{"id":12202,"date":"2025-11-06T16:52:00","date_gmt":"2025-11-06T15:52:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/?p=12202"},"modified":"2025-12-03T16:55:31","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T15:55:31","slug":"factoring-and-assignment-of-receivables-cassinelli-prevails-on-appeal-for-a-financial-company","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/factoring-and-assignment-of-receivables-cassinelli-prevails-on-appeal-for-a-financial-company\/","title":{"rendered":"Factoring and assignment of receivables: Cassinelli prevails on appeal for a financial company"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By judgment no. 1199\/2025 of 6 November 2025, the Court of Appeal of Genoa fully overturned the first\u2011instance decision which had denied the existence of any claim in favour of a leading company operating in the field of banking factoring. The dispute concerned a factoring relationship in which the assigned debtor had challenged the existence of the receivables on the basis of credit notes issued by the assignor after notice of the assignment had been given.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The panel referred to the principle, long established in the Supreme Court\u2019s case\u2011law, that once the debtor has been informed of the assignment, it can no longer affect the amount of the claim through agreements with the assignor. The Court expressly recalled that \u201conce notice of the assignment has been received, the assigned debtor cannot alter its position vis\u2011\u00e0\u2011vis the assignee through legal transactions entered into with the original creditor\u201d. It also noted that the first\u2011instance court had erred in \u201chaving regarded as legally valid and effective, as against the assignee of the receivable, acts of renegotiation and disposition of the receivable itself which were indisputably subsequent to its assignment\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court regarded the account given by the assigned debtor as not credible and relied on a series of documents \u2013 including the timing of the invoices, notifications and credit notes \u2013 which showed that the post\u2011assignment changes could not be relied upon against the assignee. It emphasised that the debtor\u2019s acceptance of the assignment constitutes a clear expression of will incompatible with any late challenge and that subsequent agreements between assignor and debtor cannot prejudice the position of the assignee which has already advanced the receivable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the Court, \u201cthe credit notes subsequently issued are not enforceable against the assignee, as they post\u2011date the assignment of the receivable (as well as its acceptance)\u201d, thereby confirming the full validity of the claim asserted by the assignee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision constitutes an important confirmation of the stability and reliability of the assignment of receivables in the context of factoring, reaffirming the protection afforded to the assignee in the face of subsequent conduct between assignor and debtor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cassinelli Studio Legale successfully assisted the appellant company with a team comprising <strong>Nicola Cassinelli <\/strong>and <strong>Karim Dahmouni<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By judgment no. 1199\/2025 of 6 November 2025, the Court of Appeal of Genoa fully overturned the first\u2011instance decision which had denied the existence of any claim in favour of a leading company operating in the field of banking factoring. The dispute concerned a factoring relationship in which the assigned debtor had challenged the existence of the receivables on the basis of credit notes issued&#8230; <\/p>\n<p class=\"more\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/factoring-and-assignment-of-receivables-cassinelli-prevails-on-appeal-for-a-financial-company\/\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":12203,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_theme","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,26,30],"tags":[13,16],"class_list":["post-12202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-banking-law","category-commercial-and-corporate-law","category-corporate-litigation","tag-cassinellin","tag-dahmouni","is-cat-link-borders-light is-cat-link-rounded"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12202","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12202"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12202\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12205,"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12202\/revisions\/12205"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiocassinelli.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}