bAV – Details on insolvency protection gaps in pension commitments

Distribution approach of the pension commitment
“Your pension commitment is safe: either it is pledged to a GGF ‘bomb-proof’ or the PSVaG steps in”. But this idea is far removed from the reality of practical GmbH insolvency cases in medium-sized companies.
The insurance industry, as a classic product provider, tries to play down the fact that the insolvency administrator can withdraw the reinsurance of the pension commitment. For example, the insolvency administrator has to “secure” or “deposit” the money. But these attempts at explanation fall short. The decisive factor is that the GGF loses its right to participate in the collection or termination of the reinsurance policy in accordance with the lien provisions when it becomes insolvent. The new and sole boss in the ring is the insolvency administrator. For the financial broker and advisor, the matter is much more precarious: Because the statement “insofar insolvency protection exists” is only half the story – because also such legal advice by the broker and agent has to be correct and complete. Some 30,000 lawsuits a year, from clients against front-line advisors show how serious the issue is. Here it is of no use to serve the customer or GGF with advertising slogans or half-truths. To take recourse against the product provider later – according to the new BGB regulations since 1.1.2002 – because of faulty advertising, training or instructions is not an alternative for many intermediaries. The customer and his trust are more important to the intermediary than any product provider.
Insolvency liability of GGF with pledge protection and wife with PSV protection
Insiders claim that in the vast majority of cases, bankruptcy is filed too late. Neither the commercial nor the tax balance sheet is decisive. Only a few entrepreneurs and professional advisors are familiar with an up-to-date balance sheet in accordance with the Insolvency Code with different valuation rules, even in times of crisis. The consequence is that the insolvency administrator later accuses the GGF, among other things, of having made excessive withdrawals. Even the wife, if she de facto (co-)manages the business, can be affected by this, more precisely also by the so-called manager liability. It is also conceivable that the insolvency administrator will discover further claims, for example due to outstanding loan claims against the GGF and/or his wife.
No insolvency protection through the PSVaG
In the case of the wife, it is then the case that, “insofar as offsettable claims” are involved, the PSVaG, according to its insurance conditions, has to pay precisely nothing, § 5 IV AIB. The insolvency administrator must increase the assets in accordance with the law – so in case of doubt he will offset (or sue first and then seize). The wife remains in the doubt not even the so-called seizing-free subsistence minimum, § 394 BGB. The intermediary would do well to distrust the promotional information provided by some sales product providers. The BGH calls this the duty of plausibility check by the intermediary. Only the mediator is on the front line, he is the first to be sued. If the wife is still exempt from compulsory insurance in the statutory pension and there is no other provision, the only option may initially be to apply for “Hartz IV”, and later to go to the social welfare office.
No insolvency protection through pledge
The situation is similar for the GGF, but without a statutory transfer of the reinsurance to the PSVaG. The insolvency administrator has his hand on the money in any case for the time being, because the GmbH is in any case the VN in the case of reinsurance and, according to the BGH ruling of 7.4.2005, can withdraw the reinsurance. The insolvency administrator then has time to consider his case and can offset at any time. This is not a question of the extremely difficult revocation of an employment-legal promise and this has also nothing to do with the question whether a seizing-free amount would have to remain – as subsistence minimum. The case law also allows it to be sufficient in the case of a living company that a predominant fault to the detriment of the GGF is sufficient to cancel pension payments from the GmbH by offsetting which are in and of themselves exempt from seizure. A look at the large commentary makes it easier to find the law.
Considerable risks of the intermediary
In order to inform the customer, it is crucial to depict the “worst case scenario” also in the case of the advisory topic of insolvency protection. Jurisprudence requires that the intermediary can prove even after up to ten years that the customer really understood him correctly, i.e. the clarification. If the intermediary now thinks that he is an agent and that his insurer is therefore liable for him, then this is only correct at first glance: because vis-à-vis the customer the intermediary will usually identify himself as an “occupational pension expert” and claim the personal trust of the customer – then he is also personally liable vis-à-vis the customer.
Other disadvantages of the pension commitment
In contrast to the time value account, the entitlements from the labour law commitment are not inheritable. If money is left over, for example because the GGF does not reach retirement age (without survivor protection in the commitment), the assets of the reinsurance accrue to the GmbH, i.e. in the case of insolvency to the assets. Or think of the sale of the company in old age or anticipated succession: a difficulty with pension commitments. And the damage, which is then determined by an auditor or the court estimates it because of avoidable unsaleability of the company. The enlightened client then writes to his lawyer in no uncertain terms, “surely this must be a case of broker liability…”.
Restructuring of the pension commitment
The pension commitment is one of the tax-saving models, with all the consequences in the aftermath. In practice, the reinsurance will often be too low in the range of 20% to 200%. This even happens to tax advisors with their own limited liability company. Filling these gaps is in the interest of intermediaries and product providers. Another chance to educate the customer, or plant new liability? If the financial service provider has to check capital investments and concepts “legally, economically and fiscally” at least for plausibility and viability (in the case of the financial service provider, BGH of 13.12.2000, III ZR 62/99 – and in the case of the tax advisor, BGH of 23.1.2003, IX ZR 180/01), then the financial advisor must also provide information: This naturally also includes the question of the viability of insolvency protection in practice. If necessary, the enlightened client will want the (sole?) pension provision to be separated from the business risks. The need for this among customers is increasing, just as the equity ratio of small and medium-sized businesses has been declining for years. In addition, the insurance cover (e.g. for invalidity) then ends and the premature dissolution and collection is regularly hardly economically advantageous for the GGF (e.g. if cancellation deductions are made). For the insurance industry, this leads to an outflow of funds, because the “deposit or security” has to be gilt-edged – a quality that the legislator did not give to life insurance alone, § 1806 et seq. BGB.
For the intermediary, it is already possible today to cover entire asset values and to withdraw them from the direct access of the (potential) insolvency administrator in good time. Some half-advice with a high liability can still be corrected today – for example on the occasion of the new BGH judgement of 7.4.2005. The fact that the pledging of the pension commitment to the GGF as protection against access by the insolvency administrator has never really been safe will be clear to every intermediary since the judgement of the LG Erfurt of 4.12.2003 (Ref. 3 O 660/03) anyway: In this case, the insolvency administrator first successfully sued the GGF for damages due to excessive withdrawals: the insolvency administrator then seized the entire reinsurance – and the beautiful sales dream of insolvency protection was over.
(AssCompact 1.2006 article 1)

Our office in Munich

You will find our office at Fasolt-Strasse 7 in Munich, very close to Schloss Nymphenburg. Our team consists of highly motivated attorneys who are available for all the needs of our clients. In special cases, our law firm cooperates with selected experts to represent your interests in the best possible way.

About the author

Dr. Johannes Fiala Dr. Johannes Fiala

Dr. Johannes Fiala has been working for more than 25 years as a lawyer and attorney with his own law firm in Munich. He is intensively involved in real estate, financial law, tax and insurance law. The numerous stages of his professional career enable him to provide his clients with comprehensive advice and to act as a lawyer in the event of disputes.
»More about Dr. Johannes Fiala

On these pages, Dr. Fiala provides information on current legal and economic topics as well as on current political changes that are of social and/or corporate relevance.

Arrange your personal appointment with us.

Make an appointment / call back service

You are already receiving legal advice and would like a second opinion? In this case please contact Dr. Fiala directly via the following link.

Obtain a second legal opinion

(The first phone call is a free get-to-know-you conversation; without consulting. You will learn what we can do for you & what we need from you in terms of information, documents for a qualified consultation.)