fortbestehensprognose

/insolvenzrecht:fortbestehensprognose

Purpose

The positive going-concern forecast (PFP) is the only way to prevent accounting overindebtedness within the meaning of Section 19(2) InsO not from having effect as a ground for insolvency. A flawed or unverified PFP leads directly to the obligation to file and, in terms of liability, is the greatest gateway for risk.

Inputs

• Current status: accounting overindebtedness (assets-liabilities comparison)
• Multi-year financial planning (plan P&L, plan balance sheet, plan cash flow over at least 24 months)
• 13-week liquidity planning (see liquiditaetsplanung-13-wochen)
• Existing restructuring concepts (internal, external advice, IDW S 6)
• Occasions and triggers of the crisis

Process

1. Legal framework

Section 19(2) sentence 1 InsO (StaRUG reform 2021):

Overindebtedness exists if the debtor's assets no longer cover the existing liabilities, unless continuation of the business is predominantly probable under the circumstances.

Forecast period:

• Standard case: 12 months from the reporting date (Section 19(2) sentence 1 InsO, by the StaRUG reform).
• In extraordinary crisis periods (e.g. federal act on shortening due to pandemic / energy price crisis): temporarily shorter periods granted.

2. Methodology according to IDW S 11

a) Recording the factual basis

• Business model description
• Crisis cause analysis
• Restructuring measures (initiated, planned, possible)
• Stakeholder position (banks, suppliers, customers)

b) Integrated planning model

Plan P&L, plan balance sheet, plan cash flow over at least the forecast period, preferably 24 months.

c) Assessment levels

1. Payment ability within the forecast period — no gap that is not covered.
2. Continuation of the equity base — no destruction of equity that leads to inability to pay.
3. Availability of liquidity sources — existing or reasonably obtainable credit lines, investor contributions.

d) Several scenarios

• Base Case
• Stress Case with measures
• Worst Case (immediate plausibility check)

3. Assessment standard "predominant probability"

Above 50%. Not "sustainable certainty". Plausibility, substantiation and consistency of the assumptions are decisive.

If the probability is < 50% or the assumptions are not plausible: no positive forecast → overindebtedness status must be prepared at liquidation values .

4. Liquidation vs. going-concern approach

• Positive forecast: Going-concern valuation of assets (often more favorable).
• Negative prognosis: Liquidation values (break-up value, often significantly lower) → overindebtedness almost always occurs → obligation to file.

5. Documentation

Mandatory components:

• Written record
• Cut-off date unambiguous
• Methodology described
• Assumptions and sources disclosed
• Sensitivity analyses
• Engagement of external auditors (in high-risk cases IDW S 6 / S 11)

6. Interlinking with the obligation to file under § 15a InsO

• Positive PFP → no overindebtedness within the meaning of § 19 InsO → no obligation to file on this ground.
• § 17 InsO (illiquidity) remains unaffected: even with a positive going-concern prognosis, an obligation to file under § 17 InsO may arise.

Sources

Statutes / Standards

• § 19 InsO, § 15a InsO
• IDW S 11 (Assessment of the existence of grounds for insolvency proceedings)
• IDW S 6 (Requirements for restructuring concepts)

Case law

• BGH, judgment of 19.11.2013 – II ZR 229/11, NJW 2014, 1238 (PFP requirements) [unverifiziert – prüfen]
• BGH, judgment of 18.10.2010 – II ZR 151/09, NZG 2011, 178 [unverifiziert – prüfen]

Commentaries

• Klöhn, in: MüKoInsO, 4th ed. 2024, § 19 marginal no. 1 et seq.
• Schmidt, Sanierungsrecht, 4th ed. 2023
• Hölzle, in: Bork / Hölzle, § 19 InsO marginal no. 1 et seq.

Output format

FORTBESTEHENSPROGNOSE — <Mandat> — Stichtag <Datum>

I.   Rechnerische Überschuldung      [ja / nein]
     Aktiv-Passiv-Saldo:               <EUR>

II.  Tatsachenbasis
     Krisenursachen:                   <…>
     Sanierungsmaßnahmen geplant:      <…>
     Stakeholder-Zusagen:              <…>

III. Integriertes Planungsmodell
     Prognosezeitraum:                 <12-24 Monate>
     Methodik:                         IDW S 11

IV.  Szenarien
     Base Case:       Zahlungsfähigkeit gesichert: [✓ / 🔴]
     Stress Case:     Zahlungsfähigkeit gesichert: [✓ / 🔴 → Maßnahmen]
     Worst Case:      Zahlungsfähigkeit gesichert: [✓ / 🔴 → Antragspflicht]

V.   Bewertung
     Überwiegende Wahrscheinlichkeit der Fortführung > 50 %:
       [POSITIV → keine Überschuldung § 19 InsO]
       [NEGATIV → Liquidationswerte-Bilanz → Überschuldung → Antragspflicht]

VI.  Restrisiken
     § 17 InsO Zahlungsunfähigkeit:    [geprüft, kein Eintritt / Risiko]

Empfehlung:
  - Fortbestehensprognose: <ja / nein>
  - Dokumentation:          <…>
  - Externe Bestätigung:    <IDW S 11-Gutachter bei Bedarf>
  - Wiedervorlage:          <Quartalsweise>

Risks / typical errors

• Implausible assumptions — order intake does not double during a crisis.
• Stakeholder commitments without written form — verbal commitments are not sufficient for PFP.
• § 17 InsO not taken into account — a positive PFP does not protect against illiquidity.
• Going-concern valuation of assets without PFP — valuation logic reversed.
• Documentation rudimentary — not a PFP, but wishful thinking.
• Measures without feasibility — investor term sheet without closing → risk.