The Dailly Assignment in France: A Practical Guide for Collecting Assigned Receivables

A lot of unpaid-invoice problems in France don’t start in court. They start in the cash-flow gap between delivering work and getting paid.

That’s exactly the gap the Dailly assignment was designed to fix.

In plain English, a Dailly assignment is a statutory way to transfer professional receivables to a bank or finance provider using a short document (a “schedule”). The business gets cash upfront (minus fees). The bank gets the receivables—and, depending on how the deal is structured, the bank may also gain the right to collect directly from the customer.

For creditors, finance teams, and collection professionals, the Dailly assignment matters for two big reasons:

1. It can make a company look “paid” while the underlying customer invoice is still outstanding—because the receivable has been sold or pledged to a bank.

2. It can completely change who has the legal right to sue, who can demand payment, what defenses the debtor can raise, and what happens if the supplier goes insolvent.

This article explains the Dailly assignment in a way that’s useful for real debt recovery, with the key statutory references and the case law that actually moves outcomes.

1. What a Dailly assignment is—and why it shows up in collections

The most common setup is straightforward:

• A business sends its bank (or a finance company, or an alternative investment fund) a Dailly schedule listing receivables owed by its customers.

• By sending that schedule, the business transfers those receivables.

• The bank advances cash to the business, minus its fees.

This competes with invoice discounting through negotiable instruments, often seen as more expensive or heavier operationally. The Dailly route is often perceived as a simpler way to “mobilize” professional receivables.

But it’s not only used to get early cash. The Dailly assignment can also be used as security for a credit facility: receivables are transferred to secure repayment; once the credit is repaid, the bank should stop receiving new payments on those assigned receivables.

This distinction—assignment for financing vs assignment as security—sounds technical, but it becomes decisive when there’s litigation, insolvency, or competing claims.

A key decision illustrates the insolvency angle: where receivables were assigned in July 2000 as security and the supplier entered judicial reorganization later that year, the bank kept the benefit of the assignment because it became effective and enforceable against third parties on the date on the schedule (Cass. com., 22 Nov. 2005, n° 03-15669). That one date can decide who owns the money.

Statutory foundation: the Dailly regime is in the Monetary and Financial Code, especially articles L. 313-23 and following (including L. 313-24, L. 313-25, L. 313-27, L. 313-28, L. 313-29).

2. Who can use it—and what can be assigned

Who can use the Dailly assignment

It’s broad: any natural person using it for professional activity can use it (traders, artisans, farmers, regulated professionals). Any legal entity can use it too (companies, associations, etc.). See Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-23.

What can be assigned

This is one of the reasons Dailly is powerful: almost any type of receivable can be assigned:

• against individuals or companies,

• contractual, tort, or statutory receivables,

• due or not yet due,

• even future or conditional receivables, as long as they can be determined and properly identified on the schedule.

Again: Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-23.

Case law confirms wide coverage, including:

• receivables against public bodies such as municipalities (Cass. com., 3 Jan. 1996, n° 93-20783),

• receivables under public-private partnership structures (see Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-29-1),

• subsidies and damages receivables (CE, 7 Aug. 2008, n° 285979; CAA Nantes, 29 June 2001, n° 98NT01310, confirmed by CE, 7 Apr. 2004, n° 239000),

• tax receivables such as VAT credits (CE, 24 Sept. 2004, n° 233084; and also CGI art. 220 quinquies for certain carryback claims).

If you’re collecting in France and the debtor says “we can’t pay you because the invoice was assigned,” that may be real—and it may mean you’re negotiating with the wrong party if you don’t identify who holds the receivable now.

3. The construction risk: subcontracting can block enforceability

The Dailly assignment is not a free-for-all in construction.

When subcontracting is involved, French law restricts what the main contractor can assign unless subcontractors are protected by a specific security (Law n° 75-1334 of 31 Dec. 1975, art. 13-1). In practice, the main contractor generally cannot assign the part of the receivable corresponding to subcontracted work unless the legal protections are in place.

If that rule is violated, the assignment can be unenforceable against the subcontractor.

The Supreme Court confirmed that a receivables assignment by a main contractor is unenforceable against the subcontractor when the receivable does not correspond to work performed personally by that main contractor (Cass. civ. 3e, 9 June 1999, n° 98-10291).

This is a classic trap in collections: the bank may think it holds the receivable; the subcontractor may have a statutory claim; and the debtor (the project owner) may be caught in the middle.

4. Fraud risk: fake receivables can become criminal—fast

Because Dailly schedules can move cash quickly, the system is vulnerable to abuse.

Submitting receivables that do not exist, were already paid, or were already financed elsewhere can lead to criminal exposure (forgery and fraud).

Examples confirmed by criminal case law include:

• fake invoices used to obtain an advance under a Dailly schedule leading to conviction for forgery in commercial writings (Cass. crim., 30 Mar. 1992, n° 91-81143),

• re-using invoices already mobilized with another bank leading to conviction for fraud and a significant sentence (Cass. crim., 22 Feb. 1993, n° 91-85162).

For legitimate creditors, this matters because when a debtor disputes a Dailly-based demand, the dispute often focuses on whether the receivable truly exists and whether it was properly identified and transferred.

5. The schedule is everything: mandatory wording, signature, and identification

If you take only one practical point from this article, make it this:

A Dailly assignment is only as strong as the schedule.
If the schedule is defective, the assignment can become unenforceable against the debtor and third parties—exactly when you need it most.

Mandatory elements and signature

The schedule must include:

• the wording “acte de cession de créances professionnelles”,

• the statutory framework it is subject to,

• the beneficiary bank,

• the designated receivables (how they are identified),

• and where applicable the security interests attached to each receivable.

See Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-23.

Signature is mandatory (manual or non-handwritten process allowed), otherwise it has no value: Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-25.

A major modernization point: from March 14, 2025, if the schedule is “to order,” it can be created, signed, transferred, and stored electronically (Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-23 as amended by Law n° 2024-537 of 13 June 2024).

Missing a required element can destroy enforceability

• If one required legal mention is missing, the supposed assignment is enforceable against neither the debtor nor third parties (Cass. com., 14 Feb. 2024, n° 22-14784).

• The bank cannot “fix” missing schedule information by adding it in the notification to the debtor (Cass. com., 9 Apr. 1991, n° 89-20871).

• If the schedule does not carry the statutory title “acte de cession de créances professionnelles,” it does not qualify (Cass. com., 8 Nov. 1994, n° 93-10332; Cass. com., 13 Sept. 2017, n° 16-11408).

Does the debtor have to be named?

Surprisingly, the debtor’s name is not always mandatory if the receivables can still be identified by other means. A court accepted identification using other essential elements plus a debtor membership number in a cooperative structure (CA Paris, 17 Nov. 1992). The Supreme Court confirms that naming the debtor is one possible method, but not a required mention if identification is otherwise workable (Cass. com., Feb. 2011, n° 10-13595).

The receivables must be individually identifiable

The schedule must contain details enabling precise identification/individualization, or at least elements that make that possible: debtor, place of payment, amount or valuation method, due date where relevant, etc.

If the bank later sues and there was no acceptance by the debtor (more on that below), the bank must prove the existence of the receivable (Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-23).

Courts are strict:

• A schedule was rejected because it did not contain elements allowing individualization of the receivables to be transferred (Cass. com., 13 Oct. 1992, n° 90-21077).

• A schedule that only referenced an annex without proving it was attached caused the assignment to be unenforceable (Cass. com., 3 Oct. 2006, n° 04-30820).

• A bare mention like “attached balance as of May 31” was insufficient (Cass. com., 20 Feb. 2007, n° 05-20562).

• More generally, the Supreme Court states the schedule must contain the information necessary for identification and precise individualization (Cass. com., 19 Jan. 2022, n° 20-14619).

From a collection standpoint, this is the difference between a demand letter that forces payment and a demand letter that triggers a valid refusal.

6. The date on the schedule decides who owns the money

In the Dailly system, the bank places the date when the schedule is delivered (Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-25). That date is not cosmetic.

It decides:

• when the assignment takes effect,

• when it becomes enforceable against third parties,

• and which competing claims lose.

By statute, the bank’s rights arise on the date stated on the schedule (Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-27).

If the date is missing, the bank cannot enforce the assignment against the debtor:

• (Cass. com., 7 Mar. 1995, n° 93-12257; Cass. com., 14 June 2000, n° 96-22634).

And the courts refuse “workarounds”:

• You cannot cure a missing schedule date by relying on notification to the debtor (Cass. com., 15 Mar. 2023, n° 21-24490).

• If the date is inaccurate, the schedule is defective (Cass. civ. 1re, 8 July 2010, n° 09-66989 and 09-67450).

If multiple dates appear by mistake, the bank must prove which one matches the real decision date to acquire the receivable (Cass. com., 7 Dec. 1993, n° 92-10953).

If the date is disputed, the burden is on the bank to prove the date is accurate; courts have forced restitution in situations where evidence showed the actual date was later than claimed and the assignor no longer had power to assign (CA Orléans, 15 Mar. 2007, n° 06-1632).

Also: the bank cannot notify or request debtor acceptance before the schedule’s effective date (Cass. com., 8 Feb. 2000, n° 97-17627).

7. What the assignment does legally: transfer of rights, security, and the right to sue

Once effective, the assignment:

• transfers ownership of the receivables to the bank,

• and transfers all accessories, security interests, and guarantees attached to the receivable (including mortgages),

• without any additional formality.

That’s straight from Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-27.

The impact in collections is direct:

• Receivables no longer belong to the assignor at the schedule date, so they cannot be seized by the assignor’s creditors (Cass. com., 26 Nov. 2003, n° 01-03685).

• The assignor generally cannot sue the debtor anymore because the right of action transfers with the receivable (Cass. com., 18 Nov. 2014, n° 13-13336).

• If the receivable is a tax credit, the bank can challenge the tax administration’s refusal to reimburse (CE, 20 Sept. 2017, n° 393271).

Important nuance for “security assignments”: the assignment can end without formalities for amounts exceeding what is still owed to the bank (Cass. com., 9 Feb. 2010, n° 09-10119). Courts also examine whether the bank has effectively renounced part of the receivable in practice (Cass. com., 3 Nov. 2010, n° 09-69870).

8. The assignor’s big ongoing duty: don’t change what you sold

After the schedule date, the assignor must not change the rights transferred—without the bank’s agreement.

That includes:

• changing the due date,

• reducing the amount,

• altering attached security,

• granting a debt reduction or extending time.

See Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-27, al. 2.

Courts allow limited post-schedule adjustments only when they reflect a direct and legitimate correction (for example, a billing error), not a strategic attempt to cut the bank out. An example: a credit note after the schedule date was not enforceable against the bank unless it was the direct consequence of defective delivery; however, a credit note correcting a billing mistake could be allowed (CA Paris, 29 Mar. 1994).

For debt collection, this rule prevents a classic debtor-supplier arrangement: “Pay less and we’ll settle.” If the receivable was assigned, that deal may not bind the bank.

9. The guarantee most businesses overlook: the assignor can remain on the hook

Here’s the part that triggers the most unpleasant surprises.

Unless the contract says otherwise, the assignor is jointly and severally liable with the debtor for payment of the assigned receivable (Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-24).

That means the bank can often choose to pursue the debtor or the assignor, without having to justify the choice (CA Paris, 17 Apr. 1992).

Several rulings confirm how creditor-friendly this is for the bank:

• Even after notifying the debtor, the bank can pursue the assignor without suing the debtor at the same time (CA Paris, 22 Jan. 1993).

• The bank can claim against the assignor as long as the debtor has not actually paid, even if the debtor signed or accepted a payment instrument—payment must be real (Cass. com., 27 Feb. 2007, n° 05-17154).

• If the debtor enters insolvency proceedings, the bank will typically turn to the assignor (Cass. com., 20 Oct. 2009, n° 08-18233).

Procedural condition: unless the parties agreed otherwise, the bank generally must show either an amicable demand was made to the debtor or that payment by the debtor is impossible. The bank does not necessarily have to sue the debtor first, but it must satisfy this precondition unless the framework agreement waives it (Cass. com., 18 Sept. 2007, n° 06-13736; Cass. com., 5 June 2012, n° 11-18210).

If you’re a business that assigns receivables, read that again: in many structures, Dailly financing does not eliminate your risk—it can shift it into a guarantee obligation.

And in litigation where the underlying judgment later disappears (for example, damages awarded then reversed on appeal), the bank can still claim on the guarantee if the receivable existed at the time of assignment (Cass. com., 1 Feb. 2011, n° 09-73000).

10. Notification: optional for the bank, but devastating for careless debtors

What notification does

Notification is optional (Cass. com., 11 Dec. 2001, n° 98-18580). Even if the financing is guaranteed by a surety, the bank is not automatically required to notify (Cass. com., 27 Sept. 2016, n° 14-18282).

But when the bank notifies the debtor under Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-28, it does something powerful:

It instructs the debtor not to pay anyone except the bank.

If the debtor pays the supplier after notification, the debtor can be forced to pay again—this time to the bank (Cass. com., 17 Mar. 2004, n° 01-13849). That’s not theoretical; it happens in real disputes.

What the debtor can still argue after notification

Even after notification, the debtor can refuse to pay the bank if the debtor is not truly indebted to the supplier—example: a debt release granted before the assignment (Cass. com., 1 Apr. 2008, n° 06-21458).

But the debtor cannot enforce contract clauses that try to block assignment in a way the law does not recognize (for example, a clause stating an assignment is automatically void if a certain notice period is not met) (Cass. com., 11 Oct. 2017, n° 15-18372).

Public bodies: notify the right person

In public-sector receivables, notification mechanics can be a minefield. A court found shared liability where a bank notified an educational institution rather than the public accountant who actually processes payments, leading to a split of responsibility (CAA Paris, 9 July 1992, n° 91PA00509). And the Supreme Court clarified that where the debtor is private (even in a public works environment), notification to a public accountant is not required because that accountant is not the debtor (Cass. civ. 3e, 8 Dec. 2021, n° 20-16152).

Setoff: the debtor’s strongest defense—if it existed before notification

If the debtor had a claim against the supplier and legal setoff conditions were already met before notification, the debtor may invoke setoff against the bank (Cass. com., 14 Dec. 1993, n° 91-22033).

In collections, that’s why the timeline matters: the bank will argue the debtor’s defense is too late; the debtor will argue it existed early enough to neutralize the receivable.

Proof of notification

Proof is flexible: it can be established by any means (Cass. com., 21 Sept. 2010, n° 09-11707).

11. Silence is not acceptance—debtors don’t lose defenses just by staying quiet

Banks sometimes try to pressure debtors into “confirming there are no issues” after notification.

Debtors are not legally required to respond. And silence does not strip them of defenses.

The Supreme Court made this clear: a professional debtor who does not raise objections after notification is not deprived of the right to raise defenses later; only an actual acceptance can remove those defenses (Cass. com., 3 Nov. 1992, n° 90-18728).

For creditors, this is important because if you are the bank (or acting for the bank), you should not assume non-response equals clean enforceability. If you are the supplier, you should understand why your customer may keep defenses alive even when notified.

12. Acceptance: the bank’s “ultimate upgrade” for enforceability

Notification tells the debtor where to pay. Acceptance does more: it can prevent the debtor from raising defenses tied to the supplier relationship.

What acceptance does

The bank may request the debtor to sign an acceptance. The debtor can refuse or accept.

If the debtor accepts, then—unless the bank acted knowingly to harm the debtor—the debtor generally cannot assert defenses based on disputes with the supplier (Monetary and Financial Code art. L. 313-29). This is a huge advantage for the bank.

If the debtor refuses to accept

Then the debtor keeps the ability to raise defenses such as defective performance, non-delivery, price disputes, and settlement arrangements—subject to timing. After the assignment date, the supplier cannot reduce or alter the receivable unilaterally (see section 8).

Still, a critical rule remains: if notification was properly made by the assignor, the debtor can validly discharge the debt only by paying the bank, not the assignor (Cass. com., 17 Dec. 2013, n° 12-26706).

If the debtor accepts

Acceptance can lock the debtor into paying the bank even when the supplier fails to perform. The debtor may have a claim against the supplier later, but that claim can be worthless if the supplier collapses into insolvency.

Acceptance can also make recovery faster: French procedure allows streamlined recovery tools (including the order-for-payment route) where accepted Dailly receivables are involved.

Acceptance must meet strict formal requirements:

• It must be titled “acte d’acceptation de la cession d’une créance professionnelle”, otherwise it is null (Cass. com., 29 Oct. 2003, n° 01-02512).

• It can be given in any written form, including fax (Cass. com., 2 Dec. 1997, n° 95-14251).

• It can be conditional. A debtor accepted only on condition of delivery of a boat; the supplier failed and went bankrupt; the debtor lawfully refused to pay the bank because the acceptance was conditional and delivery never occurred (Cass. com., 2 June 1992, n° 90-18821).

• Acceptance cannot be obtained before the assignment is effective; an early acceptance is unenforceable unless properly confirmed (Cass. com., 3 Nov. 2015, n° 14-14373).

Courts also recognize the concept of bank bad faith: where a bank rushed to secure debtor acceptance after learning insolvency was imminent and used the funds to reduce the supplier’s overdraft, courts have found behavior that undermines enforceability (CA Versailles, 11 Sept. 1997).