Insol­ven­ci­es in the sup­p­ly chain: What needs to be done?

The impact of insol­ven­cy on the sup­p­ly chain and how to mini­mi­ze risks

An unp­lea­sant but incre­asing­ly com­mon and rea­li­stic sce­na­rio: your busi­ness part­ner – whe­ther a cus­to­mer or sup­pli­er – beco­mes insol­vent. How does this affect the busi­ness rela­ti­onship, and what can be done to mini­mi­ze eco­no­mic risks for your own com­pa­ny, both reac­tively and preventively?

Con­se­quen­ces of insolvency

When insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings are ope­ned, the deb­tor loses the (sole) power of dis­po­sal over his assets. This is trans­fer­red to the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor, who assu­mes the legal posi­ti­on of the debtor.

Out­stan­ding claims that were alre­a­dy estab­lished at the time of the ope­ning of insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings gene­ral­ly beco­me so-called insol­ven­cy claims. The cre­di­tor must regis­ter them in the insol­ven­cy table in order to be satis­fied pro­por­tio­nal­ly from the insol­ven­cy estate at the end of the insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings. Lia­bi­li­ties ari­sing after the ope­ning of insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings are so-called estate lia­bi­li­ties, which are satis­fied in advan­ce and in full from the insol­ven­cy estate.

In the sup­pli­er con­stel­la­ti­on of a sup­p­ly chain, the con­trac­tu­al rela­ti­onship is typi­cal­ly gover­ned by mutu­al con­tracts (often a type of frame­work agree­ment and indi­vi­du­al sup­p­ly con­tracts based on it). If the­se have not yet been ful­ly ful­fil­led (by both par­ties), the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor can choo­se whe­ther or not to con­ti­nue the con­tract (Sec­tion 103 InsO (Ger­man Insol­ven­cy Code)). If he choo­ses to ful­fill the con­tract, the cla­im beco­mes a lia­bi­li­ty of the insol­ven­cy estate. If he refu­ses to ful­fill the con­tract or if the cre­di­tor has made advan­ce per­for­man­ces in total or in rela­ti­on to indi­vi­du­al orders, any claims (for dama­ges) can only be regis­tered in the insol­ven­cy table. Until the right of choice is exer­cis­ed, the exis­tence and con­tent of the con­tract remain unch­an­ged, but the mutu­al per­for­mance obli­ga­ti­ons are not enforceable for the time being (Sec­tion 320 BGB (Ger­man Civil Code)).

Spe­ci­fi­cal­ly, this means:

  • in the event of the insol­ven­cy of its own cus­to­mer, they only have to pay out­stan­ding invoices if they are lia­bi­li­ties of the insol­ven­cy estate – eit­her as a result of the choice of per­for­mance or becau­se the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor has pla­ced new orders. At the same time, the con­trac­tu­al situa­ti­on may mean that the sup­pli­er is obli­ged to con­ti­nue deli­veries despi­te out­stan­ding and due invoices.
  • in the event of the sup­pli­er’s insol­ven­cy, the sup­pli­er’s obli­ga­ti­on to deli­ver also depends on its clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on as a lia­bi­li­ty of the insol­ven­cy estate. If the admi­nis­tra­tor opts against con­ti­nuing the con­tract and fur­ther deli­veries, the only opti­on is to file any (com­pen­sa­ti­on) claims with the insol­ven­cy table.

The­r­e­fo­re, the fol­lo­wing gene­ral­ly appli­es: the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor should be cont­ac­ted at an ear­ly stage to agree on how to pro­ceed. Until then, no fur­ther exch­an­ge of ser­vices should take place. The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor may also be asked to make his choice of per­for­mance in order to end the sta­te of uncertainty.

Impen­ding insol­ven­cy of the customer

For the reasons men­tio­ned abo­ve, the scope for action is limi­t­ed once insol­ven­cy has occur­red. The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor will base his decis­i­ons sole­ly on the bene­fit to the insol­ven­cy estate. Howe­ver, if you reco­gni­ze signs of impen­ding insol­ven­cy on the part of your cus­to­mer, you can try to mini­mi­ze the eco­no­mic con­se­quen­ces even befo­re insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings are ope­ned by taking the fol­lo­wing measures:

  • Chan­ge in pay­ment terms (agree on advan­ce payment);
  • Refu­se per­for­mance with regard to out­stan­ding deli­veries (so-called defen­se of uncer­tain­ty, Sec­tion 321 BGB);
  • Agree on secu­ri­ties (e.g., warranty/guarantee, reten­ti­on of title, trans­fer of owner­ship by way of security).

The admis­si­bi­li­ty of indi­vi­du­al mea­su­res must be exami­ned on a case-by-case basis.

But bewa­re: after the ope­ning of insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings, the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor may rescind agree­ments that have redu­ced the insol­ven­cy estate to the detri­ment of the cre­di­tors as a who­le under the con­di­ti­ons set out in Sec­tions 129 et seq. InsO, if neces­sa­ry – espe­ci­al­ly if they were made in the last three months pri­or to the appli­ca­ti­on for the ope­ning of insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings (so-called insol­ven­cy con­te­sta­ti­on). In terms of time, the clo­ser the agree­ment is to the ope­ning of insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings, the hig­her the risk of contestability.

Impen­ding insol­ven­cy of the supplier

If the­re are signs that the sup­pli­er may be insol­vent, the mea­su­res alre­a­dy out­lined abo­ve are also available. If fur­ther deli­veries are serious­ly in doubt, ear­ly estab­lish­ment of and switch to an alter­na­ti­ve sup­pli­er should also be con­side­red. Taking into account any neces­sa­ry appr­oval, the cus­to­mer should also be invol­ved at an ear­ly stage.

Mea­su­res to sup­port the sup­pli­er (e.g., by purcha­sing tools, ear­ly amor­tiza­ti­on, or pro­vi­ding mate­ri­als) should, on the other hand, be careful­ly con­side­red. In addi­ti­on to the risk of inef­fec­ti­ve­ness due to insol­ven­cy con­te­sta­ti­on, the­re is a dan­ger that any return/compensation claims will be lost becau­se they can only be asser­ted pro­por­tio­nal­ly as insol­ven­cy claims. Fur­ther safe­guards such as let­ters of com­fort from (still) sol­vent group com­pa­nies of the sup­pli­er can help here.

Pre­ven­ti­on

If the busi­ness part­ner’s insol­ven­cy is (reco­gniz­ab­ly) immi­nent or has alre­a­dy occur­red, the opti­ons for action are limi­t­ed for the reasons men­tio­ned abo­ve (insol­ven­cy con­te­sta­ti­on, decision-making power of the insol­ven­cy administrator).

We the­r­e­fo­re recom­mend taking pre­ven­ti­ve mea­su­res in advan­ce to safe­guard against such situa­tions by draf­ting con­tracts with fore­sight. This can be achie­ved in par­ti­cu­lar by estab­li­shing col­la­te­ral at an ear­ly stage. Advan­ta­ge: unli­ke sub­se­quent­ly agreed secu­ri­ties, exis­ting col­la­te­ral is not sub­ject to insol­ven­cy con­te­sta­ti­on, and cre­di­tors are given pre­fe­ren­ti­al tre­at­ment and recei­ve full pay­ment in the event of insol­ven­cy (so-called right of sepa­ra­ti­on or right of segre­ga­ti­on, depen­ding on the type of col­la­te­ral). It also makes it easier to switch to alter­na­ti­ve suppliers.

Pos­si­ble pre­ven­ti­ve secu­ri­ty mecha­nisms include:

  • Regu­lar moni­to­ring of the finan­cial situa­ti­on of my busi­ness partners;
  • Agree­ment on reten­ti­on of title or trans­fer of production-relevant equip­ment in gene­ral (e.g., deli­very items, tools, mate­ri­als, faci­li­ties, etc.);
  • Trans­fer of intellec­tu­al pro­per­ty rights (e.g., patents, designs), licen­ses, and know-how;
  • Agree­ment on opti­ons for the purcha­se of manu­fac­tu­ring equipment;
  • For soft­ware: Depo­sit of source codes with access in the event of insolvency;
  • Nego­tia­ti­on of payment/delivery terms: Avo­id advan­ce per­for­man­ces as far as possible;
  • Agree on ter­mi­na­ti­on rights in order to be able to ter­mi­na­te the con­trac­tu­al rela­ti­onship fle­xi­bly. But be careful: accor­ding to estab­lished case law, ter­mi­na­ti­on rights due to insol­ven­cy for­mu­la­ted in gene­ral terms and con­di­ti­ons are most likely invalid.
back

Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.