Despite the general conviction, the return of documents is not necessarily illegal. In fact, it is allowed for so long that there is a Latin expression, nunc pro tunc, which describes the backdated documents. For legal reasons, you should avoid the use of backdated documents. In other words, cases where it is appropriate to use backdated documents are rare. In practice, however, backdated documents are used, for better or for worse. While Juzek`s entrepreneurial spirit is worth an article of its own, I found it interesting to read, in juzek`s history research, that he reissued the labels in his instruments. They contained his own name, but a completion date about five years earlier than the actual date on which the instrument was completed. The Court of Appeal then considered whether the retroactivity of this transaction, assuming that the FDIC/Weatherford transaction had a retroactive effect (which was not the case), had a legal impact on the transaction between the FDIC and the FH partners. FH Partners was unable to cite an authority « to propose that a retroactive date in a contract could be construed as automatic retroactivity on a separate contract, » which would likely have been fatal in its case. However, the language of the FDIC/FH partnership agreements continued to undermine the arguments of the FH partners, since the documents (1) stipulated that they could only be amended or repealed in a letter signed by the parties (2) by not allowing the FDIC to change what it would bring to the FH partners after their conclusion. (3) FDIC`s interest « on the date of the sale of credit » (4) the FDIC`s shares in the loan « as seen » (5), provided that the FDIC has « no obligation to dispose of a missing assignment or an assignment to [the FDIC] that is not included in the credit file, » (6) a procedure by which FH partners could require the FDIC to repurchase a loan if it was determined that the FDIC did not hold them at its conclusion. and (7) FDIC`s rights « at the time of closing. » As part of the appeal proceedings, FH Partners submitted that the FDIC did not hold the loan on December 16, 2008, but that the FDIC retrodate transaction with Weatherford resolved the problem retroactively. The Court of Appeal asked two separate questions: (1) whether the FDIC transaction with Weatherford of June 10, 2009 was effective to transfer the loan retroactively between FDIC and Weatherford to FDIC, and (2) whether an effect retroactive to the FDIC`s previous transaction with FH Partners is true.
The $1 million sola change that I am preparing for this client to deliver to his benefactor, the actual date the funds were wired, was legal.