Not automatically. A guarantee creates exposure, but exposure alone is not committed capital. The assessment looks at funds actually placed in the U.S. enterprise, substantial relative to its cost, irrevocably committed and subject to partial or total loss if the business fails. A contingent liability to a supplier is a different question.
Value the guarantee against the capital already committed
Set the guarantee beside the investment schedule. If a hypothetical Châteauguay reader has transferred funds for inventory, fit-out and a lease deposit, those items carry the substantiality analysis; the guarantee mainly describes what could be lost later. Where the guarantee secures a loan whose proceeds were invested, the security behind that loan becomes the live issue.
Ask counsel to review the actual instrument rather than relying on a category label. Two schedules laid side by side answer this faster than argument does. The first lists what has actually gone into the enterprise: each transfer, its date, its amount, and what it bought.
The second lists contingent obligations: the guarantee, its cap if it has one, and the event that would call it. Hypothetical example: an animal-health distribution agreement carries a personal guarantee of an open supply account, while the enterprise’s own capital sits in refrigerated storage equipment, opening inventory and a lease deposit; the second schedule describes a possible future loss, the first describes committed capital. Where the guarantee secured borrowing whose proceeds went into the business, the loan and its security move onto the first schedule for review.