Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 AUGUST 2026

Incongruent Coverage (Section 131 Inso) – When Payments Made Under Pressure Backfire

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

German insolvency law's principle of equal creditor treatment faces a critical challenge through Section 131 of the Insolvency Code, which addresses "incongruent coverage" - situations where creditors receive security or satisfaction they weren't entitled to receive, or not in that form or timing. The practical stakes are substantial: within the last month before insolvency filing, objective incongruence alone suffices for avoidance actions, with no requirement to prove the creditor's knowledge of the debto

GermanyInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

I. WHY THIS TOPIC IS IMPORTANT

The fundamental principle of German insolvency law is the equal treatment of creditors. The insolvency avoidance rules are designed to reverse transfers of assets made prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings that disadvantage creditors, thereby increasing the insolvency estate. Section 131 of the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung, InsO) addresses so-called “incongruent coverage” (inkongruente Deckung): The insolvency administrator may avoid the granting of security or satisfaction to a creditor that was not entitled to receive it, or was not entitled to receive it in that form or at that time.

The practical implications are significant: In the case of an avoidance action under Section 131 InsO, objective incongruence within the last month prior to the filing of the insolvency petition (or thereafter) is sufficient—no subjective requirements (the creditor’s knowledge of the debtor’s insolvency) are necessary. This considerably increases

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.

© Copyright 2026. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from