Commentary on Judgment No. 18454 of 2024: Implications of Credit Securitization

The recent ordinance No. 18454 of July 5, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has raised important questions regarding the regulation of credit securitization, a topic of increasing relevance in the Italian and European legal landscape. In particular, the Court addressed the possibility for the ceded debtor to raise counterclaims against the securitization company, clarifying some fundamental aspects of Law No. 130 of 1999.

The Regulatory Context of Securitization

Law No. 130 of 1999 introduced the possibility of securitizing credits in Italy, establishing a specific legal framework for securitization operations. Under this legislation, the ceded credits become part of a separate estate, managed by a special purpose vehicle, which is tasked with financing the purchase of credits and satisfying the rights of investors. This asset separation is crucial to ensure the protection of investors and the stability of the financial system.

The Principle of the Judgment

Credits subject to securitization operations under Law No. 130 of 1999 - Separate estate - Counterclaims by the ceded debtor - Against the assignee - Exclusion - Case. The credits subject to securitization operations - carried out pursuant to Law No. 130 of 1999, interpreted in accordance with EU Regulation No. 2402 of 2017 - constitute a separate estate from that of the securitization company (so-called special purpose vehicle), destined exclusively for the satisfaction of the rights embodied in the securities issued to finance the purchase of credits and for the payment of the costs of the operation, such that the ceded debtor is not allowed to raise counterclaims against the securitization company for credits owed to the assignor arising from the relationship with the latter. (In application of the principle, the Supreme Court overturned the merits decision that had jointly condemned the so-called special purpose vehicle to refund the clients of the assigning bank - so-called originator - the unduly paid interest arising from the closure of a current account contract).

This principle clearly establishes that the separate estate of the special purpose vehicle has an exclusive function: to ensure the payment of the rights of the holders of the issued securities. Therefore, the ceded debtor cannot use this estate to assert personal claims against the securitization company. This exclusion is essential to preserve the integrity of the securitization mechanism and provide security to investors.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

  • Clarity on the protection of investors' rights.
  • Inability for the ceded debtor to oppose previous claims.
  • Strengthening of the securitization framework in line with European regulations.

This judgment fits into a line of jurisprudence aimed at consolidating the regulation of securitization, aligning Italian law with European law, particularly with EU Regulation No. 2402 of 2017. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation not only reaffirms the asset separation but also provides an important clarification on the protection of investors' rights, contributing to greater stability in the financial system.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ordinance No. 18454 of 2024 represents a significant step in the regulation of credit securitization. It clarifies the impossibility for the ceded debtor to raise counterclaims against the securitization company, thereby protecting the rights of investors and ensuring greater security in investments. The implications of this judgment are set to influence not only legal practices but also the way market operators perceive and manage securitized credits.

Bianucci Law Firm