Summary record of the sixth session of the Cashflow Council

Session details

Date: 16 July 2026. The session was conducted in two Open Table sittings: Asia-Pacific, 06:00 UTC; and Europe, Africa and the Americas, 16:00 UTC.

Chair: Harpreet Singh. Attendance: The published record does not preserve a verified count of participants at either sitting or a count of countries represented in the session. For context, on 16 July the Cashflow Council had 268 members from 47 countries. Its 869 reports had come from 50 countries. These are Council membership and reporting figures, not session attendance figures.

Agenda

1. Review of CF-001 evidence and the five-part pattern test.
2. Consideration of the proposed 15-Day Pay Standard and issues for drafting.
3. Review of member evidence, including late payment by clients and payment terms imposed by suppliers.
4. Preparation of the draft for Council review and subsequent public consultation.
5. Decisions, assigned actions and arrangements for the next session.

Summary of proceedings

1. Harpreet Singh opened the session and recalled that the Council’s work on CF-001 had proceeded from reports, through the five-part pattern test, to development of a proposed fix. He noted that the test had been certified on 23 June. The certification established that the issue met the Council’s Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration criteria; it did not constitute adoption of a standard or a finding against any individual buyer.

2. The Chair stated that the session was a drafting-stage meeting. The draft CF-001 text had not yet been issued: the planned draft was expected on 21 July, followed by a public consultation. Accordingly, the meeting could identify drafting requirements and review the policy direction, but could not approve a final standard, open a ballot or represent that consultation had begun.

3. Mr. Arjun Mehta of Ahmedabad, India, spoke about the practical distinction between an invoice that is undisputed and one where a genuine issue is raised. He urged the drafting group to make clear that a buyer should identify the disputed item promptly and should not use a limited dispute to delay payment of the balance. He also asked that the standard explain what information a supplier should retain when seeking payment. His intervention was recorded as a drafting proposal, not as a new Council rule.

4. Ms. Amina Yusuf of Nairobi, Kenya, said that the timing of payment had consequences beyond the value of an invoice: a small supplier might need to meet wages, rent and other obligations while awaiting money already earned. She supported a short, clearly stated period for undisputed invoices and asked that the draft avoid language that could allow a buyer to restart the clock by requesting documents already supplied. She emphasized that the proposed standard should be understandable to businesses without specialist legal or finance staff.

5. Mr. Daniel Okafor of Lagos, Nigeria, described the difference between a published payment promise and an observable payment practice. He supported including publication of payment times in the proposed standard, while asking the drafters to distinguish the date an invoice is received from the date it is approved internally. In his view, a process controlled solely by a buyer’s internal approval steps could make a nominal deadline difficult for a supplier to verify.

6. Ms. Sophie Martin of Lyon, France, asked how the proposed 15-day period would be described where the parties had agreed a different payment date or where an invoice was disputed in part. She recommended that the draft state its scope in plain terms and explain how the standard treats a dispute without making a small supplier responsible for resolving a buyer’s internal accounting process. The Chair noted that the questions required careful drafting and would be referred to the drafting group.

7. Mr. Mateo Alvarez of Córdoba, Argentina, supported automatic interest when payment was late, as set out in the policy ask, and said that a remedy should not depend on a supplier being willing to make a separate request that could affect a commercial relationship. He asked the drafters to clarify the point at which interest would begin to accrue and to avoid suggesting that interest replaced payment of the principal invoice.

8. Ms. Priya Nair of Kochi, India, referred to the existing Indian statutory framework for qualifying micro and small enterprises. She noted that section 15 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act provides payment-period requirements, while section 43B(h) of the Income-tax Act concerns deduction timing. The session recorded this as relevant legal context, not as a claim that the proposed Reseated standard would reproduce or replace Indian law.¹

9. Mr. Thomas Reed of Bristol, United Kingdom, referred to the UK Late Payments Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026, and the government’s earlier late-payment consultation response. He observed that the legislative proposal and the Council’s proposed standard were different instruments. He asked that the draft avoid implying that the proposed 15-day period was already a legal requirement across the United Kingdom.²

10. In discussion of the evidence base, the Chair presented the Council’s 16 July figures. The Cashflow Council had 268 members in 47 countries and had received 869 reports from 50 countries. The median amount at stake was approximately US$4,644. Of the reported situations, 714 concerned a client paying late and 155 concerned supplier terms. There had been 198 reports in the preceding 30 days. The Chair cautioned that these reports described members’ experiences and were not a census of all businesses or a measure of the prevalence of late payment in any country.

11. The Chair also reviewed the reported team-size distribution: 38 per cent identified as working alone, 42 per cent as having 2–9 team members, 16 per cent as having 10–49, and 5 per cent as having 50–249. The percentages were reported as provided in the Council’s internal figures. Members observed that the proposed standard should be usable by firms with different administrative capacity, without assuming that a small supplier could spend time pursuing an invoice through repeated escalation steps.

12. Members reviewed the leading countries by report count: United States, 110; Canada, 104; United Kingdom, 89; India, 71; Spain, 40; South Africa, 39; Australia, 38; and Italy, 30. The Chair stated that country counts did not establish national rankings in payment performance. They reflected the reports received by the Council as of the stated date and were to be presented with that limitation if used in explanatory material.

13. In considering the draft’s policy structure, participants supported retaining the three elements already set out in the CF-001 ask: payment by large buyers to small suppliers within 15 days of an undisputed invoice; automatic interest when payment is late; and publication of payment times. The discussion did not settle detailed definitions, exceptions, calculation methods or reporting formats. Those matters were left for drafting and review, with the instruction that any proposed text should state clearly where it went beyond existing law or practice.

14. The Chair summarized the external context raised during the meeting. The Council had previously noted the proposed European Union Late Payment Regulation and the discussion of a hard 30-day cap, but participants agreed that the draft should not imply that the proposal was in force. The Council’s standard was being developed as a voluntary practice standard addressed to large buyers, not as a substitute for legislative action or national remedies.³

15. On consultation, the Chair confirmed that the next procedural stage would follow completion of the draft. The Council would not treat this session’s discussion as a public consultation or as a vote. The planned public consultation would allow members and other interested parties to comment on the published draft before any later Assembly ballot. The Secretariat would record and organize consultation feedback under the Assembly’s established process.

16. Members asked that any consultation questions invite feedback on whether the 15-day period, the treatment of partial disputes, the operation of automatic interest and the proposed publication of payment times were clear and workable. They also asked that respondents be able to identify unintended effects without having to disclose a business identity publicly. The Chair noted that member anonymity remained available under the Assembly’s procedures.

17. The Chair closed by distinguishing agreement on the broad policy direction from agreement on final drafting. No adoption decision was taken. No letters to company chief executives were authorized at this session. The Council’s next formal steps remained completion of the draft, public consultation, consideration of comments, and submission of the resulting text through the Assembly’s ballot process.

Decisions and action items

1. Drafting basis. The drafting group will use the three-part CF-001 policy ask as the basis for the draft: a 15-day period for undisputed invoices from large buyers to small suppliers, automatic interest when late, and publication of payment times. The discussion recorded no final determination of definitions or exceptions.

2. Disputes and payment clock. The drafting group will address partial disputes, identification of disputed items, the treatment of the undisputed balance and the point from which the payment period runs. Owner: CF-001 drafting group, under the Chair’s coordination.

3. Interest and transparency. The drafting group will develop clear language on automatic interest and publication of payment times, including how the text distinguishes invoice receipt, internal approval and payment. Owner: CF-001 drafting group.

4. Evidence presentation. The Secretariat will ensure that any presentation of Council figures identifies the date and scope of the data, and distinguishes reports received from population-level estimates. Owner: Secretariat.

5. Consultation preparation. The Chair and Secretariat will prepare consultation questions on clarity, workability and possible unintended effects, for use after publication of the draft. Owners: Harpreet Singh and the Secretariat.

6. Next session. Open Tables are held monthly. The date of the next Cashflow Council session had not been fixed in the record of 16 July. The Secretariat was asked to announce the August 2026 date and sitting arrangements when confirmed.

Sources

1. Legal 500, “Payments to micro and small enterprises (MSEs): implications under section 43B(h) of Income Tax Act, 1961.”¹

2. UK Government, “Late payment consultation: time to pay up — Government response.”²

3. European Parliament, Legislative Train, “Late payments directive revision.”³

Notes and sources

Sources

1. Payments to micro and small enterprises (MSEs): implications under section 43B(h) of Income Tax Act, 1961
2. Late payment consultation: time to pay up — Government response
3. Late payments directive revision