An assignment of a claim to a securitisation fund (fonds de titrisation) requires the debtor to be informed of the change of entity responsible for collection. That information may be given by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial document. Voluntary intervention submissions served on the debtor, setting out the capacity of representative and collection agent (représentant-recouvreur), the assignment deed and the letter of appointment, and accompanied by those documents, are sufficient to deliver that information. The commercial chamber so held on 15 April 2026.
The essentials
- Where claims are transferred to a financing body (organisme de financement), their collection continues in principle to be carried out by the assignor, unless it is taken over by the management company or transferred by agreement to another entity.
- Any change of the entity responsible for collection must be brought to the attention of each debtor concerned, by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial document.
- Voluntary intervention submissions served on the debtor, which refer to the letter of appointment and the assignment deed and produce those documents, validly inform the debtor of the change of collecting entity.
- A judge who has found that such service took place cannot exclude the assigned claims from the over-indebtedness file on the ground that the debtor was not informed.
- In matters of household over-indebtedness, the dispute is indivisible, including as regards the verification of claims: the fate of a single claim affects the decision as a whole.
Why had the assigned claims been excluded from the file?
The commercial chamber quashes (Com., 15 April 2026, No. 25-11.545): the debtor had indeed been informed of the change of entity responsible for collection, since that change had been served on them by voluntary intervention submissions. The decision under appeal (CA Grenoble, 10 December 2024, No. 22/03410) had held the assignment unenforceable against the debtor and excluded the claims concerned from the scope of the over-indebtedness proceedings.
A borrower had taken out two loans from a bank in 2006, and was then ordered to pay various sums by a 2015 judgment. In 2018, they applied to the commission de surendettement des particuliers (household over-indebtedness commission), which declared the application admissible and adopted a rescheduling plan including the banking debts. They challenged that decision before the juge des contentieux de la protection (judge with jurisdiction over consumer protection disputes). During the appeal proceedings, the bank assigned its claim to a securitisation mutual fund (fonds commun de titrisation), on 3 August 2022. The company appointed by the management company to collect the assigned claims then intervened voluntarily in the proceedings.
The court of appeal noted that this company produced the assignment deed, but that no document showed that the change of collecting entity had been brought to the debtor's attention. It inferred that the assignment was unenforceable against them and excluded the two banking claims from the over-indebtedness proceedings, without examining the other arguments.
The commercial chamber rules on the basis of Article L. 214-172, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the French Monetary and Financial Code, in its version resulting from Law No. 2019-486 of 22 May 2019. That provision governs the collection of claims transferred to a financing body, a category to which a securitisation mutual fund belongs (free translation).
It follows from that provision that, where claims other than financial instruments are transferred to a financing body, their collection continues to be carried out by the assignor. Although, at any time, that collection may be carried out directly by the management company as legal representative of the financing body, or may be entrusted by it, by agreement, to another entity, each debtor concerned is informed of that change. That information is given by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial document.
The commercial chamber notes that the court of appeal had itself found the matters establishing that information. The company responsible for collection had filed and served voluntary intervention submissions setting out its capacity, the claims assignment deed of 3 August 2022 and the letter of appointment issued by the management company.
from which it followed that [the debtor] had been informed of the change of entity responsible for the collection of those claims, the court of appeal, which failed to draw the legal consequences of its own findings, infringed the above-mentioned provision.
The quashing is not confined to the banking claims alone: the appeal decision is set aside in all its provisions, and the case is remitted to the Chambéry court of appeal. The debt clearance plan adopted by the lower court judges therefore falls with the rest of the decision.
How can the assigned debtor be validly informed?
Informing the debtor is subject to no imposed formality: it may result from written submissions served in the course of proceedings, provided that they tell the debtor who now collects the debt and on what basis. The provision itself expressly allows a judicial or extrajudicial document, without making it an exclusive method.
Three matters determined the outcome. The submissions served set out the intervening company's capacity as representative and collection agent. They stated that the fund had succeeded to the bank's rights under a dated claims assignment deed. Lastly, they referred to the letter of appointment from which the company derived its mandate, and those documents were produced in support of the submissions. Taken together, these matters enabled the debtor to know that the entity responsible for collection had changed.
The practical consequence is direct for the debtor. Challenging a purchased claim on the sole ground that the change of collecting entity was not served on them becomes ineffective where the opposing submissions, which were served on them, carry that information and are accompanied by supporting documents. The argument presupposes that the information is genuinely absent from the file.
Assignment of a securitised claim: scope of the decision
The decision confirms that informing the debtor is a substantive requirement, satisfied by any means, and recalls that a judge must draw the legal consequences of their own findings. The commercial chamber creates no additional formalism: on the contrary, it refuses to add any.
One point remains outside the scope of the decision. The commercial chamber does not rule on the effects of a genuine failure to inform the debtor, nor on the classification adopted by the lower court judges, who had referred to the assignment being unenforceable. The censure rests solely on the contradiction between the court of appeal's findings and the consequence it drew from them.
The scope of the quashing deserves attention. The extent of the setting aside goes beyond the claim in dispute:
Since the dispute, concerning household over-indebtedness, is indivisible, even as regards the procedure for verifying claims, it follows that the quashing is not limited to the bank's claim alone but extends to the decision in its entirety.
Building evidence that the debtor was informed
An assignee bringing proceedings against an assigned debtor is well advised to have its own written submissions carry the information about the change of entity responsible for collection, and to keep a record of it. The decision discussed here shows that this information may be found in the documents on the file themselves.
- Set out in the submissions the exact capacity of the entity taking action, the chain of rights relied on and the date of the claims assignment deed.
- Produce the letter of appointment issued by the management company as well as the assignment deed, and not the assignment deed alone.
- Keep evidence of service of the submissions on the debtor, together with its date.
- For the debtor, check whether the submissions served on them already contain that information before relying on its absence.
Vigilance is also required as to the overall effect of the dispute. In household over-indebtedness, calling into question the verification of one claim may lead to a complete re-examination of the file, including the debt clearance plan. A creditor, like a debtor, must therefore anticipate that arguing over a single line of the liabilities reopens the whole.
Checks to make before claiming payment of a purchased claim
The assignee must ensure that the debtor has been made the recipient of the information relating to the change of collecting entity, by a means of which it keeps a record. Submissions served in the pending proceedings may suffice, provided they set out the chain of rights and are accompanied by the assignment deed and the letter of appointment. The debtor, for their part, must examine the documents already filed before contending that no information was given to them. As the case law stands at 15 April 2026, no particular form is required for that information.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can lawyer's submissions be enough to inform a debtor of a change of collecting entity?
Yes. According to the commercial chamber, on 15 April 2026, voluntary intervention submissions served on the debtor validly inform them of the change of entity responsible for collection, provided they state the capacity of representative and collection agent, the deed assigning the claims to the securitisation fund and the letter of appointment, and provided those documents are produced. The applicable provision allows information to be given by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial document.
Can a claim purchased by a securitisation fund be excluded from an over-indebtedness file?
Not on the sole ground that the debtor was not informed of the change of collecting entity, where the judge has found that submissions served on them provided that information. In the case decided on 15 April 2026, the court of appeal had excluded the assigned claims; its decision was set aside in all its provisions and the case remitted to another court of appeal, which will re-examine the file.
What happens if the debtor claims never to have been informed of the assignment of their debt?
The judge examines the documents on the file. If the submissions served on the debtor mention the assignment deed and the letter appointing the entity responsible for collection, and if those documents are produced, the information has been given. The decision of 15 April 2026 does not settle the consequences of a genuine failure to inform: it censures only a judge who refuses to draw the legal consequences of their own findings.
How can a creditor keep evidence that information was actually sent to a debtor?
By using a written, dated medium whose receipt or transmission leaves a verifiable trace, and by attaching the documents to which the information refers. The general principle is simple: a party claiming to have informed someone must be able to prove it. Keeping a copy of what was sent, of its annexes and of evidence of delivery avoids having to reconstruct, years later, a step that was in fact taken.
Must a creditor who has purchased a claim prove its rights in order to obtain payment?
Yes, in principle. A party demanding payment must establish the existence of the claim and its own standing to require it. That means documenting the full chain of transfers from the original creditor, as well as the mandate of the person acting on behalf of the current holder. A demand whose chain of rights is not evidenced is open to an effective challenge by the debtor.