25.3.2024

First demand guarantees are excellent securities, but using them requires diligence

First demand guarantees have become well-established in Finnish financing and security operations during the last twenty years. Nowadays, the purpose of first demand guarantees is clear to all companies engaging in international business, and they are widely used both in financing agreements and extensive construction projects, for example. First demand guarantees are commonly used in international projects and financing because they are internationally known and well-established as security instruments. 

Well-prepared securities are necessary during economic downturns

During the current economic uncertainty and any economic recession there are, however, differing views of the situations in which first demand guarantees are binding on the guarantor and whether the guarantee is actually a commitment ancillary to the main agreement. History clearly repeats itself in this respect, because during the international bank crisis in the beginning of the 1990’s and the perhaps most difficult years of recession in Finnish history, people unfamiliar with guarantees gave the strangest assessments on the interpretation of first demand guarantees and how the rights under such guarantees are related to the main agreement. Some even suggested that a first demand guarantee was an unreasonable commitment in itself and should automatically be adjusted. In 1993, when I was writing a book on this matter, I heard constantly that first demand guarantees would be guarantees ancillary to the main agreement and the payment demands made based on a first demand guarantee would practically always constitute abuse of right. Fortunately, such claims are not made so often anymore.

When the economic cycle is good, actions concerning first demand guarantees are usually not instituted in courts or arbitral tribunals. However, if there is any lack of confidence or if a transaction forms a significant part of a party’s business operations, securities should be used in the transaction to safeguard the party’s position. Particularly during economic uncertainty, it is important that all security commitments used in business operations are prepared carefully and that the users know the basic issues in relation to using them. Well-prepared securities are sorely needed expressly during economic downturns.

Clear wording makes it easier to use and interpret security commitments

It is often forgotten that first demand guarantee arrangements are based on a binding offer and reply. Guarantee commitments are in practice given for what is agreed in the main agreement, even though a first demand guarantee is a commitment given by a third party to the creditor as a personal security commitment. If first demand guarantors could easily be released from their security commitments, it would immediately result in significant uncertainty in the market. During economic downturns, uncertainty regarding the operation of securities would lead to even bigger problems in business operations.

The starting point should be that first demand guarantees – like any other security commitment used in business operations – should be interpreted in accordance with the wording of each commitment. The less a security commitment leaves room for guessing the correct interpretation of its content and purpose, the clearer the use of the security commitment is. The wordings used in first demand guarantees have become established so that all terms and conditions deviating from established practice should be prepared carefully. In such a case, it should be noted that the terms and conditions of first demand guarantees are strict to start with, and they should not be unnecessarily mitigated.

Both parties need to be diligent when using securities

First demand guarantees are excellent securities in business operations, but the parties to the arrangement must be careful and diligent when preparing and drafting them. First demand guarantees are excellent collateral instruments because they are not ancillary to the main agreement, and the debtor (who is asking a third party to provide a first demand guarantee) cannot invoke the main agreement. The independence of a first demand guarantee is only severed in exceptional situations by the collateral taker’s fraudulent action. If the collateral taker in accordance with the main agreement or the first demand guarantee commitment acts fraudulently, the first demand guarantee or its independence are not given legal protection.

In addition, the operation of first demand guarantees is closely connected to the fact that the payment demand must be exactly in accordance with the guarantee. This principle, known as strict compliance, means that the first demand guarantor only pays the amount of guarantee if the payment demand under the guarantee has been made during the validity period of the guarantee and exactly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the guarantee. Otherwise, the first demand guarantor is not only entitled but also obligated to refuse to make the payment. For this reason, the creditor must carefully ensure when making the payment demand that the payment demand has been made correctly and in a timely manner.

Latest references

We successfully represented Trety AB in a dispute and settlement negotiations concerning an agreement for development and production of communication devices for the healthcare sector. Eventually, the parties reached an amicable settlement to the full satisfaction of our client and thus the parties avoided an extensive arbitral proceeding. Trety AB is a global company that provides its customers with solutions for development, industrialization and production of electronics. Trety AB has over 30 years’ experience from IT, electronics and telecommunication industries.
Case published 11.2.2025
We successfully represented a Finnish manufacturing company in arbitration proceedings under the SCC rules against a global construction company. The dispute was governed by Finnish law and the seat of arbitration was Stockholm, Sweden. The dispute mainly concerned the termination of an erection contract and the right to compensation for delays of the project and for cost increases due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The main questions in dispute were the lawfulness of the termination of the erection contract as well as the consequences of the termination such as the right to costs to complete the project after termination, the right to liquidated damages for delay of the project and adjustment of contract price due to cost increases. The total value of the dispute exceeded EUR 15 million.
Case published 8.1.2025
We represented a mutual real estate company belonging to a large Finnish group in arbitration proceedings against a construction company. The arbitral tribunal rejected the construction company’s claims in their entirety and ordered the construction company to reimburse our client for the costs of the arbitration proceedings in full. The dispute concerned the contract price under the construction contract, which was agreed to be determined on the basis of our client’s yield requirement and the rent under the lease agreement for the building in question. The parties disagreed on the indexation clause applicable to the rent adjustment and its impact on the contract price.
Case published 22.11.2024
We successfully represented a major Finnish construction company in a dispute and settlement negotiations concerning a large construction project. The dispute mainly concerned liabilities for additional and change works as well as project delays, and the value of the claims of the parties was approximately EUR 50 million.  If the case had not been settled, it would have been one of the largest construction disputes ever tried in the Finnish courts. The projected number of hearing days was unprecedentedly more than 300 days. To find an amicable solution to the extensive dispute, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and court mediation. Eventually, the parties reached an amicable settlement to the full satisfaction of our client and thus the parties avoided the costs and risks of an extensive trial.
Case published 7.2.2024