International Factoring and Forfeiting Agreements

 

January 20, 2025

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

Under current conditions of economic instability and solvency issues, trading and manufacturing companies are compelled to conclude transactions involving payment deferral terms. At the same time, organizations remain interested in expanding production and increasing employment.

In such an environment, classical lending is not always feasible due to additional risks related to, for example, product returns or a buyer's inability to pay invoices on time. Consequently, businesses increasingly utilize banking factoring and forfeiting.

This article examines the nature of factoring, its beneficiaries, and how it compares to forfeiting—another type of external financing. Since factoring and forfeiting are sometimes confused, we provide a comparative analysis of their similarities, advantages, and disadvantages.

What is Factoring and What Types Exist?

Factoring is a financial service provided by a bank or factoring company to a client in exchange for the assignment of monetary claims arising from international contracts for the sale of goods, performance of work, or provision of services.

International trade practice distinguishes three main factoring models:

• direct import factoring;
• direct export factoring;
• indirect (two-factor) factoring.

The distinctive feature of direct factoring is the presence of only one factor performing obligations to the supplier-exporter. In the indirect model, two factors participate: an export factor in the supplier's country and an import factor in the buyer's country.

In direct import factoring, the supplier assigns the right of claim to a factor located in the importer's country. This type of factoring is practical only when exports are directed to one or two countries. The factoring company in the importer’s country, by purchasing debt claims within its own country, generally provides credit risk insurance, sales accounting, and debt collection for what it considers domestic claims. However, lending to a foreign exporter in a currency foreign to the factoring company is quite difficult, and advance payment terms are extremely rare in such agreements. Thus, direct import factoring is typically used by firms that do not require urgent financing against assigned claims.

Direct export factoring is characterized by the supplier assigning accounts receivable to a factor located in the same country as the supplier. Exporters usually use this model if they supply goods to several countries, as concluding a single agreement with a factoring company in their own country is more convenient than entering into direct agreements with factors in multiple foreign states. Factoring companies are generally ready to finance the exports of suppliers from their own state to foreign countries. However, factors face significant difficulties in assessing the creditworthiness of foreign clients and collecting claims. Therefore, direct export factoring is used when the exporter (export factor) is geographically close to the importer or for transactions with verified buyers who have proven to be punctual payers. Insurance companies may also be involved to reduce the factor's credit risks. In Russia, more than 70% of direct export factoring operations are carried out with recourse (i.e., factors do not perform the function of protecting against debtor insolvency, and the credit risk remains entirely with the exporter).

Indirect (two-factor) factoring allows a factor in the supplier's country (the "export factor") to re-assign accounts receivable received from the exporter to a factor in the buyer's country (the "import factor"). In this model, the export factor's primary role is to finance the client's foreign trade activities and provide information services. The import factor, in turn, assesses the creditworthiness of foreign debtors, manages accounts receivable, and insures credit risk. This scheme involves a distribution of risks and functions between two factors to optimize the servicing of foreign trade operations. The advantage of two-factor factoring is that for the company servicing the importer, the debt claims are domestic rather than foreign, allowing the import factor to assess the buyers' solvency most objectively. This model is particularly convenient for trade between countries with significant differences in economic and legal systems. It minimizes international business challenges such as language barriers, unknown legislation, unfamiliar debt collection procedures, and trade practices. However, two-factor factoring is quite cumbersome and involves high costs for the parties.

Based on the form of the agreement, factoring is divided into disclosed factoring and undisclosed factoring (also called confidential factoring). In disclosed factoring, the debtor is notified of the factoring company's participation in the transaction. Such notification is usually made via a special notation on the invoice indicating that the accounts receivable have been fully assigned to the factor, who is the sole legal recipient of the payment. In confidential (undisclosed) factoring, the buyer is not notified of the assignment of monetary claims. In this case, the seller usually manages and collects the accounts receivable independently, acting as the factor's agent. [1]

Depending on the terms of assignment, factoring may be with recourse or without recourse (non-recourse), referring to whether the factor has the right to make a reverse claim against the supplier if the debtor fails to pay after a specified period. Non-recourse factoring effectively involves the factor purchasing the client's accounts receivable, meaning the client bears no responsibility if the debtor fails to pay for the delivered goods. Conversely, the mechanism of a factoring operation with a right of recourse involves only the client's assignment of monetary claims to the factor as security. Non-recourse factoring requires the factor to assume significant non-payment risk from the buyer. [2]

Russian legislation does not formally recognize the terms "recourse factoring" and "non-recourse factoring"; however, courts also employ these terms when considering commercial cases.[3]

For example, in case No. A60-1368/2016, the courts stated that "a factoring agreement confirms the client's obligation to be responsible not only for the validity but also for the enforceability of the claim being the subject of assignment". [4]

Legal Regulation of Factoring

In Russia, legislation does not contain a specific definition for "factoring." Factoring operations are currently regulated by Chapter 43 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Civil Code"), titled Financing Against Assignment of Monetary Claims.

Pursuant to Article 824 of the Civil Code, under a contract for financing against the assignment of a monetary claim, one party (the financial agent) transfers or undertakes to transfer funds to the other party (the client) on account of the client's (the creditor's) monetary claim against a third party (the debtor) arising from the client's provision of goods, performance of work, or rendering of services to the third party, and the client assigns or undertakes to assign this monetary claim to the financial agent.

According to Article 826 of the Civil Code, the subject of assignment for which financing is provided may be either a monetary claim for which the payment deadline has already arrived (an existing claim) or the right to receive funds that will arise in the future (a future claim). Under Paragraph 2 of Article 826 of the Civil Code, when assigning a future monetary claim, it is considered transferred to the financial agent after the right to receive funds from the debtor — which is the subject of the assignment provided for by the contract — has arisen.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 9 of Federal Law No. 173-FZ dated December 10, 2003, On Currency Regulation and Currency Control (the "Currency Regulation Law") allow currency operations under concluded factoring agreements without restrictions.

Under Article 23 of the Currency Regulation Law, such factoring agreements and/or agreements on the subsequent assignment of a monetary claim must be submitted to currency control authorities. Furthermore, the requirements of Article 19 of the Currency Regulation Law regarding the repatriation of currency proceeds must be observed in international factoring.

To provide international factoring services, a bank or factoring company must be a member of an international factoring association, such as Factors Chain International ("FCI"). Today, FCI includes approximately 400 member companies in more than 90 countries, offering a unique network for cooperation in cross-border factoring. Members' operations account for an average of 50% of the world's international correspondent factoring volume.[5] By becoming a member, a factor adopts formally detailed rules for conducting international factoring transactions. In Russia, FCI is represented by companies such as Solidarity Bank, Raiffeisenbank, Promsvyazbank, and Metallinvestbank.

The principle of factoring is described on the FCI website as follows:

• the exporter receives a supply order;
• the exporter sends information about the importer for credit approval;
• the export factor verifies the importer's creditworthiness through an FCI partner;
• the import factor evaluates the importer and establishes a credit limit;
• the exporter ships the goods to the importer. In the invoice, the exporter informs the buyer that payment must be made to the import factor’s bank account;
• the export factor issues advance payments of up to 80% of the invoice amount;
• collection is performed by the import factor. If payment is not received, the import factor in the buyer's country will take collection actions in the local language and according to local law. If the buyer has not paid within 90 days of the invoice due date, the import factor pays the export factor;
• the import factor transfers funds to the export factor;
• the export factor transfers the remaining 20% to the exporter's account, less any fees.

FCI has developed the General Rules for International Factoring ("GRIF"). The GRIF regulate relations in the two-factor international factoring model, where an export factor uses an import factor's services for accounts receivable management and credit risk insurance regarding export monetary claims purchased from clients. The GRIF define factoring agreements and credit risk, and regulate the rights and obligations of factors, the transfer of claims, debt collection, funds transfer, information exchange, guarantees, dispute resolution, and liability for rule violations.

International Legal Regulation of Factoring

International factoring is not described in Chapter 43 of the Civil Code; it is regulated by the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring (the "Ottawa Convention"), concluded in Ottawa on May 28, 1988. The Russian Federation acceded to this convention in 2014 via Federal Law No. 86-FZ dated May 5, 2014, On the Accession of the Russian Federation to the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring.

The Ottawa Convention defines a factoring contract as a contract concluded between a supplier (on one side) and a factor (on the other), pursuant to which the supplier may or shall assign to the factor receivables arising from contracts for the sale of goods between the supplier and its customers (debtors), except for those for goods bought primarily for personal, family, or household use. Additionally, the factor must perform at least two of the following functions:

• financing for the supplier, including loans and advance payments;
• maintenance of accounts receivable records;
• collection of receivables;
• protection against default in payment by debtors.

Debtors must be notified of the assignment. Written notice does not necessarily need to be signed but must indicate by whom or on whose behalf it is given. Written notice includes, but is not limited to, telegrams, telexes, and other means of communication capable of being reproduced in tangible form. Notice is deemed given when it is received by the addressee.

The Ottawa Convention applies whenever the receivables assigned under a factoring contract arise from a contract for the sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in different states, and those states and the state where the factor has its place of business are Contracting States, or both the contract for the sale of goods and the factoring contract are governed by the law of a Contracting State.

Thus, for the Ottawa Convention to apply, at least one of the following conditions must be met:

• all participants (buyer, debtor, and factor) are residents of states that have signed the Convention;
• both transactions (the sales contract and the factoring contract) are governed by the law of a state that has signed the Convention.

If a party has more than one place of business, the place of business is the one which has the closest relationship to the relevant contract and its performance, having regard to the circumstances known to or contemplated by the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of that contract.

The application of the Ottawa Convention may be excluded by the parties to the factoring contract or by the parties to the sales contract regarding receivables arising during or after the factor has received written notice of such exclusion. Exclusion is possible only with respect to the Convention as a whole, not its individual provisions.

Questions concerning matters governed by the Ottawa Convention which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based or, in the absence of such principles, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law.

In a factoring contract, a provision for the assignment of existing or future receivables is valid even without individual identification of the receivables if, at the time of the conclusion of the contract or when they come into existence, they can be identified. The right to collect the debt passes to the factor as it arises, without a new act of transfer.

Russian judicial practice holds that a monetary claim being the subject of assignment "must be defined in the contract between the client and the financial agent in a manner that allows the identification of an existing claim at the time the contract is concluded, and a future claim no later than at the time it arises."[6]

According to the legal position in case No. A33-24853/2022, an essential term of a contract for financing against assignment of a monetary claim is the "term on the monetary claims acquired by the financial agent (i.e., the monetary claims against a third party (debtor) that the client assigns to the financial agent (factor) must be specified); under a contract for financing against assignment of a monetary claim, undefined rights of claim that may arise in the future cannot be transferred". [7]

A supplier's assignment of a receivable to a factor shall be effective notwithstanding any agreement between the supplier and the debtor prohibiting such assignment. However, such assignment is not effective against a debtor if, at the time of the conclusion of the contract for the sale of goods, the debtor has its place of business in a state that has made a declaration under Article 18 of the Convention — namely, a Contracting State may at any time declare that the assignment is not effective against a debtor who, at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, is located in that country.

A factoring contract may provide for the transfer, with or without a new act of transfer, of all or any of the supplier's rights arising from the sales contract, including the benefit of any provision for reservation of title or any security interest.

The debtor is obligated to pay the factor only if the debtor does not have knowledge of any other person's superior right to payment and if notice of the assignment:

• is given to the debtor by the supplier or by the factor with the supplier's authority;
• reasonably identifies the receivables assigned and the factor to whom or for whose account the debtor is required to make payment;
• relates to receivables arising under a contract for the sale of goods made before or at the time the notice is given.

Irrespective of any other ground on which payment by the debtor to the factor discharges the debtor from liability, payment shall be effective only if made in accordance with these provisions.

If the factor claims payment from the debtor for a receivable arising under a sales contract, the debtor may set up against the factor all defenses of which the debtor could have availed itself under that contract if the claim had been made by the supplier. The debtor may also exercise against the factor any right of set-off in respect of claims existing against the supplier in whose favor the receivable arose and available to the debtor at the time the notice of assignment was received.

Non-performance, defective performance, or late performance of the sales contract by the supplier shall not of itself entitle the debtor to recover a sum paid by the debtor to the factor if the debtor has a right to recover that sum from the supplier. However, a debtor who has such a right against the supplier may recover the sum from the factor if:

• the factor has not discharged an obligation to make payment to the supplier in respect of the assigned receivable; or
• the factor made such payment at a time when it knew of the supplier's non-performance, defective performance, or late performance of the contract in relation to the goods for which the debtor made payment.

The Ottawa Convention allows the subsequent assignment of receivables; however, the Convention does not apply to a subsequent assignment if the terms of the factoring contract prohibit it.

The United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade, developed by the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and adopted in New York on December 12, 2001 (the "New York Convention"), could significantly impact international factoring, but it has not yet entered into force. Under Article 38(2) of that convention, it prevails over the Ottawa Convention. It is worth noting certain provisions of the New York Convention that regulate some aspects of international factoring differently.

For instance, under Article 8 of the Ottawa Convention, a debtor who pays the financial agent is deemed to have properly performed the payment obligation and is discharged from liability only if they do not know of another person's superior right to that payment. This provision essentially violates the principle that a debtor's position should not be worsened by an assignment, as it imposes an obligation on the debtor to determine which of several persons claiming the receivable is the rightful recipient. Meanwhile, under Article 17 of the New York Convention, if the debtor receives notifications of more than one assignment of the same receivable made by the same assignor (supplier), the debtor is discharged by paying in accordance with the first notification received; if the debtor receives notification of one or more subsequent assignments, the debtor is discharged by paying in accordance with the notification of the last such subsequent assignment.[8]

Attention should also be paid to Article 21 of the New York Convention, which establishes that the assignor's (supplier's) failure to perform its obligations under the original contract between the assignor and the debtor does not entitle the debtor to recover from the assignee (financial agent) any sums paid to it by the debtor. A similar rule exists in the Ottawa Convention. However, the latter allows two exceptions: the debtor may claim recovery from the financial agent if the agent failed to pay the supplier for the assignment or made such payment knowing of the supplier's non-performance toward the debtor. These exceptions essentially put the debtor in a more advantageous position than if no assignment had occurred. If the claim had not been transferred, the risk of the original creditor's insolvency would rest entirely with the debtor. The New York Convention, unlike the Ottawa Convention, provides no such exceptions; if the debtor pays the assignee and the supplier fails to perform the original contract, the debtor cannot claim against the financial agent.[9]

What is Forfeiting?

Forfeiting is a trade financing method based on discounting an instrument representing an exporter's accounts receivable payable at a future date, without recourse to the exporter. Such an instrument certifies a monetary claim or debt obligation of the importer or a bank/financial institution under a letter of credit, standby letter of credit, guarantee, aval, bill of exchange, or promissory note issued within an export transaction.

Discounting is a financial analysis method used to estimate the value of future cash flows. The core idea is that the value of money over time is less than its value right now. To bring future flows to current value, a discount rate is used, accounting for inflation, risk, and the opportunity cost of capital. [10]

Since payment in a forfeiting operation is made without recourse to the exporter, the exporter has no subsequent interest in the operation. The forfeiter receives the future payments due from the importer or debtor and bears the risk of non-payment. In turn, the forfeiter receives a discount (interest) and any agreed fees or commission income.[11]

Currently, Russia lacks a regulatory framework for forfeiting operations and related contracts, as well as a legal mechanism for regulating these civil law relations involving an international element. Nevertheless, such operations are possible. Article 290 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation establishes that a bank's income includes income derived from factoring and forfeiting operations.

Chapter 43 of the Civil Code, Financing Against Assignment of Monetary Claims, can hardly be viewed as a regulatory framework for forfeiting transactions. Consequently, when a Russian company participates in a forfeiting operation as either an importer or exporter, it assumes a certain legal risk, which undoubtedly increases the cost of the forfeiting transaction.

Article 4 of the ICC Uniform Rules for Forfaiting (ICC Publication No. 800) defines "without recourse" as it applies to international forfeiting markets. Within a forfeiting operation, "the buyer will have no claim against the seller in connection with the non-payment of any sums relating to the monetary claim", except for those provided for under certain circumstances.

A forfeiting operation scheme can be described as follows: during negotiations with an importer on post-payment terms, the exporter consults a bank or forfeiting company regarding the possibility of them purchasing the debt obligations (issued as a note, letter of credit, or other payment guarantees). The exporter sets the goods' price considering the use of forfeiting. The importer arranges an aval with its bank (a guarantee on the note). After shipping the goods, the exporter sends the documents to its bank, which forwards them to the importer's bank. The importer issues the note, has it avaled by the bank, and receives the shipping documents. The exporter discounts the note at the bank with a "without recourse" notation. Upon the expiration of the payment deferral, the forfeiter bank sends the note to the avalizing bank to receive the funds. [12]

A forfeiting agreement is generally concluded if the main contract amount is at least USD 100,000, reaching up to several tens of millions of dollars. Regarding the repayment of such large sums, when the debt is issued as promissory notes or bills of exchange, repayment is achieved through distribution into intervals (quarterly, semi-annually, annually), most often a six-month term. [13]

The core mechanism distinguishing forfeiting from other financing forms is its irrevocability. Because the forfeiter acquires debt obligations without recourse to the exporter, it assumes all risks associated with non-payment without any guarantees of loss compensation.

Types of Forfeiting Operations

Forfeiting operations can be import or export-based. Export forfeiting involves transactions to finance a country's national exports. A forfeiting transaction is classified as export forfeiting if the exporter is a resident company of that country. Import forfeiting consists of transactions to finance imports into a country, where resident companies act as importers.

International practice also divides the forfeiting market into primary and secondary markets. The primary market consists of transactions where primary forfeiters purchase payment obligations from exporters. The secondary market involves transactions for the subsequent sale by primary forfeiters of the payment obligations they previously acquired under trade contracts. [14]

Forfeiters may be commercial banks or specialized forfeiting companies. Besides the forfeiter, exporter, and importer, a forfeiting transaction may involve a guarantor, surety (avalist), or insurer if additional security for the importer's payment obligation is required.

To transfer the importer's payment obligation from the exporter to the forfeiter, instruments are used that are inherently independent (abstract), irrevocable, and unconditional payment obligations. The following main forfeiting instruments are used in international practice:

• promissory note;
• bill of exchange;
• deferred payment documentary credit;
• standby letter of credit;
• demand guarantee [15].

In Russia, documentary letters of credit are more commonly used as forfeiting instruments, while promissory notes, bills of exchange, guarantees, and standby letters of credit are less frequent. This practice results from currency and customs regulations regarding the cross-border circulation of notes in Russia, which complicate the transfer of notes to non-residents in forfeiting transactions. [16]

The Forfeiting Agreement

The parties to a forfeiting agreement are the forfeiter (a commercial bank or specialized forfeiting company) and the exporter.

Some judicial practice suggests that the parties to a forfeiting transaction include not only the forfeiter and its client (exporter) but also the client's debtor. For instance, in case No. A40–142958/2019, the court stated that the participating parties in a classical forfeiting transaction are the seller, the buyer (borrower), and the creditor bank (purchaser of the borrower's debt to the seller). [17]

However, this position appears not entirely correct, as the contract between the exporter and importer and the agreement between the exporter and forfeiter are independent contracts. The latter results in a change of persons in the obligation arising from the main contract, but this does not mean that a contractual relationship arises between the importer and the forfeiter. [18]

Due to forfeiting's similarity to lending, essential terms of a credit agreement may be used. [19]

Under Article 432 of the Civil Code, a contract's essential terms are its subject matter and terms named in laws or other regulations as essential or necessary for contracts of that type.

Under Article 822 of the Civil Code, the essential term for a commodity credit agreement is the subject of the contract—goods defined by generic characteristics. Terms regarding quantity, assortment, completeness, quality, and packaging of provided goods must be performed according to the rules of a sales contract (Articles 465 – 485 of the Civil Code) unless provided otherwise by the commodity credit agreement. If the parties have not determined the amount and terms of the credit, a commercial credit relationship does not arise.

Thus, a forfeiting agreement must reflect the following essential and additional terms:

• subject matter;
• amount of financing;
• the forfeiter's commission fee for the services provided;
• transaction performance period (the final date for submitting required transaction documents to the forfeiter).

Since forfeiting is primarily used in international contracts, determining the applicable law is vital. Options for choosing applicable law include:

• the law of one of the contract parties;
• the law of a third state other than those where the parties are residents.

Differences Between Factoring and Forfeiting

Despite superficial similarities, factoring and forfeiting have significant differences. Below is a brief comparison:

• Factoring is suitable for large, medium, and small businesses and is often used for domestic Russian transactions; forfeiting is suitable for large businesses and international transactions.
• Factoring is arranged for the short term, whereas forfeiting can be arranged for any term.
• Both factoring and forfeiting can be arranged for any amount.
• Factoring is revolving; forfeiting is non-revolving and arranged for a specific transaction.
• Factoring can be with or without recourse, and either disclosed or undisclosed; forfeiting is always without recourse and always disclosed (the debtor is aware that payment must be made to the financial agent — the forfeiter — rather than the supplier).

These differences are mostly economic rather than legal. Factoring and forfeiting are built on similar models, and their differences stem from the scale of the transactions.

Currently, forfeiting is not a standard banking product for servicing clients' foreign trade activities in Russia. Potential clients and participants in the Russian forfeiting market (exporters, importers, and banks) have very limited awareness of forfeiting as a trade financing tool.

Furthermore, under Article 19 of the Currency Regulation Law, a participant in a foreign trade transaction is generally obligated to ensure the receipt of Russian or foreign currency from a non-resident as performance under their contract. This means a resident must receive funds specifically from the non-resident; receiving funds from other persons, especially Russian residents, is prohibited. For this reason, Russian banks do not act as primary forfeiters in financing domestic exports. The forfeiter provides funds to the exporter, and if both are Russian residents, currency laws regarding repatriation are not met. While repatriation rules account for the assignment of rights under a factoring agreement, in forfeiting relations, domestic banks can only act as guarantors or avalists, or purchase claims on the secondary forfeiting market. [20]

Nonetheless, the development of export forfeiting in Russia could significantly expand the geography of Russian exports, allowing exporters to enter new markets with higher country risks.

In conclusion, international factoring and forfeiting are high-demand tools for solving financial problems in foreign trade, but insufficient regulation in Russian law hinders their widespread adoption.

_____________________

References

[1] Pokamestov I.E., Factoring for Exporters and Importers. Mezhdunarodnye bankovskie operatsii [International Banking Operations] Journal, 2011, No. 3.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated September 13, 2023, in case No. A40-239363/2015; Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated July 28, 2022, in case No. A40-129253/2017.

[4] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated December 9, 2016, in case No. A60-1368/2016.

[5] Information from the Factors Chain International website.

[6] Resolution of the Eleventh Arbitration Appellate Court dated February 21, 2024, in case No. A72-11347/2023.

[7] Resolution of the Third Arbitration Appellate Court dated April 25, 2023, in case No. A33-24853/2022.

[8] Lopatina D.A., International Factoring as a Financing Tool: Fundamentals of Legal Regulation. Bankovskoe pravo [Banking Law] Journal, 2009, No. 1.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Information from the "Financier" website — a service for generating financial management reporting and data visualization.

[11] Summary document on the ICC Uniform Rules for Forfaiting (ICC Publication No. 800). United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Endorsement of texts of other organizations: ICC Uniform Rules for Forfaiting (URF 800). A/CN.9/919.

[12] Kraevaya A.S., Prospects for Forfeiting Development in Russia. Aktualnye issledovaniya [Current Research] Journal, 2019, No. 2.

[13] Tomaev I.O., The Concept and Structure of Forfeiting Operations in Banking Law. Bankovskoe pravo [Banking Law] Journal, 2013, No. 3.

[14] Shakirova E.R., Methodological Aspects of Forfeiting Operations. Mezhdunarodnye bankovskie operatsii [International Banking Operations] Journal, 2014, No. 1.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Decision of the Arbitration Court of Moscow dated September 27, 2019, in case No. A40-142958/2019.

[18] Emkuzheva A.V., Legal Foundations of the Forfeiting Agreement in Russian Law and Doctrine. Nauchnye zapiski molodykh issledovateley [Scientific Notes of Young Researchers] Journal, 2021, No. 5.

[19] Shestakova E., Forfeiting: Advantages and Disadvantages. EZh-Yurist Journal, 2013, No. 38.

[20] Emkuzheva A.V., Legal Foundations of the Forfeiting Agreement in Russian Law and Doctrine. Nauchnye zapiski molodykh issledovateley [Scientific Notes of Young Researchers] Journal, 2021, No. 5.