Cashback Universe – ‘Phoenix Company’ instead of creditor protection?

What looks like a fresh start on paper is often just a different label in practice: Many of the ‘new’ companies that are currently encouraging former customers of Lyconet or myWorld to take action are legally independent, but according to consistent statements from several affected parties, they are advertised by the same executives and presumably also controlled by them, offer similar or identical products and use comparable distribution systems as before. In such cases, lawyers speak of an economic and actual connection – and this is precisely what can have legal consequences.

Don’t forget: Cashback Universe is not a company, just a brand!

Dangerous marketing calls

According to several former customers, marketing calls have been made inviting people to join new activities in other companies, in some cases by individuals who had previously represented the old business model. During these calls, assurances were made that customer data would be transferred and that a seamless transition to the ‘new system’ would be possible.

It starts innocently enough: an email, an online call or a Telegram message stating that you should continue to make your monthly payment, but transfer it to a different account and company in future. For many former participants in direct sales and cashback programmes, this sounds harmless, like a mere administrative formality. However, according to insolvency law experts, such changes can conceal a dangerous legal minefield, especially if the original company is insolvent.

Shareholders in the legal crosshairs – and why they become a risk in insolvency

The situation is particularly delicate for those former marketers who, according to their own statements, came into possession of restricted registered shares through the alleged IPO. These are also subject to the strict prohibition on the return of contributions (Section 52 AktG AT / Section 57 AktG DE).

In insolvency, shareholders rank behind all other creditors (Section 131 IO / Section 39 InsO) and have little prospect of repayment in practice. If this ‘shareholder status’ is used in conjunction with the same persons acting to generate new payments or to make old payments outside the satisfaction fund, this may, in the opinion of legal experts, be considered a circumvention of creditor interests and a violation of capital maintenance provisions.

From customer to risk factor

Several affected parties report that, following the restructuring of their previous contractual partner, some of whom are associated with the aforementioned structures, they have now been asked to make payments no longer to the known recipient but to another, newly founded company.

According to research by the editorial team, there are some personnel and business continuities with insolvent companies from the myWorld/Lyconet environment. According to consistent information from several participants, the monthly payments, the continuation of which was requested in a call by Hubert Freidl himself, are directly related to contracts originally concluded with the now insolvent company.

The ‘Phoenix Companies’ pattern

Experts see parallels in such cases with so-called ‘Phoenix companies’: business activities are continued under a new name, while the debts remain with the old, insolvent company. Personnel and operational continuity are key here, and it is precisely this circumstance that regularly brings new companies to the attention of supervisory authorities and insolvency courts, despite different commercial register entries.

The recommendation of experts

• Examine every request critically, especially if it comes from the same management or sales systems.
• Do not be misled by promises of ‘seamless contract transfer’ or similar offers.