By decree no. 120/2026 dated 9 January 2026, the Court of Cosenza upheld the opposition filed by a special purpose vehicle in insolvency proceedings, fully recognising the credit claimed and admitting it to the liabilities for an amount exceeding EUR 400,000.
The case arose from the rejection—during the verification stage—of a late filing by the assignee of the credit on the grounds that neither the ownership of the claim nor the non-imputability of the delay had been proven. The delegated judge had considered the inclusion of the claim in the bulk assignment insufficiently demonstrated and held the lapse of time between the assignment and the filing of the application attributable to the creditor.
In opposition, the Court reconstructed the evidentiary criteria governing securitisation transactions, recalling the established Supreme Court case law that, in assignments under Article 58 of the Italian Banking Act, “the substantive basis of standing depends (…) on proof of the object of the assignment”. It specified that such proof may be provided through several converging documentary elements. In this case, decisive elements included the publication of the assignment notice in the Official Gazette, the assignor bank’s declaration confirming inclusion of the claim in the assignment, and the absence of any specific objection by the insolvency receiver. These documents were collectively deemed sufficient to prove both the transfer of the credit and the assignee’s full standing.
A further key issue concerned the timeliness of the late filing. The Court found that the assignee had never received the notice of the opening of insolvency proceedings under Article 92 of the Bankruptcy Law, which had been sent solely to the original creditor. In line with the well-established principle that “failure to notify the creditor constitutes a cause of non-imputability of the delay”, the Court excluded any negligence on the part of the opposing party and noted that the receiver had not shown that the assignee had gained knowledge of the bankruptcy from other sources.
Having recognised both standing and non-imputability of the delay, the Court upheld the opposition and admitted the credit.
The opposing company was represented by Cassinelli Studio Legale, with Nicola Cassinelli and Vittorio Bertorello.