# OLG Düsseldorf on the Right to Information in Insolvency > OLG Düsseldorf clarifies when insolvency administrators may request information from third parties and when mere suspicion is insufficient. Source: https://www.mtrlegal.com/en/olg-duesseldorf-right-to-information-insolvency/ · Language: en · Updated: 2026-10-19 --- ## Decision of the OLG Düsseldorf on the Insolvency Administrator’s Right to Information The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court), in an indicative order dated June 8, 2026 – 12 U 48/25 – addressed the question of the conditions under which an insolvency administrator may request information from a potential defendant in an avoidance action. An indicative order is not a final decision; the published information does not indicate whether the proceedings have since been concluded with legal finality. The focus was on a request for information that the insolvency administrator based on [§ 242 BGB (German Civil Code)](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__242.html) and § 260 BGB. According to the decision, a right to information derived from § 242 BGB against a creditor of the debtor due to possible avoidance claims can only be considered if an obligation to return assets under § 143 InsO (German Insolvency Code) has been established as to its merits. The information may then serve only to specify the claim more precisely in terms of its nature and scope. No such right to information exists against persons merely suspected of having obtained something in a manner subject to avoidance. ## Facts of the Proceedings ### Insolvency Administrator Requests Information on Business Assets The claimant was the insolvency administrator over the debtor’s assets. He asserted a claim for information against the defendant and relied for this purpose on § 242 BGB and § 260 BGB. In support of his claim, the claimant submitted that the defendant was in possession of specifically identified items of the debtor’s business assets. In doing so, he referred to the debtor’s balance sheet for 2017. The requested information was intended to clarify the extent to which claims existed against the defendant. ### No Specific Statutory Provision for Information from Defendants in Avoidance Actions Rights of information of the insolvency administrator against defendants in avoidance actions are not expressly governed by specific statutory provisions. Therefore, according to the decision, the general right to information under § 242 BGB must be applied. Such a claim requires that the entitled party is, without fault, uncertain as to the existence or scope of their right. In addition, they must be unable to obtain the necessary information themselves in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, the person against whom the claim is asserted must be able to provide the information without difficulty. ## Requirements for the Right to Information under § 242 BGB ### Required Special Legal Relationship Outside Contractual Relations Outside contractual relationships, the mere possibility or likelihood of a claim is not sufficient for a right to information. Rather, the required special legal relationship generally presupposes that a claim against the party obliged to provide information exists as to its merits. The OLG Düsseldorf therefore did not rely on mere suspicion. Rather, the decisive factor was that the claimant’s claims against the defendant had been established as to their merits. Only the more precise determination of the nature and scope of the claims still depended on the requested information. ### Claims Against the Defendant Established as to Their Merits According to the court’s statements, the claimant’s claims against the defendant were established as to their merits on several legal bases. In particular, the following were mentioned: - § 143 para. 1 InsO in conjunction with § 129 para. 1 InsO and § 134 para. 1 InsO, - §§ 985 et seq. BGB, - § 812 para. 1 sentence 1 BGB. According to the court’s preliminary view, the basis for this was that the defendant was in possession of the debtor’s business assets without legal grounds. The information therefore did not serve to examine a mere initial suspicion, but rather to specifically determine the claims that already existed as to their merits. ## Limits of the Duty to Investigate ### Proportionality and Purpose of the Proceedings The duty to investigate is determined by the purpose of the proceedings and the principle of proportionality. An additional right to information against a third party cannot therefore be assumed as a matter of course. If the insolvency administrator has not yet exhausted the possibilities available to them for enforcing a right to information against the debtor, the decision states that there is no reason to additionally grant them a right to information against a third party. ### Exhaustion of Other Sources of Knowledge In the underlying case, before asserting the claim against the defendant, the claimant had consulted with the debtor’s tax adviser. The court therefore considered all sources of knowledge to have been exhausted. Against this background, the right to information against the defendant could be based on § 242 BGB. ## Significance for Insolvency-Law Rights to Information The decision makes clear that insolvency administrators can assert rights to information against third parties in certain constellations. This applies in particular where the debtor cannot be reached or is unable to provide information and essential documents are missing. At the same time, the OLG Düsseldorf draws clear limits. A right to information against a potential defendant in an avoidance action does not exist solely because an acquisition subject to avoidance is presumed. Rather, it is necessary that the underlying claim has been established as to its merits and that only its nature and scope remain to be specified more precisely. For practice in insolvency law, the distinction is therefore essential: - No right to information exists in the case of mere suspicion of transactions subject to avoidance. - A right to information may exist if the claim has been established as to its merits. - Before asserting a claim against a third party, other reasonable sources of knowledge must have been exhausted. - The information serves only to specify the nature and scope of the claim. ## Assessment by MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte The indicative order of the OLG Düsseldorf shows that rights to information [in connection with insolvency avoidance actions](https://www.mtrlegal.com/wiki/insolvenzanfechtung/) must be carefully distinguished from mere investigative interests. The decisive issue remains whether an obligation to return assets has already been established as to its merits and whether the information serves only to specify the claim more precisely. In legal matters concerning rights to information, insolvency avoidance, and obligations to return assets, an assessment based on the individual case may be necessary. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte supports companies, investors, and high-net-worth individuals in the field of [legal advice on insolvency law](https://www.mtrlegal.com/rechtsberatung/gesellschaftsrecht/restrukturierung-insolvenz/).