The point at which concerns emerged
A dispute involving US-based telecom financing group Carriox Capital has prompted renewed scrutiny of how receivables are verified, including in working capital and trade finance. Over recent months, several entities linked to Carriox have filed for Chapter 11 protection beginning in August 2025 in the United States following concerns raised by lenders over the validity of invoices used as collateral in a series of financing arrangements.
The facilities in question were provided by HPS Investment Partners, which was acquired by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, in 2025. BNP Paribas, a bank, participated in funding and Alter Domus, a corporate services firm, acted as collateral agent. Details of the financing structures and subsequent legal actions were reported in court filings and reporting from Private Debt Investor and The Wall Street Journal.
The loans were structured against receivables that Carriox and its affiliates said were owed by major telecom carriers and infrastructure companies. As is common in working capital structures of this type, those receivables formed the basis on which financing was extended.
The point at which concerns emerged
The lenders’ internal review process began in July 2025, when staff identified discrepancies in invoice records and supporting correspondence. According to court filings, lenders sought to verify the receivables directly with the named counterparties after they identified inconsistencies in documentation that Carriox provided. In several cases, the counterparties reportedly stated that they did not recognise the transactions.
Further review suggested that some of the email correspondence relied upon to evidence the receivables originated from domains resembling, but not identical to, the official corporate domains of the counterparties.
Alter Domus subsequently filed a claim in the Delaware Chancery Court in August 2025, seeking to restrict the movement of assets while the matter proceeded. Bankruptcy petitions covering several Carriox-linked entities followed in August 2025, with a second wave filed on 20 October 2025, according to court records in the Eastern District of New York.
The restructuring and legal proceedings are ongoing, and no determination has yet been made as to liability.
Why this development has resonated beyond private credit
Receivables are widely used across trade finance, factoring, and supply chain finance. Their reliability depends on the underlying commercial transaction having taken place and on the buyer’s obligation to pay. In many working capital programmes, particularly those conducted on a non-notification basis, the buyer is unaware that the receivable has been financed. In these cases, the lender’s assessment relies on documentation rather than direct acknowledgement from the buyer.
That model has long been accepted and has supported substantial volumes of financing. It also means that the evidentiary weight rests on the documentation chain itself. If that chain is incomplete, inconsistent, or inaccurate, the lender’s exposure may not become apparent until verification is required.
Market participants have been working to establish clearer ways to confirm the existence, ownership, and financing status of receivables, especially across dispersed supply chains. Where the existence of a receivable can be verified independently, the risk associated with financing it is reduced. Where the verification process relies solely on documents held by the seller, that is no longer the case.
Looking ahead
The legal process will take time, and the outcome remains to be determined. Regardless of specific findings, the wider discussion it has surfaced is already underway. As working capital finance expands and non-bank lenders play a greater role in funding supply chains, the evidentiary standards behind receivables will become more central to credit assessment, liquidity planning, and portfolio risk management.
The question is how quickly verification practices will adjust to match the scale and complexity of the market they support.
Article Info
Related Articles
Development Finance +3Bridging the trade finance gap: How blended finance is reshaping trade and development
By: James Dorman, Trade Treasury Payments (TTP) Trade is perhaps the most powerful engine for...
Cross-Border Payments +4Last orders: Europe prepares to put FX markup on the label
By: Tim Staheli, Writer & Editor, Trade Treasury Payments At a fintech summit in London...
Hedging +3The force majeure fallout: Who pays for the hedge?
By: Baldev Bhinder and Joyce Fong, Blackstone and Gold This article was originally published by...
Cash Management +3How to avoid ERP projects failing at the last mile: The importance of bank connectivity
By: Karen Fagan, Head of Treasury Consultancy Service, AccessPay For scaling businesses, finance transformation is...
Stay Ahead of the Curve
Get exclusive insights, expert analysis, and breaking news on liquidity and risk management, delivered to your inbox
Article Info
Stay Updated
Get the latest insights on trade finance, treasury management, and global payments delivered to your inbox.
Join 25,000+ professionals. Unsubscribe anytime.


