German law · English information
If an administrator demands repayment of money already received, the legal basis, relevant period and evidence must be examined. Arrears or an instalment arrangement do not by themselves establish a repayment obligation.
Identify the avoidance ground
Congruent and incongruent satisfaction, intentional prejudice, gratuitous transactions and shareholder loans involve different conditions. There is no single avoidance period for every case. Timing, insolvency, knowledge and prejudice to creditors can all matter.
Intentional prejudice
Section 133 InsO generally provides a ten-year period, reduced to four years for transactions granting security or satisfaction. Special knowledge rules apply to congruent payments and payment arrangements. Instalments cannot simply be equated with knowledge of illiquidity.
Defence, settlement and records
We assess payment history, reciprocal performance, cash transactions, alleged indicators and limitation. A settlement may be commercially appropriate after weighing litigation risk and cost. Provide the complete demand, invoices, payment records, reminders, agreements and correspondence. Avoid premature admissions before the facts have been reviewed.
Related information
Procedures overview · Creditor rights · Corporate insolvency
Official German Insolvency Code · Official StaRUG
Practical implementation
Identify the particular avoidance ground
A demand should be broken down by transaction, effective date and legal basis. Preference claims, intentional prejudice and gratuitous transfers have different requirements. Timing, the performance owed, prejudice to creditors and knowledge may matter. Reminders or instalment arrangements require contextual assessment; they do not alone establish every element. Payments through third parties require examination of whose assets were reduced and who obtained the corresponding benefit.
Preserve evidence and assess settlement
Showing that the underlying invoice was valid is not a complete defence. Invoices, delivery records, bank entries and contemporaneous communications should be organised chronologically. The administrator's assertions need examination without unnecessary factual admissions. Limitation and court deadlines also matter. Settlement can be appropriate when litigation risk, cost and liquidity are evaluated together. After repayment, any revived claim against the estate requires separate assessment and, where appropriate, filing.
Four practical examples
The following scenarios are illustrative examples, not reports of client matters. The outcome depends on the facts and applicable rules.
Example 1: Payment followed reminders
A supplier faces recovery of several payments because the customer had been repeatedly chased. The analysis needs exact dates, arrears, statements and the alleged avoidance ground. Reminders alone do not replace an assessment of the relevant knowledge requirements.
Example 2: Instalments were initially honoured
A customer entered an arrangement and paid reliably for a period. The reason for the arrangement, outstanding amounts and other known circumstances matter. The arrangement is neither automatic protection against avoidance nor automatic proof of liability.
Example 3: A different company paid
A customer's sister company paid the invoice. Instructions, legal basis and the payment chain require clarification. Intercompany claims and the identity of the estate actually depleted may affect the analysis.
Example 4: An acknowledgement is requested
A demand contains a short deadline and a proposed acknowledgement of liability. Before signature, facts, legal basis, limitation and legal consequences require review. An agreed extension may allow investigation but does not displace court deadlines.
Discuss your situation
Tell us your role, the parties involved and any deadlines. We will check conflicts, agree the scope of the work and explain the fees before accepting instructions.