Borrowing is not automatically fatal and not automatically acceptable. Suppose you draw a secured line against a Longueuil condo and invest US$800,000 in a hypothetical Georgia food-processing plant. The review looks at whether you actually own the funds, your liability under the executed loan, and whether the capital is genuinely at risk.
The loan's terms, not the fact of borrowing, drive the review
If the lender now wants security over the plant's own assets rather than your condo, that is a different arrangement and has to be assessed on the actual amendment, not on the original term sheet. Ask counsel to read the amendment, the security instrument and the enterprise's subscription documents together. Arrangements where you are actively in the process of investing may qualify; that is fact-specific, not a promise.
Reduce the amendment to a single sentence in your own words and ask counsel whether that sentence is accurate. Where you cannot write it, the terms are not yet understood well enough to sign. Ask specifically whether the lender's recourse after the amendment reaches your personal assets at all, and what the enterprise would owe if you defaulted.
Keep the original term sheet alongside the amendment rather than replacing it, since the change itself is part of the story and a reviewer who sees only the final version cannot tell what moved. Capital must be genuinely at risk in the enterprise, and an arrangement that quietly removes your risk while keeping the label is exactly what the review exists to find.