Rea­liza­ti­on of com­pa­ny shares and rights of all kinds

Public auc­tion of com­pa­ny shares, secu­ri­ties, IP rights (patents, trade­mark rights, Inter­net domains, licen­se rights).

For over 15 years, we have been assis­ting lawy­ers, insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tors, finan­ciers and inves­tors in the rea­liza­ti­on of com­pa­ny shares and rights of all kinds.

The rea­liza­ti­on of pled­ged rights — of com­pa­ny shares or other rights — is car­ri­ed out in a legal­ly com­pli­ant, fast, cost-effec­ti­ve and final man­ner by the gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted and sworn auc­tion­eer by way of public auc­tion (§ 383 BGB n.F., § 34b GewO, § 156 BGB). If the­re is a mar­ket or stock exch­an­ge value, the sale must be car­ri­ed out by a com­mer­cial bro­ker or by a per­son aut­ho­ri­zed to con­duct public auc­tions in accordance with Sec­tion 1221 BGB.

The rea­liza­ti­on of pled­ged com­pa­ny shares or other rights is sub­ject to a clear legal frame­work in the event of insol­ven­cy. Accor­ding to §§ 1228 ff. BGB, the public auc­tion (sec­tion 1235 BGB) is the sta­tu­to­ry stan­dard form — not the pri­va­te sale (sec­tion 1245 BGB). When pro­cee­dings are ope­ned, the appli­ca­bi­li­ty of sec­tion 1245 BGB cea­ses to app­ly: The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor is not aut­ho­ri­zed to dis­po­se of the pro­per­ty (sec­tion 80 InsO), nor is the pled­ger. M&A pro­cee­dings or pri­va­te sales in the con­text of insol­ven­cy are unlawful and fraught with lia­bi­li­ty: the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor exceeds his powers, M&A advi­sors act wit­hout the requi­red auc­tion­eer’s licen­se and public appoint­ment, and pled­gees risk rescis­si­on or rever­sal (sec­tions 129 et seq. InsO).

In its ruling of 27.11.2022 — IX ZR 145/21, the Fede­ral Court of Jus­ti­ce cla­ri­fied that 166 (1) InsO only appli­es to phy­si­cal assets. Rights — such as com­pa­ny shares, trade­marks, patents, IT domains, licen­ses — are not eli­gi­ble for pos­ses­si­on. This means that the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor gene­ral­ly lacks a sta­tu­to­ry power of rea­liza­ti­on; an ana­log­ous appli­ca­ti­on of sec­tion 166 (1) InsO is ruled out. The rea­liza­ti­on of pled­ged rights is the sole respon­si­bi­li­ty of the pled­gee pur­su­ant to sec­tions 1273 et seq. BGB in con­junc­tion with § 1235 BGB (public auc­tion). In the event of insol­ven­cy, the pled­ger is legal­ly pre­ven­ted from con­clu­ding an agree­ment with the pled­gee on a pri­va­te sale in accordance with Sec­tion 1245 BGB, as his power of dis­po­sal is trans­fer­red to the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor in accordance with Sec­tion 80 InsO.

After the ope­ning of insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings, no effec­ti­ve agree­ment can the­r­e­fo­re be con­cluded bet­ween the pled­gee and the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor as the repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of the pled­ger regar­ding the type of rea­liza­ti­on of pled­ged com­pa­ny shares or other rights. Con­sent to rea­liza­ti­on by pri­va­te trea­ty pur­su­ant to sec­tion 1245 BGB can no lon­ger be gran­ted, as the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor has no pri­va­te auto­no­mous free­dom of action (sec­tions 80, 166 InsO). This means that the public auc­tion (Sec­tion 1235 BGB) is the only per­mis­si­ble and legal­ly com­pli­ant form of rea­liza­ti­on in the event of insol­ven­cy for pled­ged com­pa­ny shares or other rights. Any agree­ment devia­ting from this is null and void (Sec­tion 134 BGB) and can trig­ger lia­bi­li­ty con­se­quen­ces (Sec­tion 60 InsO) for the insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor and the pled­gee invol­ved.

Only the public auc­tion com­bi­nes all legal and eco­no­mic objec­ti­ves in one pro­ce­du­re.

In con­trast to M&A and work­outs with a two-stage pro­cess (sig­ning and clo­sing), the trans­fer of owner­ship takes place as soon as the bid is accept­ed — a sove­reign, legal­ly for­ma­ti­ve act and a clear, simp­le solu­ti­on wit­hout a sepa­ra­te clo­sing.

In tran­sac­tion situa­tions, cla­ri­ty, pro­ce­du­ral acce­le­ra­ti­on and relia­bi­li­ty are more important than ever. Unli­ke work­out or M&A, the public auc­tion offers a struc­tu­red, legal­ly legi­ti­mi­zed path to legal­ly com­pli­ant and final rea­liza­ti­on. It com­bi­nes legal pre­cis­i­on with eco­no­mic effi­ci­en­cy — and thus achie­ves what is not always pos­si­ble on the mar­ket: a clear, incon­test­a­ble con­clu­si­on (sec­tion 156 of the Ger­man Civil Code). In the distres­sed case, the clas­sic M&A pro­cess is the­r­e­fo­re regu­lar­ly sub­ject to the public auc­tion both legal­ly and eco­no­mic­al­ly.

Case law (BGH, judgment of 11.05.2006 — IX ZR 247/03) con­firms that the public auc­tion is a legal­ly reco­gni­zed method of sale that gua­ran­tees trans­pa­ren­cy, mar­ket fair­ness and fina­li­ty.

The rea­liza­ti­on of com­pa­ny shares or other rights by way of public auc­tion is also a useful instru­ment in the dis­so­lu­ti­on of com­mu­ni­ties of heirs or frac­tion­al inte­rests as well as in the case of cadu­ci­ty or aban­don­ment in order to bring about a fair solu­ti­on. In the event of impen­ding insol­ven­cy, our invol­vement is a pro­ven solu­ti­on for cre­di­tors.

Deut­sche Pfand­ver­wer­tung designs the enti­re pro­ce­du­re as a struc­tu­red, legal­ly com­pli­ant and final pro­cess. This makes the public auc­tion a regu­la­to­ry frame­work that offers inves­tors and cre­di­tors a high degree of legal cer­tain­ty and insti­tu­tio­nal relia­bi­li­ty.

We act exclu­si­ve­ly on a legal basis. Our working methods com­bi­ne tried-and-tes­ted pro­ce­du­ral struc­tures with online live auc­tions and live streams, vir­tu­al data rooms (VDR) and AI-sup­port­ed pro­ces­ses. All pro­ces­ses are docu­men­ted on file and can be tra­ced in an audit-pro­of man­ner. Deut­sche Pfand­ver­wer­tung ope­ra­tes nati­on­wi­de and works with inter­na­tio­nal spe­cia­list part­ners in cross-bor­der pro­cee­dings as requi­red.

In more detail:

Ver­wer­tung von ver­pfän­de­ten Unter­neh­mens­an­tei­len oder Rech­ten im Insol­venz­fall

Ver­wer­tung von Unter­neh­mens­an­tei­len – Anteils­ver­kauf: Öffent­li­che Ver­stei­ge­rung von New­­Co-Antei­­len

Ver­stei­ge­rung von Unter­neh­mens­an­tei­len durch den Notar: Was Auf­trag­ge­ber wis­sen müs­sen.

Pfand­rech­te an Geschäfts­an­tei­len: opti­mier­tes Ver­wer­tungs­in­stru­ment in der For­de­rungs­rea­li­sie­rung durch Anteils­ver­kauf

We car­ry out:

Accor­ding to Sec­tion 65 (3) of the Ger­man Stock Cor­po­ra­ti­on Act (AktG), the com­pa­ny must sell the shares of share­hol­ders excluded due to non-pay­ment of the con­tri­bu­ti­on. In accordance with Sec­tion 214 AktG, the com­pa­ny must sell the new shares issued from share­hol­der funds after the capi­tal increase that have not been coll­ec­ted by the share­hol­ders after one year. In the event of a capi­tal reduc­tion through a con­so­li­da­ti­on of shares, the stock cor­po­ra­ti­on must sell the new shares issued in place of the shares declared null and void (226 para. 3 AktG).

In all cases, the shares must be sold at the offi­ci­al stock exch­an­ge pri­ce through a bro­ker. If the­re is no stock exch­an­ge pri­ce, the shares must be sold by public auc­tion. (Com­pul­so­ry exclu­si­on of share­hol­ders of a GmbH or AG.

If pay­ment of the amount in arre­ars can­not be obtai­ned from legal tran­sac­tions, the com­pa­ny may have the share sold by public auc­tion. Any other type of sale is only per­mit­ted with the con­sent of the excluded share­hol­der.

The sale of com­pa­ny shares such as stocks, limi­t­ed lia­bi­li­ty com­pa­nies or limi­t­ed part­ner­ship shares can some­ti­mes gene­ra­te bet­ter pro­ceeds than the sale via the usu­al tra­ding venues.

Share deals are play­ing an incre­asing­ly important role. Cre­di­tors can be forced to con­vert their claims into shares (debt-to-equi­ty) even against their will. As a rule, cre­di­tors have no inte­rest in beco­ming share­hol­ders. We offer the desi­red exit by sel­ling the shares at auc­tion.

The­re are advan­ta­ges to acqui­ring com­pa­ny shares out of insol­ven­cy. The buy­er then does not have to assu­me respon­si­bi­li­ty for the insol­vent com­pany’s exis­ting tax obli­ga­ti­ons or other lia­bi­li­ties under com­mer­cial law. The sale can be arran­ged in such a way that all exis­ting lia­bi­li­ties remain with the insol­vent com­pa­ny.

The pri­va­te sale of com­pa­ny shares in insol­ven­cy pro­cee­dings can also be car­ri­ed out by a publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer.

The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor must sell the com­pa­ny at the best pos­si­ble pri­ce. If he uses the gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer for the sale, this is legal­ly valid due to the sur­ro­ga­te prin­ci­ple. The insol­ven­cy admi­nis­tra­tor does not need to obtain appr­oval from the cre­di­tors’ com­mit­tee, as con­trol is ensu­red by the public auc­tion becau­se the gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted auc­tion­eer is sworn to per­form his task con­sci­en­tious­ly and impar­ti­al­ly.

The share­hol­der of a limi­t­ed lia­bi­li­ty com­pa­ny has the right of aban­don­ment if he is unwil­ling or unable to ful­fill an obli­ga­ti­on to make an unli­mi­t­ed addi­tio­nal pay­ment. He can then release his share in the com­pa­ny.

Accor­din­gly, in the event of an unli­mi­t­ed obli­ga­ti­on to make addi­tio­nal con­tri­bu­ti­ons, the share­hol­der can exempt hims­elf from pay­ing the addi­tio­nal con­tri­bu­ti­on deman­ded by making his share available to the com­pa­ny. The share must be sold by public auc­tion

1) In the event of delay­ed pay­ment, the defaul­ting share­hol­der may be issued with a new request for pay­ment within a grace peri­od to be deter­mi­ned, under thre­at of exclu­si­on from the share to which pay­ment is to be made. The request shall be sent by regis­tered let­ter. The grace peri­od must be at least one month.

(2) If the dead­line expi­res wit­hout result, the defaul­ting share­hol­der shall be declared to have for­fei­ted his share and the par­ti­al pay­ments made in favor of the com­pa­ny. The decla­ra­ti­on shall be made by regis­tered let­ter.

(3) The excluded share­hol­der shall remain lia­ble to the com­pa­ny for the loss suf­fe­r­ed by the com­pa­ny in respect of the amount in arre­ars or the amounts of the capi­tal con­tri­bu­ti­on sub­se­quent­ly clai­med on the share.

(1) Each co-heir may demand sett­le­ment at any time, unless other­wi­se pro­vi­ded for in sec­tions 2043 to 2045.

(2) The pro­vi­si­ons of sec­tion 749 (2), (3) and sec­tions 750 to 758 shall app­ly. Each heir may at any time demand the sett­le­ment of the com­mu­ni­ty of heirs, unless the sett­le­ment is excluded in the will or the­re are reasons for post­po­ning it. If the heirs fail to reach an agree­ment on the sett­le­ment, the com­mu­ni­ty shall be dis­sol­ved by sel­ling the com­mon pro­per­ty in accordance with the pro­vi­si­ons on the sale of pled­ges.

(1) Upon the death of a per­son (suc­ces­si­on), their assets (inhe­ri­tance) shall pass in their enti­re­ty to one or more other per­sons (heirs).
(2) The pro­vi­si­ons rela­ting to the inhe­ri­tance shall app­ly to the share of a co-heir (inhe­ri­tance share).

The pro­vi­si­ons on the pledge of rights to mova­ble pro­per­ty also app­ly to the pledge of rights to bea­rer secu­ri­ties.

Bai­liffs work exclu­si­ve­ly in their assi­gned dis­trict and have many dif­fe­rent tasks to per­form. Con­duc­ting public auc­tions is only a small part of their work. In prac­ti­ce, bai­liffs refu­se such an assign­ment — due to func­tion­al incom­pe­tence (alter­na­tively accor­ding to § 191 No. 1 GVGA) — also with the refe­rence that sui­ta­ble publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eers are available. Bai­liffs may refu­se wit­hout giving reasons, sec­tion 191 (1) GVGA. See also: OLG Colo­gne, decis­i­on 30.12.1999 — AZ: 7 VA 2/99.

It is not always pos­si­ble to make the best pos­si­ble use of items sei­zed by the bai­liff on the basis of a judgment at short noti­ce. It starts with the fact that the judi­cial offi­cer is not in a posi­ti­on to adver­ti­se the pled­ged object appro­pria­te­ly due to the requi­re­ment to keep cos­ts. In con­trast, the natio­nal and inter­na­tio­nal gene­ra­ti­on of pro­s­pec­ti­ve buy­ers and the exe­cu­ti­on of col­la­te­ral enforce­ment is cle­ar­ly the core com­pe­tence of the publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer. The enforce­ment court aut­ho­ri­zes the auc­tion by ano­ther per­son (the auc­tion­eer) at the request of the cre­di­tor. The appli­ca­ti­on must be made by the cre­di­tor.

§ Sec­tion 825 ZPO Other type of rea­liza­ti­on

(1) At the request of the cre­di­tor or the deb­tor, the judi­cial offi­cer may rea­li­ze an atta­ched object in a man­ner or at a place other than that spe­ci­fied in the pre­ce­ding para­graphs. The judi­cial offi­cer must inform the defen­dant of the inten­ded rea­liza­ti­on. Wit­hout the con­sent of the defen­dant, he may not rea­li­ze the object befo­re the expiry of two weeks after ser­vice of the noti­fi­ca­ti­on.
(2) The enforce­ment court may order the auc­tio­ning of a sei­zed item by a per­son other than the bai­liff at the request of the cre­di­tor or the deb­tor.

Auc­tions accor­ding to § 825 ZPO

Pur­su­ant to Sec­tion 825 (2) ZPO, the enforce­ment court may, at the cre­di­tor’s request, order that the auc­tion of pled­ged items be con­duc­ted by a per­son other than the bai­liff. The gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer may be appoin­ted to con­duct the auc­tion. The pur­po­se of sec­tion 825 (2) ZPO is, among other things, to enable the auc­tio­ning of a pled­ged pro­per­ty by the gene­ral­ly publicly appoin­ted, sworn auc­tion­eer if the auc­tion by the bai­liff can­not be expec­ted to yield pro­ceeds cor­re­spon­ding to the true value of the pro­per­ty.

If the realization of collateral
is time-critical and confidential:
Contact us.