Insolvency administrator – not an investigator, not a recovery specialist . A frequently misunderstood role!

Some of the victims who registered for insolvency proceedings have received a letter stating a “quota yet to be calculated”? Hurray, I’ll get my money back, right?

However, this interpretation is factually incorrect !

This wording simply means that (purely formally) a quota can only be calculated after all claims have been processed and examined . It makes no statement about the actual amount or feasibility of a payout . Furthermore, the recovery of individual claims is only treated as a secondary matter.

However, passing this misinterpretation on to third parties creates a dangerous impression: anyone who presents this wording as an indication of impending repayments conveys a false and ultimately grossly misleading impression of the actual situation. Furthermore, the individual claims filed will be treated as subordinate claims in the proceedings.

The role of the insolvency administrator – often misunderstood

One key point is often overlooked:
The insolvency administrator is not an investigator, not a representative of individual victims, and not a ” recoverer ” of lost funds, but a legally bound trustee.

His task is clearly defined:

• Securing the existing insolvency assets
• Examination of the registered claims
• Distribution of available funds according to legal criteria

No more – but also no less.

Especially in complex structures like the present case, this leads to a tension between expectation and reality.

Systematic denial: a defense mechanism instead of a blockade

The fact that claims in insolvency proceedings are often disputed in a blanket or standardized manner is not an unusual occurrence, but rather part of the procedural logic.

From the administrators’ point of view, there are several reasons for this:

• The burden of proof lies with the creditor:
  claims must be plausible and verifiable. This is often not the case, especially with complex structures involving changing contractual partners.
• Unclear contract structures:
  Payments were often made to companies other than those that are now insolvent.
• Case law on the lack of contract transfer:
  Supreme court decisions suggest that not every company is automatically liable for previous obligations.
• Protection of scarce assets:
  In cases of insolvency assets in the low six-figure range and claims amounting to millions, a generous recognition of a quota further dilutes the assets.

This is also evident in concrete terms:
In the insolvency proceedings of Lyconet Austria GmbH, claims amounting to millions were registered, while the available assets amount to only around 100,000 euros and a large part of the claims were disputed.

Why international fundraising is lacking

Even more difficult for many affected individuals to understand is why insolvency administrators do not actively try to track down assets abroad or hold those responsible accountable.

Here too, the explanation lies less in a lack of commitment than in structural limitations:

• Massive cost risks:
  International proceedings require significant financial resources – for lawyers, investigations and trials in multiple jurisdictions.
• Limited insolvency assets:
  Even basic measures such as data backup and claims verification tie up a large portion of the available funds.
• Liability risk of the administrator:
  Economically hopeless or speculative lawsuits can trigger personal liability.
• Legal fragmentation:
  Each company is legally independent. Assets in other parts of the group are not readily accessible.
• Uncertain prospects for success:
  Offshore structures, shell companies and a lack of transparency significantly complicate legally sound enforcement.

The result is a sober assessment:
proceedings will only be initiated where they appear financially viable and legally sound.

A structural problem – not an individual failure

The current situation reveals a fundamental dilemma of internationally structured business models:

While capital flows can be organized globally, legal liability regularly remains limited to individual, locally tangible companies.

The result:

• Operating companies go bankrupt
• There is hardly any usable capital.
• Key resources are located outside of direct access.

“The insolvency proceedings show less a failure of the administrators than the structural consequence of a system that has distributed assets globally – while liability remains local.”