In an additional legal issue, on February 8, 2005, Trump had closed on a construction loan of $640 million from Deutsche Bank for the project. He also obtained a $130–135 million junior mezzanine loan from another syndicate headed by Fortress Investment Group. As part of these contracts, Trump had included a $40 million personal guarantee. The contracts also mandated partial repayments for each closed unit sale, and minimum sale prices. In September 2008, due to slow unit sales, Trump sought to extend both loans until mid-2009 because he felt that it was necessary in the business environment and expected from the outset of the contract. On November 10, Deutsche Bank demanded the outstanding loan payment and the $40 million guarantee. Trump filed suit later that month against Deutsche Bank in New York State Supreme Court in an effort to excuse a repayment of more than $330 million that had been due November 7, and to extend the construction loan for an unspecified period of time because of extenuating circumstances arising from the financial crisis of 2007–2010. Trump cited a "force majeure" clause that allowed the borrower to delay completion of the project under a catch-all section covering "any other event or circumstance not within the reasonable control of the borrower". Trump not only sought an extension, but sought damages of $3 billion from the bank for its use of predatory lending practices to undermine the project and damage his reputation, which he claimed "is associated worldwide with on-time, under-budget, first-class construction projects and first-class luxury hotel operations." At the end of November, Deutsche Bank countersued Trump to force him to uphold his personal payment guarantee from February 2005, after he failed to repay the amount due November 7—a date that already had been extended. The suits did not interfere with Trump's ability to continue drawing on the credit line provided by Deutsche Bank, because without the project's continued financing, Deutsche Bank may have had to assume the role of developer. In March 2009, both parties agreed to suspend litigation and resolve the disagreement amicably in an effort to help the project to succeed. In September 2010, an amended loan agreement stopped the litigation and extended the term on an approximately $600 million construction loan for five years.