Daryo Jun 3, 2020:

@ Francois Boye you missed one step.

All this is certainly correct:
A promissory note, sometimes referred to as a note payable, is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument and a debt instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms.

Only problem being that that describes the issuance of a promissory note, NOT the "assignment" of that same note to some third party not initially involved in the issuance of the said note.

It's fairly logical to conclude that a "re-assignment" would be a repeated / yet another assignment by the current holder of the note (the one who got hold of it by the first "assignment") to some new party, not involved in previous transactions.

Francois Boye Jun 2, 2020:

Still skeptical!

Germaine Jun 2, 2020:

François, So how can it be re-assigned to a THIRD party?
Take a look at the reference supplied by Daryo and you'll see how.
Then, come back and blablabla us how this can be a retrocession.

Francois Boye Jun 2, 2020:

A promisory note (see definition below) is signed between TWO persons. So how can it be re-assigned to a THIRD party?


A promissory note, sometimes referred to as a note payable, is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument and a debt instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms.

Daryo Jun 2, 2020:

Agree, as so far the only elements we have for sure of is that

-- it's about a document concerning a "corporate promissory note" (so the whole document to translate wouldn't be that "promissory note" itself ? yes/no?) and

-- there is a mention in the document to translate of "Re-Assignement Side" which is either the whole document or one of the titles in it .

Enough to have a vague idea of the general picture, but not really enough for a 100% reliable suggestion.

Any more context info? Like the text that come after the title? Translating ANY title without knowing what exactly is the text announced by the title can easily turn into a kind of linguistic roulette - you get it right by chance, (or hopelessly wrong ...).

Apart from the names of parties involved, I very much doubt that the rest is of any "confidentiality" - it's usually a collection of more or less bog-standard clauses. So what comes after this "title"?

BTW shouldn't it be in EN "re-assignment" not "re-assignement"?

a sample of ASSIGNMENT OF (promissory) NOTE

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/727346/0001011034080...

Germaine Jun 1, 2020:

Mudem, Pour bien faire, il faudrait savoir ce que raconte le texte qui suit ce titre. En principe, le billet à ordre (un titre de créance) n'est pas "affecté" ou "réaffecter" (sinon au paiement de la dette dont il témoigne) et encore moins "alloué" ou "réalloué". Il peut être (re)transféré - par endossement, comme le suggère Sylvie - ou "transporté" (dans le cadre d'un transport de créance). Pour moi, ce "Re-assignment side" n'est pas un "volet"; ce serait plutôt un "Nouvel endossataire" ou alors, des "Endossements successifs" ou "Cessions successives".