FAQ Mis­cel­la­neous

We offer com­pa­nies and asso­cia­ti­ons lec­tures and semi­nars on the pos­si­bi­li­ties and advan­ta­ges of using pled­ges of rights and on the prac­ti­cal imple­men­ta­ti­on of pledge rea­liza­ti­ons. You can book us as key­note spea­k­ers for con­gres­ses and trade fairs.

We car­ry out the com­ple­te liqui­da­ti­on of com­pa­nies and estates on site at the pro­per­ty. This avo­ids sto­rage and trans­por­ta­ti­on cos­ts. We auc­tion in its enti­re­ty. With the accep­tance of the bid, the buy­er recei­ves the obli­ga­ti­on to clear the pro­per­ty. Items such as works of art, anti­ques, musi­cal instru­ments, motor vehic­les, jewel­ry, wat­ches, ori­gi­nal desi­gner fur­ni­tu­re, por­ce­lain, solid sil­ver­wa­re, coll­ec­tions, stamps, coins, books, secu­ri­ties and machi­nes, but only if they are actual­ly of high value, valuable or signi­fi­cant, will be sold sepa­ra­te­ly at a sui­ta­ble alter­na­ti­ve loca­ti­on.

We have thou­sands of cont­acts with pro­s­pec­ti­ve buy­ers. The auc­tion pro­cess is very simp­le for the cli­ent. We are at your dis­po­sal as a pro­ven part­ner.

In the event of insol­ven­cy, attach­ment liens beco­me inef­fec­ti­ve. Howe­ver, the cre­di­tor reta­ins the value of the secu­ri­ty rights. The pled­ged items or rights then count as sepa­ra­te assets. In prin­ci­ple, the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor has the power of rea­liza­ti­on in accordance with Sec­tion 88 InsO if the cre­di­tor has not acqui­red his pledge of rights one month befo­re fil­ing for insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings. It is suf­fi­ci­ent for the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor’s right of rea­liza­ti­on that he acqui­red the pro­per­ty in the appli­ca­ti­on pro­cee­dings in his capa­ci­ty as pro­vi­sio­nal insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor and that a pro­hi­bi­ti­on of sale was issued. From this point onwards, he can pre­vent the pro­per­ty from being han­ded over to the cre­di­tor. Howe­ver, he must have actual­ly taken pos­ses­si­on. Indi­rect pos­ses­si­on by the admi­nis­tra­tor is not suf­fi­ci­ent for a rea­liza­ti­on right.

The cre­di­tor must assert his rights to sepa­ra­te satis­fac­tion vis-à-vis the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor in wri­ting, spe­ci­fy­ing the object or right to which the right to sepa­ra­te satis­fac­tion rela­tes.

The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor may not demand “segre­ga­ti­on fees” from the cre­di­tor. The cre­di­tor is not obli­ged to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on to the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor. They do not have to hand over any docu­ments. Even if the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor some­ti­mes claims the oppo­si­te. The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor is often in need of evi­dence due to the debtor’s chao­tic book­kee­ping, for exam­p­le.

The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor may free­ly sell a mova­ble item to which he has a pledge of rights. Befo­re he sells the pledge to a third par­ty, he must inform the cre­di­tor entit­led to sepa­ra­te satis­fac­tion how and at what pri­ce the object or right is to be sold.

Within one week, the cre­di­tor has the right to pro­vi­de evi­dence of a more favorable rea­liza­ti­on opti­on or to have such evi­dence pro­vi­ded. The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor must then exer­cise this opti­on or place the cre­di­tor in the same posi­ti­on as if he had exer­cis­ed the opti­on.

Note from prac­ti­ce: Insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tors some­ti­mes rea­li­ze assets wit­hout fur­ther dis­cus­sions with the cre­di­tors entit­led to sepa­ra­te satis­fac­tion. If the cre­di­tor can pro­ve, e.g. by means of a lien rea­liza­ti­on report, that hig­her rea­liza­ti­on pro­ceeds would have been pos­si­ble, the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor can be held lia­ble for dama­ges.

The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor recei­ves a lump sum of at least 9% plus 19% VAT from the liqui­da­ti­on pro­ceeds and fur­ther lump sums for the liqui­da­ti­on cos­ts. If the actu­al liqui­da­ti­on cos­ts incur­red are signi­fi­cant­ly hig­her or lower than the lump sums, the actu­al cos­ts incur­red are to be appli­ed (sec­tion 171 (2) sen­tence 2 InsO). The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor is free to com­mis­si­on third par­ties with the liqui­da­ti­on.

Fears on the part of the cre­di­tor entit­led to sepa­ra­te satis­fac­tion that the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor could abu­se his right of rea­liza­ti­on by remai­ning inac­ti­ve and not pur­suing the sale swift­ly are aver­ted by the Insol­ven­cy Code through the gene­ral duty of rea­liza­ti­on after the report­ing date (sec­tion 159 InsO) and, abo­ve all, by the fact that the cre­di­tor can cla­im the inte­rest owed from the insol­ven­cy estate on an ongo­ing basis from the report­ing date (sec­tion 169 InsO). The inte­rest run ends with the pay­ment of the rea­liza­ti­on pro­ceeds to the cre­di­tor. The inte­rest rate depends on the con­trac­tu­al agree­ments. If the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor is in default, default inte­rest can also be deman­ded.

Release: The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor is not obli­ged to make use of his right of rea­liza­ti­on. Ins­tead, he can lea­ve the rea­liza­ti­on to the cre­di­tor in accordance with (sec­tion 170 (2) InsO). This is expe­di­ent if the cre­di­tor has more favorable liqui­da­ti­on opti­ons, for exam­p­le becau­se he has com­mis­sio­ned a publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer who is well estab­lished in the liqui­da­ti­on of pled­ges of rights.

Cre­di­tor par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in cos­ts: In the event of insol­ven­cy, the rea­liza­ti­on of col­la­te­ral is asso­cia­ted with cos­ts that redu­ce the pro­ceeds. They are incur­red in deter­mi­ning which items are sub­ject to the respec­ti­ve secu­ri­ty agree­ment, in main­tai­ning the col­la­te­ral until rea­liza­ti­on and in the rea­liza­ti­on its­elf. If the admi­nis­tra­tor has left the rea­liza­ti­on of the object or the cla­im to the les­sor, 4% of the pro­ceeds must be paid to the estate for the cos­ts of deter­mi­na­ti­on and 19% of the pro­ceeds must be paid to the estate for value added tax, inso­far as this is trig­ge­red by the rea­liza­ti­on at the expen­se of the estate.

Rea­liza­ti­on by the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor as oppo­sed to rea­liza­ti­on by the gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer gene­ral­ly means con­sidera­ble finan­cial dis­ad­van­ta­ges to the detri­ment of the cre­di­tor. The liqui­da­ti­on pro­ce­du­re is bey­ond the cre­di­tor’s con­trol, par­ti­cu­lar­ly with regard to the liqui­da­ti­on cos­ts. As a rule, it is not part of the cre­di­tor’s core com­pe­tence to gene­ra­te the hig­hest bidder within the tight dead­line of one week. We have cont­acts with thou­sands of poten­ti­al buy­ers and can gene­ra­te buy­ers at short noti­ce. The cre­di­tor should at least take advan­ta­ge of this oppor­tu­ni­ty, as the­re are no cos­ts invol­ved.

In insol­ven­cy cases, we are often asked by cre­di­tors entit­led to a pledge whe­ther we can still help to rea­li­ze their pledge of rights at short noti­ce. Unfort­u­na­te­ly, by then “the child has usual­ly alre­a­dy fal­len into the well” and the pledge is in insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings. Then, for exam­p­le, VAT of 19% beco­mes due, which would not have been paya­ble by the cre­di­tor in the event of pre-insol­ven­cy rea­liza­ti­on. We can always best help cre­di­tors to rea­li­ze their claims if they act imme­dia­te­ly.

As a gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer, we are sworn to our inde­pen­dence in the pro­cee­dings. We are obli­ged to pro­tect the rights of both the cre­di­tor and the deb­tor.

The owners of pled­ges of rights are pri­vi­le­ged becau­se they do not have to go through the usu­al legal chan­nels of dun­ning, legal action or insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings in the event of non-pay­ment. They can use a sim­pli­fied pro­ce­du­re for the rea­liza­ti­on of claims, wher­eby the rea­liza­ti­on of the pledge is not depen­dent on the cre­di­tor having an enforceable title against the owner.

This makes the pro­cee­dings more cost-effec­ti­ve and speeds them up con­sider­a­b­ly. This is in the inte­rests of both cre­di­tor and deb­tor. Howe­ver, becau­se the debtor’s rights are not review­ed in court pro­cee­dings, the legis­la­tor pre­scri­bes a pro­ce­du­re regu­la­ted by the Ger­man Civil Code (BGB), Com­mer­cial Code (HGB), Code of Civil Pro­ce­du­re (ZPO), Com­pul­so­ry Admi­nis­tra­ti­on Act (Zwangs­ver­wal­tungs­ge­setz), Pawn Loan Ordi­nan­ce (Pfand­leih­ver­ord­nung), Limi­t­ed Lia­bi­li­ty Com­pa­nies Act (GmbHGB), Stock Cor­po­ra­ti­on Act (AktG) and Auc­tion­eers Ordi­nan­ce (Ver­stei­ge­rer­ver­ord­nung).

Anyo­ne who makes use of the spe­cial pri­vi­le­ges affor­ded by the legis­la­tor in mat­ters rela­ting to the pledge of rights is con­se­quent­ly obli­ged to com­ply with the asso­cia­ted obli­ga­ti­ons.

The rea­liza­ti­on of a lien is a sove­reign act and may only be car­ri­ed out by aut­ho­ri­zed per­sons such as publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eers. As a deb­tor, you do not have to accept a sale of the pledge by the cre­di­tor with off­set­ting against your debts. You are entit­led to have the hig­hest bidder for the pledge deter­mi­ned by an inde­pen­dent body by way of public auc­tion or pri­va­te sale.

In prin­ci­ple, it should be noted: An object taken in pledge is not the pro­per­ty of the cre­di­tor! Cf. sec­tion 1244 BGB Unlawful sale (1): The sale of the pledge is not lawful if the pro­vi­si­ons of sec­tion 1228 (2), sec­tion 1230 sen­tence 2 BGB, sec­tion 1235 BGB, sec­tion 1237 sen­tence 1 BGB or sec­tion 1240 BGB are vio­la­ted.

The legis­la­tor and the courts lea­ve no short­cuts open when it comes to the rea­liza­ti­on of liens. Anyo­ne who vio­la­tes the legal pro­vi­si­ons can —

be held lia­ble for dama­ges under civil law; see BGH ruling of 14.07.2010, VIII ZR 45/09 a n d

- be pro­se­cu­ted for embezz­le­ment in accordance with Sec­tion 246 StGB; see, ins­tead of many: judgment of the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Hamm of July 8, 2013, Ref. 5 U 111/12.

The fol­lo­wing are aut­ho­ri­zed to con­duct public auc­tions and pri­va­te sales:

a) Nota­ries (§ 20 Para. 3 BNo­tO) with the rest­ric­tion that they should only auc­tion mova­ble pro­per­ty if this is prompt­ed by the auc­tion of immo­va­ble pro­per­ty or by a divi­si­on of assets nota­ri­zed or media­ted by the nota­ry). Note: Pro-acti­ve mar­ke­ting of auc­tion­ed goods by the nota­ry does not gene­ral­ly take place, as mar­ke­ting is not one of the nota­ry’s core com­pe­ten­ci­es. Opti­mum pro­ceeds from the sale are the­r­e­fo­re unli­kely to be achie­ved.

b) Bai­liff (§ 237 GVGA) with the rest­ric­tion: accor­ding to § 249 GVGA para­graph (3) 1, the bai­liff must refu­se the order if the cli­ent has the pos­si­bi­li­ty to com­mis­si­on an aut­ho­ri­zed auc­tion­eer with the auc­tion and the super­vi­sing judge has deter­mi­ned this pos­si­bi­li­ty for the dis­trict of the local court). Note: The judi­cial offi­cer is only acti­ve in his dis­trict. Con­duc­ting auc­tions is one of many tasks. Supra-regio­nal mar­ke­ting is not one of his core com­pe­ten­ci­es. Here, too, it is unli­kely that the pro­ceeds of sale will be opti­mal.

c) publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer (legal defi­ni­ti­on accor­ding to 383 BGB) with the fol­lo­wing rest­ric­tion: If the auc­tion­eer is only publicly appoin­ted for cer­tain types of auc­tions (e.g. for art or stamps), then he may only act within this limi­t­ed scope. Note: The auc­tion­eer proac­tively gene­ra­tes pro­s­pec­ti­ve buy­ers, both natio­nal­ly and inter­na­tio­nal­ly. His fees are not based on a sca­le of fees but are lar­ge­ly deter­mi­ned by the auc­tion pro­ceeds. It is in his inte­rest to con­vin­ce as many poten­ti­al buy­ers as pos­si­ble to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the auc­tion.

If other per­sons are com­mis­sio­ned, the­re is no auc­tion within the mea­ning of § 383 BGB! Fur­ther­mo­re: A sale of pled­ged pro­per­ty via Ebay and other auc­tion plat­forms on the Inter­net is not a public auc­tion within the mea­ning of the law!

If you have no funds or legal expen­ses insu­rance, you can app­ly for legal aid. If you do not know a lawy­er, the bar asso­cia­ti­on respon­si­ble for your place of resi­dence will be hap­py to name a sui­ta­ble lawy­er for you.

For your infor­ma­ti­on: In the event of unlawful col­la­te­ral enforce­ment, we, as expert app­rai­sers, prepa­re lien enforce­ment reports and can deter­mi­ne the pos­si­ble pro­ceeds that the sale of the col­la­te­ral would have gene­ra­ted if it had been lawful­ly rea­li­zed.

Public auc­tions or pri­va­te trea­ty sales are a sove­reign act and are car­ri­ed out in a regu­la­ted pro­ce­du­re. Publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eers are gene­ral­ly available for this pur­po­se, as they are aut­ho­ri­zed to rea­li­ze all con­trac­tu­al and sta­tu­to­ry pled­ges of rights. This is becau­se the respec­ti­ve owner of the auc­tion­ed pro­per­ty can­not influence the pri­ce and mini­mum bid. He must be able to rely on the relia­bi­li­ty and exper­ti­se of the auc­tion­eer. The auc­tion­eer is sworn to car­ry out his task con­sci­en­tious­ly, wit­hout ins­truc­tions and impar­ti­al­ly. This means that he is obli­ged to car­ry out the valua­ti­on and rea­liza­ti­on in com­pli­ance with the rights of all par­ties invol­ved at reasonable cos­ts. He, his employees or next of kin are not per­mit­ted to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the auc­tion. The gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer is obli­ged to main­tain con­fi­den­tia­li­ty vis-à-vis third par­ties with regard to know­ledge gai­ned in the cour­se of his acti­vi­ties.

Spe­cial fea­tures of the public auc­tion

The Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Colo­gne assu­mes the relia­bi­li­ty of the esti­ma­te of the auc­tion house ope­ra­ted by a publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer. This ruling is rele­vant in prac­ti­ce for the valua­ti­on of col­la­te­ral. Esti­ma­tes from auc­tion hou­ses are gene­ral­ly con­sider­a­b­ly che­a­per to obtain than detail­ed expert reports. Accor­ding to a BGH ruling of Novem­ber 9, 2005, the gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer can exclude any war­ran­ty for all items sold by way of a public auc­tion con­duc­ted by him. Nor­mal­ly, the fol­lo­wing man­da­to­ry prin­ci­ple appli­es: no acqui­si­ti­on in good faith of lost items, i.e. the buy­er can­not beco­me the owner of sto­len, lost or other­wi­se miss­ing items. Accor­ding to Sec­tion 935 (2) BGB, all items purcha­sed by public auc­tion are acqui­red in good faith.

The public auc­tion or pri­va­te sale of pled­ged pro­per­ty is a sove­reign act car­ri­ed out in a pro­ce­du­re regu­la­ted by the BGB, HGB, GmbHG, AktG, Gewer­be­ord­nung and Ver­stei­ge­rer­ver­ord­nung.

The auc­tion takes place accor­ding to the sur­ro­ga­te prin­ci­ple, i.e. mate­ri­al value is con­ver­ted into mone­ta­ry value. The mar­ket value for the place and time of the auc­tion is deter­mi­ned by public auc­tion. The public must be estab­lished. The auc­tion­eer must publi­ci­ze the auc­tion in accordance with the prin­ci­ples of Sec­tion 6 (1) VerstV. The auc­tion loca­ti­on must be suf­fi­ci­ent.

Befo­re the auc­tion, all pro­s­pec­ti­ve buy­ers must be given the oppor­tu­ni­ty to inform them­sel­ves about the items or rights to be auc­tion­ed.

The cir­cle of buy­ers is unli­mi­t­ed. With the excep­ti­on of the auc­tion­eer, his employees, assistants and direct rela­ti­ves, any per­son with full legal capa­ci­ty under Ger­man law has the right to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the auc­tion. This appli­es in par­ti­cu­lar to deb­tors and cre­di­tors.

With the amend­ment of § 383 BGB, public auc­tion­eers are named first for the exe­cu­ti­on of public auc­tions and pri­va­te sales. In excep­tio­nal cases, bai­liffs or nota­ries car­ry out lien rea­liza­ti­ons with rest­ric­tions. In prac­ti­ce, they gene­ral­ly refu­se to do so.

a) Nota­ries (§ 20 para. 3 BNo­tO) with the rest­ric­tion: The nota­ry may only con­duct a public auc­tion if he issues a nota­riza­ti­on in this case.

b) Bai­liff(§ 237 GVGA — only in his local dis­trict. With the rest­ric­tion: Accor­ding to § 249 GVGA para­graph (3) 1, the judi­cial offi­cer must refu­se the order if the cli­ent has the pos­si­bi­li­ty of com­mis­sio­ning an aut­ho­ri­zed auc­tion­eer with the auc­tion and the super­vi­sing judge has deter­mi­ned this pos­si­bi­li­ty for the dis­trict of the local court). Note: The judi­cial offi­cer is only acti­ve in his dis­trict. Con­duc­ting auc­tions is one of many tasks. Supra-regio­nal mar­ke­ting is not one of his core com­pe­ten­ci­es. Here, too, it is unli­kely that the pro­ceeds of sale will be opti­mal.

c) publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer (legal defi­ni­ti­on accor­ding to § 383 BGB). With the rest­ric­tion: If the auc­tion­eer is only publicly appoin­ted for cer­tain types of auc­tions (e.g. for art or stamps), then he may only act within the scope thus rest­ric­ted. The core com­pe­tence of the gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer is the rea­liza­ti­on of objects and rights of all kinds ari­sing from pled­ges and insol­ven­cy. Note: The auc­tion­eer proac­tively gene­ra­tes pro­s­pec­ti­ve buy­ers both natio­nal­ly and inter­na­tio­nal­ly. His fees are not based on a sca­le of fees but are lar­ge­ly deter­mi­ned by the pro­ceeds of the auc­tion. It is in his inte­rest to con­vin­ce as many poten­ti­al buy­ers as pos­si­ble to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the auc­tion.