Below, I explain the legal implications of each concept, drawing from Ghanaian banking laws like Act 930, international principles, and practical examples from operations at major banks such as GCB Bank and Ecobank Ghana. Each sub-part is addressed separately for clarity, emphasizing compliance, risks, and safeguards.

(a) Letter of Comfort:

• A letter of comfort is a non-binding assurance from a parent company or sponsor to support a borrower’s obligations, often used in international lending to sovereign entities or subsidiaries. Legally, it lacks the enforceability of a guarantee under Ghanaian contract law, as it doesn’t create a direct obligation (distinguished in cases like Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp [1989]).
• Implications include limited recourse for banks; courts may view it as moral rather than legal support, leading to unenforceability in defaults. In Ghana, post-2017 cleanup, banks prefer full guarantees to comply with BoG’s risk directives. Practically, it poses risks in cross-border deals, where conflict rules might apply foreign law, but inclusion of protective clauses can mitigate by implying intent to support.

(b) Rescheduling in Term Loan Agreements:

• Rescheduling involves restructuring loan terms (e.g., extending maturity, adjusting interest) to avoid default, common in sovereign debt like Ghana’s DDEP (2022-2024). Legally, it requires mutual consent and novation or amendment under contract law, preserving original covenants unless waived.
• Implications: It can trigger events of default if not documented properly, exposing banks to waiver doctrines. Under Act 930 and BoG guidelines, it must maintain capital adequacy; failures led to issues in the 2019 recapitalizations. In practice, at Stanbic Bank Ghana, rescheduling includes new representations to ensure enforceability, but it risks tax implications like withholding on restructured interest.

(c) Discrepancy in Documents in International Banking Transactions:

• Discrepancies refer to mismatches in documentary credits (e.g., under UCP 600), such as incorrect shipping details in letters of credit. Legally, banks can reject non-compliant documents, upholding the autonomy principle where payment depends on documents, not underlying goods.
• Implications: Protects banks from fraud but can lead to disputes; Ghanaian courts enforce strict compliance per ICC rules. In international trade finance, as seen in Ecobank’s operations, discrepancies delay payments, risking breach claims. Practically, it emphasizes due diligence in advising parties, aligning with BoG’s anti-money laundering directives to prevent exploitation.

(d) Tax Avoidance Schemes:

• These are structures to minimize tax legally (e.g., via offshore entities), distinct from evasion. In banking, they involve grossing-up clauses in loans to counter withholding taxes, governed by double tax treaties and Ghana’s Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896).
• Implications: If deemed abusive, schemes can be challenged under anti-avoidance rules, leading to penalties or unenforceability. Post-DDEP, BoG scrutinizes them for compliance; examples include tax-spared loans. From experience, banks like Barclays use opinions to validate, but risks include reputational damage and regulatory sanctions under sustainable banking principles.

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

• Without an express choice, courts apply private international law (e.g., Rome Convention 1980) to determine proper law based on closest connection, leading to uncertainty.
• Implications: Increases litigation risks, as conflicting laws (e.g., Ghana vs. UK) might apply, affecting enforceability. In Ghana, under conflict rules, this can void clauses like covenants. Practically, in syndicated loans at Access Bank Ghana, omitting this invites forum non-conveniens challenges; always include exclusive jurisdiction clauses to ensure predictability and BoG approval.