Insolvency Challenge: No Jurisdiction for Assigned Claims

Apr 9, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) Vienna ruled on the international and local jurisdiction for avoidance claims asserted by the insolvency administrator, both on their own behalf and for assigned claims.

Share-sale payment dispute

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, acting as insolvency administrator, demanded payment of EUR 1,920,400.00, relying both on his own avoidance actions and those assigned to him. The debtor had, within the framework of an employee participation model, acquired shares in trust for the defendant and later sold them, with part of the proceeds being paid out to the defendant. The underlying share purchase agreements were subsequently contested and deemed invalid.

The court of first instance rejected the objections concerning international and local jurisdiction and declared itself competent. It justified this by stating that the plaintiff was obliged to assert the avoidance actions in the interest of the creditors, and that the assignment within the corporate group was consistent with the objectives of the European Insolvency Regulation (EuInsVO). The defendant lodged an appeal against this decision on the grounds of incorrect legal assessment.

Jurisdictional distinction

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Vienna partially upheld the appeal and distinguished between assigned claims and the administrator’s own claims. With regard to the assigned avoidance claims, the court denied international jurisdiction under Article 6 of the European Insolvency Regulation. It relied on the case law of the European Court of Justice, which has held that assigned claims do not have a sufficiently close connection with the insolvency proceedings, particularly because the assignee does not primarily act to increase the assets of the original insolvency estate. The obligation to partially forward the proceeds was also not considered decisive. Likewise, jurisdiction could not be established by jurisdiction agreements, as the defendant was not a party to the relevant contracts or there was no connection to the trust agreement.

With regard to the plaintiff’s own avoidance claims, however, the court affirmed jurisdiction. The decisive factor was the plaintiff’s assertions and, in the case of facts relevant for jurisdiction and merits, their accuracy was assumed. The plaintiff’s submission regarding the avoidance of an instruction was considered sufficiently conclusive. Additionally, the plaintiff's submissions indicated that a claim by the debtor against the defendant could be reasonably inferred. There was also an established link to the trust agreement, which provided further support for jurisdiction.

OLG 3 R 174/25t (6 March 2026)