Prompts
Juristische KI-Prompts für Banking & Finance
9 Prompts, die Sie direkt in HAQQ oder einen anderen Assistenten einfügen können. Jeder ist vollständig ausgeschrieben. Öffnen, kopieren, die Teile in eckigen Klammern anpassen.
Bank Enforcement Hearing Playbook for EgyptPlaybookExpertPrepare / Brief
You are counsel for a bank preparing a hearing playbook to enforce a defaulted credit facility before the competent Egyptian court, written in formal terms so that its parts can be lifted into filings and oral submissions. Work in the order of the decision gates below and stop at any gate where a fact is missing. Facts: the lender is [Bank Name], the borrower is [Borrower Name], the guarantors are [Guarantor Names], the facility is [Facility Description] for [Facility Amount], the security package is [Security Package], the default and its date are [Default Event and Date], the demands or notices already sent are [Notices Sent], and the defences the borrower has raised or is likely to raise are [Borrower Defences]. Deliverables: 1. A chronology of the facility, the default and every notice, each entry tied to a document in the file. 2. A gate-one assessment of whether the pre-suit steps, including formal notice and any steps required by the facility terms or banking regulations, were properly completed. 3. A forum and claim map stating the competent court, the parties to join and the heads of claim against the borrower, each guarantor and each security provider. 4. A ranking of the security and guarantees, showing where claims against different obligors overlap or conflict and the order in which to enforce. 5. A table of the borrower's likely defences with the bank's answer and the proof needed for each. 6. A schedule of interim measures worth requesting before judgment, with the risk of each. 7. A hearing script of the bank's opening points and the questions the court is likely to put. 8. A list of the documents to certify, translate or obtain before filing. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule, rate, limitation period or deadline, or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel in Egypt. Do not assume that the rules of the Central Bank of Egypt, a Sharia-based term or the facility's contractual interest are enforceable as written; ask which applies and flag the point. Where the facts above conflict with a document, report the conflict rather than choosing. This output prepares counsel and is not legal advice for the bank's specific situation.
Loan Agreement Review Report for an Iraqi BorrowerReportStarterReview / Redline
You are reviewing a loan agreement for the board of a borrower operating in Iraq and preparing a formal report on its terms. Read the agreement as an instrument under Iraqi civil law and note where foreign-currency or foreign-law provisions may meet limits under Iraqi law or central bank rules. Facts: the borrower is [Borrower Name], the agreement is [Loan Agreement Description], and the loan is for [Loan Currency and Amount]. Deliverables: 1. A summary of the commercial terms: amount, currency, interest, fees, repayment and maturity. 2. The clauses that most expose the borrower, ranked by seriousness, with the reason for each. 3. Provisions that may conflict with Iraqi law, central bank rules or the choice of foreign law and forum, each flagged for local counsel. 4. Three recommended changes to put to the lender. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the clause of the agreement for every point and mark any outside rule as unverified for local counsel. Do not conclude that a clause is void or enforceable. This report is general information and not legal advice on the borrower's specific situation.
Cross-Border Loan Facility Summary for the BoardReportAdvancedSummarize / Extract
You are summarising a cross-border loan facility for the board of [Borrower Group]. The board reads analytically and wants to know what the group has committed to, where the facility can fail, and which legal system decides each question. Facts: the facility agreement is attached and is governed by [Governing Law]; the lenders are [Lender Group]; the borrower and guarantors sit in [Obligor Jurisdictions] and the security is over assets in [Security Jurisdictions]; the board is deciding on [Board Decision] by [Decision Date]. Deliverables: 1. A one-page summary of amount, tenor, pricing mechanics, repayment profile and the main conditions to drawing. 2. A table of the financial and non-financial undertakings, each with its trigger, its cure period and the consequence of breach. 3. The events of default and cross-default links that could be triggered by events outside the borrower's control. 4. For each obligor and each security asset, which law governs validity, perfection and enforcement, and where the lenders would have to sue. 5. The three points the board should ask management or counsel to resolve before it decides. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the clause of the agreement for every term you report and mark any rule of local law as unverified and for local counsel to confirm. Where the governing law and the law of an obligor or asset pull in different directions, say so and do not pick a winner. Quote amounts and dates exactly as written in the agreement, and say when a term is missing rather than assuming a market norm.
Intercreditor Draft Review Memo for the CounterpartyMemoEnterpriseReview / Redline
You are counsel to [Our Client], a [Creditor Class] creditor, reviewing the other side's draft intercreditor agreement and writing an analytical memo that will be sent to the counterparty's counsel. The memo must explain our position clearly enough that the other side can respond line by line, without disclosing our fallback positions or our internal assessment. Facts: the draft is attached; the parties are [Senior Creditors], [Junior Creditors], [Borrower and Guarantors] and [Security Agent]; the debt sits in [Debt Jurisdictions] and the agreement is to be governed by [Governing Law]; our client's objectives are [Client Objectives]; the signing timetable is [Timetable]; the points already agreed are [Agreed Points]; the lines we will not cross are [Red Lines]. Deliverables: 1. A short statement of the structure as we read it: ranking, security, guarantees and which party controls enforcement. 2. A table of each provision we accept, accept with changes or reject, with the reason and the proposed replacement wording. 3. Analysis of payment blockage, standstill and turnover provisions, and who bears the risk of a payment received in breach. 4. How enforcement decisions are sequenced, who can instruct the security agent and when a creditor may act on its own. 5. The treatment of release of security on a sale, including whether the release requires the consent of each class. 6. How insolvency in each relevant jurisdiction could undo or override the ranking agreed in the contract, expressed as questions for local counsel. 7. Provisions that conflict with one another, with a proposed order of priority between them. 8. A list of open points in the order they should be negotiated, with the decision each needs from the parties. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the clause of the draft for every comment and mark each statement of local insolvency or security law as unverified and for local counsel to confirm. Do not reveal fallback positions, the internal ranking of our priorities or privileged advice. Do not describe a clause as market standard unless you can name the source for that statement. Where the draft is silent, say so and do not assume the missing term.
Covenant Reset Request Letter to a Lender's BoardLetter / EmailAdvancedNegotiate / Counter
You are counsel to [Borrower Name], a Singapore borrower, drafting a persuasive letter to the board of its lender asking for a reset of financial covenants under a term loan. The board decides on credit terms and reads quickly, so the letter must lead with the request and the reason the lender is better off agreeing than refusing. Facts: the facility is [Facility Description] with [Lender Name]; the covenant at issue is [Covenant and Current Level]; the projected position is [Projected Headroom or Breach]; the borrower's recovery plan is [Recovery Plan]; the borrower offers [Concessions Offered]; the response is needed by [Response Date]. Deliverables: 1. An opening paragraph stating the request, the new covenant terms proposed and the response date. 2. The commercial case in three points: why the shortfall is temporary, what the recovery plan changes and why the lender's recovery is worse if the loan is enforced. 3. The concessions offered and how each protects the lender, for example pricing, reporting, security or equity support. 4. A short account of the lender's alternatives and their cost to it, stated respectfully and without threats. 5. A closing paragraph that proposes a meeting, identifies the documents that will follow and reserves the borrower's rights. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; where you refer to a Singapore rule, a regulatory expectation or a deadline, cite the named source or mark it unverified for local counsel. Do not admit a default, an inability to pay or any fact that would prejudice the borrower, and write the letter as without prejudice if the facts call for it. Do not overstate the recovery plan or give a forecast that the borrower has not supplied. Keep the tone firm and courteous, with no emotional appeals.
Guarantee Claim Chronology Table for CourtTable / TimelineStandardPrepare / Brief
You are preparing, for a hearing before an English court, a concise chronology table in a claim on a bank guarantee. The reader is the judge, who has limited time and has not seen the papers. Facts: the claimant is [Claimant], the defendant is [Defendant], the guarantee was issued on [Guarantee Date] for [Guaranteed Amount], and the documents available are [Document List]. Deliverables: 1. A table with the columns date, event, source document and page reference, and why the event matters. 2. Rows in date order, covering the guarantee, any amendment, the demand, the response and any payment. 3. A separate list of events whose date or content is disputed or unsupported by a document. 4. A final line stating which dates fix any time limit, without calculating the deadline yourself. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the document for every entry and mark anything you cannot trace to a document as unverified. Do not argue the case in the table, and keep each entry to one sentence. Flag for counsel any procedural requirement of the court that you are unsure of.
Client Letter Recommending a Lender Waiver OfferLetter / EmailExpertClient Communications
You are a Singapore banking and finance lawyer writing a persuasive letter to your client, the borrower, recommending that it accept the lender's waiver and amendment offer instead of contesting an alleged default. The letter must move a busy finance director to a decision while staying honest about what the client gives up. Facts: the client is [Borrower Name] and the lender is [Lender Name]; the facility is [Facility Description] with outstanding principal of [Outstanding Amount]; the lender asserts a default based on [Alleged Default]; the offer on the table is [Offer Terms] and lapses on [Offer Deadline]; the client's main commercial concern is [Client Priority]; and the alternatives it has considered are [Alternatives Considered]. Deliverables: 1. An opening paragraph that states the recommendation and the decision needed from the client. 2. A plain account of the alleged default and how strong the lender's position looks on the facts supplied. 3. The concessions the client gives under the offer, set against what it keeps or gains, such as continued availability, no acceleration and a cure period. 4. The realistic downside of refusing, covering acceleration, enforcement against security, cross-default into other debt and reputational effect with the bank. 5. Terms still worth negotiating before signing, with the argument for each. 6. A short decision path with dates, who signs and what must happen before [Offer Deadline]. 7. A closing paragraph that restates the recommendation and invites questions. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every rule, rate or deadline, or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Persuade through reasons the client can check, not through pressure or guarantees of outcome. Do not say the default is established or disproved unless the facility documents supplied show it, and mark the letter as general commentary that is not a substitute for advice on the final signed terms.
Board FAQ on a Swiss Supervisory Review ReportQ&A / ExplainerEnterpriseSummarize / Extract
You are counsel to a Swiss bank group summarizing a supervisory review report for its board of directors as a concise FAQ. The board has little time and must see what is binding, what is discretionary, who owns each fix and which decisions it cannot delegate. Facts: the institution is [Bank Name], supervised in Switzerland and operating through [Foreign Entities]; the report was issued by [Supervisory Body] on [Report Date] and covers [Review Scope]; the main findings are [Key Findings]; the report sets deadlines of [Remediation Deadlines]; some findings touch client data held for [Cross-Border Clients], where a foreign authority has asked for [Foreign Request]; senior management owners are [Management Owners]; and the next board meeting is on [Board Date]. Deliverables: 1. A three-line answer to what the report is and whether it is a formal measure or supervisory feedback. 2. A question and answer for each main finding, naming the obligation at stake and its severity. 3. A short answer on which findings carry deadlines and which are recommendations only. 4. A question on the foreign request: what Swiss rules on client confidentiality and cross-border disclosure allow, and what needs a decision before anything is transmitted. 5. A question on personal exposure of board and senior management, kept factual and without predicting any sanction. 6. A sequenced remediation outline with owner, date and decision gate for each step. 7. A list of decisions reserved to the board versus those management may take. 8. A question on disclosure to auditors, group parent, insurers and other authorities. 9. A final answer stating the three points the board must act on at [Board Date]. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, ordinance, circular, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every rule, fine or deadline, or mark it unverified and flag it for Swiss counsel. Where Swiss and foreign requirements conflict, set both out and say which instrument or process normally resolves the conflict, without choosing one. Keep each answer to a few sentences, and do not state that a finding is closed or immaterial unless the report says so.
Lender Acceleration and Set-Off Research TableTable / TimelineExpertResearch / Authorities
You are preparing, for filing with [Court or tribunal], a research table on whether a lender may accelerate a facility and set off deposits after a borrower default, written in an analytical register that a judge can follow without the loan file. Facts: the lender is [Lender], the borrower is [Borrower], the guarantor is [Guarantor], the facility is [Facility description] under the law of [Jurisdiction], the default is [Description of default and date of notice], the deposits held at the lender total [Amount and currency], and the other secured creditors are [Other creditors and their security]. Deliverables: 1. A table of the legal questions, one per row, with columns for the question, the governing rule, the source, the confidence level and the open point. 2. The conditions the facility must meet before acceleration, and whether the notice given met them. 3. The conditions for contractual and statutory set-off against the deposits, and any bar such as insolvency, lack of mutuality or an account held in a different capacity. 4. The effect of acceleration and set-off on the guarantor, including any requirement to demand payment from the borrower first. 5. The ranking of the lender against the other secured creditors, and any step needed to preserve it. 6. A sequence of steps the lender should take, in order, with the point at which each step becomes irreversible. 7. The facts still needed from the lender before the table is filed. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule in the table or mark that row unverified and flag it for local counsel. Where the contract and the default rules of the governing law conflict, show both rows and say which prevails and why. Do not state a conclusion on the merits; the table sets out questions and sources, not the outcome.