Principles of Proper Insolvency Administration

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The principles of proper insolvency administration (GOI) define standards for court-appointed experts , (preliminary) insolvency administrators , special insolvency administrators , (preliminary) administrators and trustees (hereinafter referred to as “insolvency administrators”) in insolvency (opening) proceedings . In a catalog of criteria, requirements for the person of the insolvency administrator, his factual and personal office equipment as well as for the handling of proceedings are defined.

The proof of compliance with the principles of proper insolvency administration to be certified by an accredited certification company should represent the proof of suitability required by the Federal Constitutional Court - BVerfG August 3, 2004 - 1 BvR 135/00 - for appointing decisions for insolvency administrators .

The addressees of the attestation are primarily courts within the framework of their appointment decision according to §§ 21, 56 InsO and creditors' committees within the framework of their right of proposal according to § 56a InsO.

initial situation

According to Section 56 InsO, a person who is suitable for the individual case, in particular someone who is knowledgeable about business and who is independent of the creditors and the debtor, is to be appointed as insolvency administrator.

The appointment of the insolvency administrator is the responsibility of the insolvency judge in accordance with §§ 21, 56 InsO. Since March 1, 2012, the creditors have, under certain conditions, an obligatory right of proposal in accordance with Section 56a InsO. In addition, the creditors' meeting according to Section 57 InsO the right to choose another administrator than the administrator appointed by the court.

For decades, the ordering practice of the insolvency courts has been criticized for considering a small group of administrators per bankruptcy court as a "closed shop" procedure. By decision of the Federal Administrative Court of August 3, 2004 - 1 BvR 135/00 - transparent preselection lists were therefore required.

The insolvency courts have complied with this requirement by developing questionnaires as a prerequisite for inclusion in the pre-selection lists and making them the basis. In practice, however, the criticism came that too few qualitative features were queried. In addition, the results were not published, so that the handling of the lists and the order decisions based on them were now criticized as not being transparent. In addition, the Association of Judges and Rechtspfleger - BAKInsO- issued individual recommendations for action which should serve as individual criteria for proper insolvency administration. Due to the inadequate exposure of objective ordering criteria due to the listing through simple questionnaires, insolvency courts, led by Hamburg and Hanover, have developed key figure models and evaluated the administrators they appointed based on the determined key figures - resolution of the Federal Working Group Insolvenzgerichte e. V. - BAKInsO - November 21, 2008. But the order decisions based on the key figures were also criticized by the administrators, because the survey basis was not published, and as a result, the source material for competitors could not be checked and the statistical significance was also questioned due to the quantitatively unknown survey basis .

On the part of the professional insolvency administrators, parallel to the measures from the judiciary, a quality offensive took place with the mandatory provision of quality management systems for the members of leading associations of professional insolvency administrators such as the Gravenbrucher Kreis and the Verband Insolvenzverwalter Deutschlands e. V. (VID).

This initiative was taken note of by the Association of Insolvency Judges and Rechtspfleger - BAKInsO - but it was correctly assessed as inadequate because quality management systems only document individual requirements for procedures.

The administration associations followed the request of the Federal Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries , Member of the Bundestag, at the 3rd German Insolvency Law Day on March 30, 2006 in Berlin. There she appealed to the self-organization of the insolvency administrators' associations and requirement profiles that were drawn up by the insolvency administrators themselves. These were described as more flexible and better suited to meet practical needs than government guidelines could achieve.

GOI - InsO Excellence

In 2010, the Gravenbrucher Kreis developed a catalog of 223 criteria with the InsO Excellence certificate, and declared its certified evidence to be mandatory for its members. However, the principles of proper insolvency administration defined there are intended to represent the principles of proper insolvency administration as a “high-end standard”. Since December 2018, insolvency administrators who are not members of the Gravenbrucher district can also obtain the InsO Excellence certificate.

GOI - VID

Since May 2010 the Association of Insolvency Administrators in Germany has been creating the GOI - VID. This catalog of criteria is designed to define a minimum standard for professional insolvency administration. The VID requires that this standard, certified by an accredited certification company on the basis of specified examination regulations, becomes the minimum requirement for acceptance of suitability for the office of insolvency administrator, and thus has a normative character.

This standard has gained general recognition since its adoption and publication on May 14, 2011, and is also highlighted by BAKInsO. An updated adjustment was last made in 2016.

In the highly regarded appointment decision of the preliminary insolvency administrator in the insolvency petition procedure for the assets of Sietas-Werft Hamburg, the competent insolvency judge, disregarding the administrators listed at the Hamburg bankruptcy court and disregarding the questioning of procedural indicators, followed the recommendations of the creditors with the note that the suitability among other things through the membership of the administrator in the VID, and thus the self-commitment with regard to the GOI - VID may be accepted.

In procedures opened from January 1, 2013, the standard chart of accounts InsO SKR 04 or InsO SKR 03 must be used.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ GOI - VID . In: VID . ( vid.de [accessed on August 14, 2017]).
  2. ↑ Olaf Preuß and Rolf Zamponi: Sietas-Werft: Insolvency proceedings opened . ( Abendblatt.de [accessed on August 14, 2017]).