projects

Insolvency avoidance: liability of recipient after onward transfer

BGH IX ZR 142/11Bgh / Civil Chamber 9May 24, 2012Partially Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Court partly granted the defendant Land's complaint against non-admission of revision. It admitted revision insofar as the defendant was condemned to pay EUR 42,047.69 plus interest, but rejected the complaint in all other respects. The Court held that an onward transfer of EUR 5,000 to Finanzamt Stuttgart did not relieve the defendant of restitution in an insolvency avoidance action. The avoidance claim under Section 133 InsO is directed against the person who obtained the asset; under Section 143(1) sentence 2 InsO, that recipient remains liable even after forwarding the asset, if the requirements of the stricter enrichment liability are met. The claimed violation of the right to be heard was therefore irrelevant.

Omnilex headnote

§§ 133 Abs. 1 S. 1, 143 Abs. 1 S. 2 InsO; Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG; insolvency avoidance and restitution liability after onward transfer. The avoidance action under § 133 InsO is directed against the 'other party', i.e. any person who acquires a pecuniary advantage to the detriment of the estate. The avoidance debtor is the holder of the asset to be returned within the meaning of § 143 InsO; it need not be a contractual counterparty or an insolvency creditor. A later onward transfer of the received value does not discharge liability. If the recipient knew of the lack of legal basis, it is subject to the stricter enrichment liability under § 143 Abs. 1 S. 2 InsO. A hearing complaint fails where the ignored submission is not outcome-determinative (consid. 1-2).

Full text

BGH — IX ZR 142/11, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-05-24

Aktenzeichen: IX ZR 142/11

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 133 Abs 1 S 1 InsO, § 143 Abs 1 S 2 InsO, Art 103 Abs 1 GG

Vorinstanz: vorgehend OLG Frankfurt, 31. August 2011, Az: 3 U 166/10, Urteilvorgehend LG Frankfurt, 11. Juni 2010, Az: 2-4 O 221/09

Spruchkörper: 9. Zivilsenat

Titelzeile

Insolvenzanfechtung: Rückgewährpflicht des Anfechtungsgegners bei Weiterleitung des zurückzugewährenden Vermögenswertes

Tenor

Die Revision gegen das Urteil des 3. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Frankfurt am Main vom 31. August 2011 wird zugelassen, soweit sich das beklagte Land gegen eine Verurteilung in Höhe von 42.047,69 € nebst Zinsen wendet.

Die weitergehende Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision im vorbezeichneten Urteil wird zurückgewiesen.

Gründe

1 Ohne Erfolg rügt das beklagte Land einen Verstoß gegen Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, weil das Berufungsgericht seinen Vortrag nicht berücksichtigt habe, einen Betrag in Höhe von 5.000 € an das Finanzamt Stuttgart als Gläubigerin weitergeleitet zu haben. Dieses Vorbringen ist nicht entscheidungserheblich.

2 Die Vorsatzanfechtung richtet sich nach dem Wortlaut des § 133 Abs. 1 Satz 1 InsO gegen den "anderen Teil" als Anfechtungsgegner. Damit ist jede Person gemeint, die durch die Rechtshandlung des Schuldners eine vermögenswerte Position zum Nachteil der Masse erlangt hat. Anfechtungsgegner ist folglich der Inhaber des nach § 143 InsO zurückzugewährenden Vermögenswerts, ohne dass es sich dabei um einen Vertragspartner oder Insolvenzgläubiger des Schuldners handeln muss (BGH, Urteil vom 29. November 2007 - IX ZR 121/06, BGHZ 174, 314 Rn. 23; Urteil vom 29. September 2011 - IX ZR 202/10, WM 2012, 85 Rn. 11). Die Weiterleitung der anfechtbar erhaltenen Zahlung an das Finanzamt Stuttgart befreit das beklagte Land nicht, weil es gemäß § 143 Abs. 1 Satz 2 InsO der verschärften Haftung eines Bereicherungsschuldners unterliegt, dem der Mangel des rechtlichen Grundes bekannt ist.

Kayser Raebel Gehrlein

Grupp Möhring

Keywords

insolvency avoidancerestitution liabilityonward transferright to be heardenrichment liability

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the defendant's onward transfer to Finanzamt Stuttgart negated its obligation to return the avoided transfer.

Extracted holding

No. The onward transfer did not release the defendant from restitution, because the avoidance claim is directed against the person who obtained the asset and owes return of that asset.

Extracted reasoning

Under Section 133(1) sentence 1 InsO, the avoidance claim reaches the 'other party,' meaning any person who acquired a valuable position at the debtor's expense. The liable avoidance recipient is the holder of the asset to be returned under Section 143 InsO, even if it later passed the value on to a third party.

Key legal question

Whether the appellate court violated the defendant's right to be heard by ignoring the submission about the EUR 5,000 onward transfer.

Extracted holding

No. The submission was not decisive for the outcome.

Extracted reasoning

Because the onward transfer did not affect the defendant's restitution liability, the alleged failure to consider it could not establish a violation of Article 103(1) GG.

Key legal question

Whether revision should be admitted concerning the amount of EUR 42,047.69 plus interest.

Extracted holding

Yes, revision was admitted to that extent.

Extracted reasoning

The defendant's complaint succeeded only insofar as the court allowed review of the condemnation for EUR 42,047.69 plus interest; the remainder of the non-admission complaint was rejected.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.