I have encountered a number of cases where companies have contracts that were not “evergreen” and then expired, but the process may not have been intentional, or where the parties decided they wanted to continue doing business. If the time frame is not very long and most of the terms and conditions remain the same, it may be convenient to avoid drawing up a completely new agreement. I have seen cases like this where the parties sign a document called a “recovery agreement” or “reinstatement,” or simply an amendment to the old one that purports to reinstate the expired contract. There may have been obligations under the old or special provisions for transactions that took place between the expiry date of the old one and the coming into force of the new (or amendment) that the new document processes after termination. (e) the continuation of the insurance contract. When rights are restored, the insurance contract is maintained as if the defect had not occurred. (c) Payment. Within 30 calendar days of the date of notification pursuant to paragraph (b) of this Section, the HFA shall pay HUD an amount equal to the amount of the original claim as set forth in Section 266,628(a)(1), plus an amount equal to the accrued and unpaid interest on the HFA Debenture up to the reinstatement date plus an amount equal to the mortgage insurance premium for the period from the date of reinstatement of the insurance contract until: next anniversary for the payment of the mortgage insurance premium. (a) the conditions for reinstatement. After the first payment of the claim, HUD may reinstate the insurance contract under the following conditions: (b) Notice of Reinstatement of Rights. If reinstatement is acceptable to HUD, HUD will inform HFA of the date on which the insurance contract will be reinstated and inform HFA of the payment required to reinstate the insurance contract. I agree with Vance. If a contract ends because it has reached the end of its term and the parties then decide to apply the defibrillator and relaunch that agreement, I would say – as always – that the documentation reflects what really happened.
Rather, the suggestion that the parties had extended the time limit to the end of or before the original period would rather give an inaccurate account of the circumstances. I am moved to present this question to you because, in a way, it is related to your comments in MSCD and elsewhere on anti-dating contracts which, I agree, are a no-no, especially for publicly traded companies, or make contracts “retroactively effective” in a similar way. In such a recent case, the counterparty questioned whether this was possible and instead submitted a recital stating that the old agreement had continued with a new expiry date. That seemed to me to be wrong for the reasons you mentioned in retroactivity or anti-dating situations. Personally, I didn`t see anything wrong with creating a change that revived the dead contract , but I`m willing to consider other alternatives than lying or writing the original deal from scratch. A deficiency in the duration of a contract can have serious repercussions on one or more parties. For example, it could harm a party`s claim against a non-party for rights in something or another. (Does anyone want to suggest scenarios?) Creating a false timeline would not solve this problem. Instead, it could increase the prospect of a fraud prosecution.
(3) The HFA requests HUD to reinstate the insurance contract. (d) cancellation of the security. Upon receipt by HFA of the amount referred to in paragraph (c) of this section, HUD will return the HFA obligation for cancellation. The following state order pages link to this page. Last week, I received the following request from reader Vance Koven:. .
