Filing a non-monetary claim in insolvency: estimated value at opening

Section 14(1) IO covers claims that are not directed at a payment of money. Such claims are asserted in insolvency proceedings at their estimated value in domestic currency. The relevant valuation date is the opening of the insolvency proceedings.

The provision sets two reference points. The claim remains a performance claim according to its contractual content, yet the filing needs a stated monetary value. That value must relate to the opening date. A later change in price describes a later development only.

A claim for delivery, manufacture, repair or another act must be distinguished from the question of who owns an existing asset. A pure performance claim concerns the economic value of the outstanding performance. If the creditor asserts ownership of a specific asset, that legal position requires a separate review first.

This distinction prevents a request for return from being treated automatically as a monetary claim. Trust money and client funds raise their own questions as well. A related guide explains separation of trust money and client funds.

The calculation starts with what the debtor had to perform under the contract. Record the required quality, scope, stage of performance and all circumstances affecting the value at the opening date. Contemporary price records, offers or a traceable cost calculation may support the assessment.

The filing should disclose the calculation steps. The contract must show which part of the performance remains outstanding and why the stated amount represents its economic value at the opening date. Uncertain assumptions should be identified and connected to the records on which they rest.

The opening order provides the central date. The review also needs a chronology of the contract, performance to date, communications and any payments. This timeline shows which facts existed at the relevant point in time.

Valuation records should reflect the information available at that time. Later offers may serve as comparisons, but they cannot replace the opening date. If the scope of the performance changed, explain whether the change occurred before or after the proceedings opened.

Section 14(2) IO provides that claims not yet due are treated as due in insolvency proceedings. The filing therefore does not fail merely because the contractual due date falls after the opening.

Section 14(3) IO contains a separate calculation for non-interest-bearing claims not yet due. The amount that may be asserted is the amount which, with statutory interest added for the period from opening to maturity, corresponds to the full claim amount. This calculation must be kept separate from valuing a non-monetary performance claim.

The filing should present the legal basis and performance, the opening date, the stated euro amount and the calculation in that order. This makes it possible to follow how the non-monetary performance became the estimated value claimed.

Attach the records in an organised way and keep contractual evidence, date evidence and valuation records distinct. If ownership, maturity or the scope of the performance is also disputed, describe each issue expressly and connect it to the relevant evidence.