Under common law, the essential elements of innovation are: (1) a valid prior obligation; (2) an agreement between the parties to a new contract; (3) the removal of previous commitments; and (4) a new valid contract. To satisfy the second and third elements, all parties must have „clearly expressed their intention to replace or replace an old agreement.“ 3 The key to innovation analysis is therefore the intention of the parties. In the in Re Fair Finance Company, the amended and amended loan agreement (the „2004 agreement“) explicitly provided that the obligations under that agreement would be secured by a security interest for the same guarantees that guaranteed the original credit contract („the 2002 agreement“) and that the 2004 agreement „wanted the parties to amend and reaffirm the 2002 agreement“4 , the District Court found that the following provisions of the 2004 agreement support the conclusion that the parties to the 2004 agreement is a re-edition of the 2002 agreement: recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Bash v. Textron Financial Corporation (In re Fair Finance Company) overturned a District Court decision for the Northern District of Ohio that a modified and amended loan agreement was not an innovation in the loan agreement Initial. Thus, in the generalized cancellation of the rejection of a proceeding in question resulting from Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, the Landgericht found that the amended and amended loan agreement was in fact a reissue of the original loan contract (or at least is not clear). If the amended and revised loan agreement were indeed a new one, the security interest granted on the basis of the original loan agreement would have been terminated on the date the parties entered into the amended and amended loan agreement2. While the inadequacy of the evidence proposed by the District Court suggests that the parties might have wanted to innovate may be questioned, the lesson that counsel developing a modified and revised funding agreement should learn from this decision is the importance of clearly explaining the parties` intention that the amended and revised agreement is not an innovation. The In re Fair Finance Company court stated that the 2004 agreement did not explicitly provide for the parties to consider maintaining the original security interests.9 In the development of an amended and revised financing agreement, counsel should include an explicit statement that the agreement is not intended to be an innovation or an end to the commitments arising from the original agreement. , and as part of guaranteed financing, that security interests established in accordance with the original agreement must be pursued and insured with obligations arising from the revised and revised agreement.