The lender of Tango leniency debtors requires at least two willing participants. The debtor needs time and probably other concessions to remedy the difficult situation in which he finds himself. He also wants a little comfort so that the lender doesn`t take the rug out of it before time. If there is reasonable confidence, the lender also wishes to give its customer time to resolve the problem; She just doesn`t want to give time, observe how her safety evaporates, and then stand at the stop of the road. It must be recognized that there is an inequality in trading positions: the debtor is in need, he needs money and has little time to find it, while the lender controls both the financial resources and the day before the shutdown. As noted by a popular source of information in the wake of the recent U.S. real estate crisis, the forbearance agreement should clearly identify when the lender`s obligation to trace is extinguished, what events constitute a default, and how the lender`s obligation to expire in the event of default can be terminated. Some default settings are more obvious than others. For example, non-compliance should be linear for defined objectives, but what happens if there are minor deviations in compliance or reporting? Should the debtor continue to comply with all initial credit covenants during the leniency period? In a classic scenario for bricks and mortar mortgages, information based on reports or credit would be less of a concern than an operational lender. If the debtor is required to meet the cash flow forecast, how much negative goodwill is it completed, is it allowed one week per week and/or cumulatively? Both the lender and the debtor must carefully consider the default conditions under the leniency agreement to ensure that potential infringements are as objective as possible. The coronavirus outbreak triggered the indulgence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Between these two institutions, they guarantee more than two thirds of all mortgages and 95% of mortgage-backed securities.
 See the definition of « indulgence » in Black`s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition (2009: West, a Thomson Business) p. 717 There is a prohibition on the collection of a « criminal sorry » of interest: R.S.C 1985 c.C-46 amended (criminal code) s. 347. The perception of an overall effective annual rate of more than 60% is not only a criminal offence, but can also jeopardize the recovery of the entire facility. Given the expansionist definition of « interest » under the penal code, it is not that difficult for a lender to inadvertently exceed the 60 per cent threshold. First, because most financial institutions compound interest, even an interest rate of 40 percent on a monthly basis will result in a 60.103222 percent EAR and intersect in the criminal category. Second, the definition of interest for the purposes of the Penal Code factors in other costs and fees (including leniency or other administrative fees, loan application fees, monthly fees, obligation, stand-by or late fees, premiums, processing fees, NSFs and other return fees).  While it is less relevant to ordinary commercial lenders, venture capital and more adventurous lenders could be threatened with convertible bonds or debt securities allowing the lender to share the success of their clients by exchanging debts for equity.
 What exactly does the lender not want to do during the leniency period? Is it simply not to enforce the guarantee against the debtor, as long as the conditions of leniency are respected? Does the lender also agree to guarantee third-party guarantees or other guarantees? Does this include judicial or civil enforcement? Does the agreement mean that there are no claims and the 10-day legal notification of the intention to enforce the security under section 244 of the R.S.C 1985 c.B-3, amended (« BIA ») or other applicable statutory termination requirements, as prescribed by the Farm Debt Mediation Act S.C.