In this case, the client provided a trust loan to the debtor, and a local state-owned enterprise acted as the guarantor to provide guarantee. It signed clauses such as “preliminarily agreeing to continue providing guarantee for the extension of the performance period of the principal claim” in the guarantee agreement. Due to the default of the trust loan, the client filed a lawsuit. In this case, all parties had disputes over the validity of the preliminary consent clause and other issues. At the same time, the case also had unfavorable factors such as the client’s loan handler being involved in a criminal case, the bankruptcy of the principal debtor, disputes over the extension of the principal contract, and the counterparty using local influence to interfere with the fact-finding through various means such as criminal reporting. Faced with the aforementioned difficulties, the handling team focused on the core legal issues, separately demonstrated issues such as the handling of civil-criminal intersection, the determination of contract validity when there are disputes over the conditions for contract effectiveness, and the differences of the preliminary consent clause before and after the promulgation of the Civil Code. Combined with emphasizing the commercial background of the case and the rationality of the guarantee, it successfully persuaded the second-instance court to reverse the judgment. Finally, the court ruled that the guarantor should bear joint and several guarantee liability with a subject amount of 1.3 billion yuan, recovering huge losses for the client.
