Despite having some good material presented, I was a disappointed from many other aspects. For instance, time loss: We have lost a lot of time due to technical or organisational planification. Case Studies: I was expecting to go deeper in analysing case studies to further understand and learn from previous experience and the experience of the trainer on structuring understanding and overcoming challenges to syndicated loans. Course Material: I got the feeling that some of the course material were just to fill in gaps such as terminologies to use. These are usually the work of DFIs lawyers who are experienced in that. Besides, each organisation may have different terms to use in its legal documents. And just for the record of the trainer: the use of English Law in agreements is not due to the predictability of the outcome of English law. It is due to language and enforcability. Most of agreements are in English. To go in front of a French court for instance, agreements must be translated into French which is costly and might lead to some ambiguity and défavorable outcome based on the translated document; and ruling of English courts is recognised in many countries around the world which gives confidence to investors and agents that the ruling will be carried out and enforced by the local government. In French speaking countries, there is a tendency to go to the court of Paris and not to the court of England due to same reasons indicated above.
I was quite disappointed by the training in the end. First the level of the class was quite poor (half of the class was nothing like project finance professionals nor advanced modellers) which had for consequence to progress at a very low pace. We were far away from the described agenda and even farther from doing "advanced modelling" at some point. The teacher is not the one to blame for it but rather Euromoney which should definitely restrict advanced class to advanced professionals in the related field.