Based on my 20+ years in Ghanaian corporate banking, including compliance oversight at Stanbic Bank Ghana, I explain the legal implications below. These concepts are governed by Act 930 and international standards like UCP 600, with practical ties to Ghana’s post-cleanup resilience and BoG directives.

(a) Letter of Comfort:

• A letter of comfort is a non-binding assurance from a parent company or affiliate supporting a borrower’s obligations, often used in international lending to enhance creditworthiness without creating a guarantee.
• Legal Implications: It lacks enforceability as a contract under Ghanaian law (e.g., Contracts Act, 1960, Act 25), implying moral rather than legal obligation. Courts may interpret it as an intention statement, not triggering liability unless fraud is proven. In practice, during the 2017-2019 cleanup, such letters were scrutinized for misleading representations, risking reputational damage or BoG sanctions under Corporate Governance Directive 2018. Banks like Ecobank Ghana use them cautiously in syndicated loans to avoid over-reliance, as they don’t qualify as security under Act 930.

(b) Rescheduling in Term Loan Agreements:

• Rescheduling involves restructuring loan terms (e.g., extending maturity, adjusting interest) to aid distressed borrowers, common in facility letters.
• Legal Implications: It requires mutual consent to avoid breach claims, potentially triggering events of default if not documented properly. Under BoG’s Liquidity Risk Management Guidelines, it impacts capital adequacy; improper handling could violate Act 930’s provisioning rules. Practically, post-DDEP (2022-2024), rescheduling helped banks like GCB manage NPLs but raised tax issues (e.g., interest forgiveness as income). It may waive prior defaults but exposes banks to waiver doctrine risks, necessitating novation agreements.

(c) Discrepancy in Documents in International Banking Transactions:

• Discrepancies refer to mismatches in trade documents (e.g., bills of lading vs. letters of credit) under UCP 600.
• Legal Implications: Banks can reject non-compliant documents, protecting against fraud, but must notify promptly (Article 16, UCP 600). In Ghana, this aligns with BoG’s exchange control under the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723), where discrepancies could lead to payment delays or regulatory penalties. Example: In oil import financing, a mismatched invoice at Access Bank Ghana led to rejection, invoking strict compliance doctrine and avoiding losses from counterfeit goods. Waiving discrepancies risks recourse claims from beneficiaries.

(d) Tax Avoidance Schemes:

• These are structured arrangements to minimize tax legally, e.g., via offshore entities in loan structuring.
• Legal Implications: While permissible if not evasive, schemes bordering on evasion violate Ghana’s Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896), attracting penalties or nullification. BoG monitors under anti-money laundering directives (AML Act, 2020), and international loans may trigger withholding tax (15% on interest). Practically, during Eurobond issuances by Ghanaian entities, schemes like tax-spared loans were used but scrutinized post-OECD BEPS guidelines, risking double taxation or reputational harm. Banks must ensure compliance to avoid accessory liability.

(e) Not Selecting Expressly the Governing Law in Cross-Border Loan Agreements:

• Omitting a choice-of-law clause leaves determination to private international law principles.
• Legal Implications: Courts apply “proper law” via closest connection (Rome Convention 1980, influential in Ghana), leading to uncertainty, disputes, or unfavorable jurisdictions. Under Ghanaian conflict rules, this could default to lex loci contractus, complicating enforcement. Example: In a UK-Ghana loan at Stanbic, absence led to litigation delays; BoG advises explicit clauses for stability. Risks include invalid clauses under foreign law or non-enforcement of judgments per Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, impacting cross-border recovery.