade and commodities, real estate, manufacturing, and education. For more information, visit reedsmith.com.
Europe: London, Paris, Munich, Greece
Middle East: Abu Dhabi, Dubai
Asia: Hong Kong, Beijing
United States: New York, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Princeton,
Northern Virginia, Wilmington, Silicon Valley, Century City, Richmond
The information contained in this Client Alert is intended to be a general guide only and not to be comprehensive, nor to provide legal
advice. You should not rely on the information contained in this Alert as if it were legal or other professional advice.
Reed Smith LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303620 and its
registered office at The Broadgate Tower, 20 Primrose Street, London EC2A 2RS. Reed Smith LLP is regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Any reference to the term 'partner' in connection to Reed Smith LLP is a reference to a member of it or an
employee of equivalent status.
This Client Alert was compiled up to and including July 2010.
The business carried on from offices in the United States and Germany is carried on by Reed Smith LLP of Delaware, USA; from the
other offices is carried on by Reed Smith LLP of England; but in Hong Kong, the business is carried on by Richards Butler in
association with Reed Smith LLP (of Delaware, USA), and in Beijing, by Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP. A list of all Partners and
employed attorneys as well as their court admissions can be inspected at the firm's website.
To opt-out from future communications, click here.

http://reedsmithupdate.com/ve/ZZ72818097zL74Y58e6

26/07/2010