Сгенерировано Chatgpt
The speed of a factoring transaction runs straight into a wall of regulatory risk. We break down how new legislation and judicial precedents from 2025–2026 are reshaping the rules of the game.
The global factoring market is accelerating, yet the regulatory landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented. New U.S. state-level disclosure laws, tighter EU tax policy, and fintech marketplaces like Edenex are creating fresh compliance challenges for factors and lenders.
Factoring Regulation: Navigating the Fast Lane
The global factoring market has confidently crossed the USD 4 trillion mark. Speed is critical here: suppliers receive liquidity within 24 to 48 hours of shipment, while factors manage portfolios worth billions. However, speed is increasingly at odds with a legal environment that remains patchwork, fragmented, and often unpredictable.
The "fast lane" in factoring is the ability of market participants to close deals and manage liquidity with minimal bureaucratic friction, while maintaining full legal control over every stage: from contract execution to assignment of claims and collection. The central challenge facing the modern market is that business velocity demands clear and uniform rules of the road, yet the regulatory landscape is, on the contrary, becoming ever more fragmented.
The Ottawa Foundation: The UNIDROIT Convention as the Starting Point
At the heart of international factoring lies the 1988 UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring. This instrument establishes a unified terminology and core principles that shape the legal framework for cross-border transactions. The Convention defines a factoring contract as an agreement under which a supplier assigns monetary claims arising from supply contracts to a factor, and the factor performs at least two of the following functions: financing the supplier, maintaining accounts relating to the receivables, collecting receivables, or protecting against default by debtors.
Key provisions of the Convention include:
Validity of assignment of future receivables (Article 5). A provision that a factoring contract may provide for the assignment of existing or future receivables, and such assignment shall not be invalid merely because the receivables are not individually described, provided they are identifiable. Moreover, no additional act of assignment is required for future receivables to transfer — they pass to the factor automatically at the moment they come into existence.
Permissibility of assignment despite a prohibition (Article 6). This is one of the most debated provisions. An assignment is effective even if the contract between the supplier and the debtor contains a direct prohibition on assignment. However, Contracting States may make a declaration that this provision will not apply within their territory. Such a declaration is made pursuant to Article 18 of the Convention, specifying that the assignment will not be effective against the debtor if, at the time of conclusion of the supply contract, the debtor's place of business is located in that State. The compromise nature of the article reflects a balance of interests: the development of factoring as a financing tool versus the debtor's right to determine to whom it will pay.
Debtor's obligation to pay the factor (Article 8). The debtor is obliged to make payment to the factor only upon receipt of written notice of the assignment that identifies the assigned receivables and the factor.
Debtor's right to raise defences (Articles 9–10). The debtor may raise against the factor all defences arising from the supply contract, as well as rights of set-off against the supplier that existed at the time notice of assignment was received. However, non-performance or improper performance of the supply contract does not by itself entitle the debtor to recover sums paid to the factor, even if such right exists against the supplier.
Yet the Convention is precisely a foundation, not a finished edifice. The primary legal framework is shaped at the national level, and here the divergence in approaches remains enormous.
United States: Federal Deregulation and State-Level Chaos
In the United States, the situation is paradoxical. At the federal level, a course toward deregulation of commercial finance has been proclaimed, yet at the state level, the opposite trend is emerging. States are actively moving to close potential gaps in small business protection by introducing their own disclosure laws for factoring transactions.
California led the way in 2022, enacting a commercial financing disclosure law. By 2025, similar laws are in effect in at least four states. These statutes impose stringent requirements on factors: to disclose the difference between the face value of the claim and the amount advanced by the factor; a full schedule of all fees; reserve conditions; the term of the agreement; and to provide a sample calculation for a USD 10,000 face-value claim.
According to some analysts, approximately 50% of factors have ceased operations in California due to uncertainty and litigation risks arising from incorrect disclosure, which traditional banking standards fail to address. The patchwork quilt of requirements across different states creates a compliance nightmare for factors operating across multiple markets.
The industry's response has been the Capital Access for Small Businesses Harmonization Act (CASH Act), introduced in Congress in May 2025. The bill:
Establishes a uniform federal disclosure standard for small-business transactions up to USD 500,000.
Requires disclosure of the difference between the face value of the claim and the amount advanced, all fees, reserve conditions, and the agreement term.
Explicitly mandates federal preemption: no state may impose additional or conflicting requirements.
Stipulates that the parties' characterization of the transaction as a sale of accounts receivable shall be presumptive for treatment as a factoring transaction.
AFA experts assess the likelihood of the CASH Act's passage as high given bipartisan support, though the process could extend into the next congressional session. With the bill referred to the House Small Business Committee, its progress will depend on the new administration's policy priorities.
Europe: EBA Refines Prudential Standards
European regulation in 2026 is moving toward greater certainty in the prudential domain. In May 2026, the European Banking Authority (EBA) approved amendments to the Guidelines on the application of the definition of default (EBA/GL/2026/05) pursuant to Article 178 of the Capital Requirements Regulation, as amended by CRR3. The key change concerns non-recourse factoring: the delinquency threshold for an individual invoice triggering a default has been increased from 30 to 90 days. This reflects the operational realities of factoring, where delayed payment of a specific invoice does not always signal the debtor's overall financial distress, and reduces the risk of misclassification. The technical clarification gives the market a more realistic risk profile and helps avoid excessively stringent capital provisioning. At the same time, the EBA retained the existing 1% net present value threshold for recognising default upon restructuring, rejecting proposals to raise it. The regulator's rationale: a higher threshold could undermine banking sector stability and efforts to reduce non-performing loans.
The Tax Dimension: The Kosmiro Precedent
In May 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its ruling in Case C-232/24 Kosmiro, which reshapes the tax landscape for factoring in Europe. The Court held that a factoring commission that varies according to the payment term and the level of risk assumed, as well as a case-opening fee covering AML/CFT compliance costs, constitute consideration for a single debt-collection service subject to VAT.
The essence of the ruling: the VAT exemption provided for financial services does not apply to factoring to the extent that it involves receivables management and collection. At the same time, the Court confirmed that the exclusion for "debt collection" is unconditional and may be applied directly — creating a precedent risk for other jurisdictions where tax authorities may reassess their approach to the classification of factoring transactions.
The ruling affects both forms of factoring: outright sale of receivables and lending against invoice collateral. In both cases, the factor assumes management and collection functions, making the service unitary and indivisible from a tax perspective.
Technology and Partnerships: New Compliance Risks
Automation and fintech partnerships are transforming factoring operating models and bringing new regulatory risks. If a fintech platform processes business-to-business payments, participates in credit decision-making, or engages in client onboarding, it may be deemed a money transmitter. This requires special licences, compliance with AML/CFT requirements, and customer verification (KYC).
According to Edenex's CPO, when integrating fintech solutions it is critical to verify the partner's licences in all jurisdictions where your clients operate; conduct comprehensive due diligence of their AML/KYC programmes; and contractually allocate responsibility for compliance with disclosure requirements to avoid claims arising from the platform's actions.
In this context, the "fast lane" is not simply about transaction speed. It is the ability to navigate a complex coordinate system: where international conventions set general principles, national laws create divergent requirements, judicial decisions reshape tax implications, and fintech partnerships generate new compliance risks. Successful navigation in this environment demands not only operational agility but also systematic legal review of each transaction, each counterparty, and each jurisdiction.
For market participants operating at high velocity, this means legal flexibility becomes as competitive an advantage as pricing or service quality. And the first question for any cross-border factoring structure is no longer just "how much will we earn," but "how will we collect, how will we perfect the assignment, and what taxes will we pay" — in an environment where the regulatory landscape continues to shift every quarter.
