Construction company insolvent, how to proceed further?

You can imagine it like this: the house was apparently accepted with significant defects. And moving into the house 6 months ago does not necessarily suggest that it was uninhabitable due to the defects.

You can write open points in the handover protocol. We did it that way too. Just because the exterior plaster was missing, we did not want to wait half a year (it actually took 5 months until the scaffolding was gone and then there were still various smaller jobs open...)

Obviously, the topic creator has not lost any money so far. Although there are still works outstanding, these were not paid in advance. so he could commission the missing services elsewhere.

That’s naïve. On the one hand, insolvency does not change the builder’s rights to demand remedial work. Defects must therefore be reported with an appropriate deadline. A substitute performance is only possible if the defects are not remedied within the deadline or if there is imminent danger. On the other hand, the insolvency administrator will scrape together every euro. So downplaying the outstanding work and demanding the difference. Furthermore, he will not cover substitute performances for which the builder would theoretically still be entitled to remedial work, because these were not legally properly reported or the deadlines have not yet expired. Then there is also the question of whether the retention is really sufficient for all defects.

Make a clear list of all claims against the contractor. This also includes damages for delayed completion (if you have repeatedly reminded them in writing to complete). Send these to the insolvency administrator.

What is that supposed to mean? Did you commission and pay the subcontractors yourself? Otherwise, these are services of the contractor.

If you commissioned services yourself that were actually on behalf of the contractor, then you can also assert possible additional costs.

The milkmaid sends her regards.

I send my regards back:

On the one hand, the insolvency does not change the construction company's rights to rectification. Defects must therefore be reported within the appropriate deadline. A substitute performance is only possible if the defects are not rectified within the deadline or if there is imminent danger. On the other hand, the insolvency administrator will scrape together every euro. So they will underrate the outstanding work and claim the difference. Furthermore, they will not cover substitute performances for which the construction company would theoretically still be entitled to rectification because these were not reported in a legally secure manner or the deadlines have not yet expired. Then there is the question of whether the retention really covers all defects.

Almost correct. The insolvent company retains its full rights to rectification. However, since it must still respond quickly and usually fails to do so, the chances are good to at least carry out substitute performances. One just has to wait, and in the end one will also have to pay for them oneself. The administrator will not simply "underrate" defects but at most alternatively underrate and mainly just deny them. He is not a judge here, so he is not tasked with finding the truth, but he is a representative of the assets of the insolvent company. And as such, he will also demand a retention because, from his biased point of view, it is unjustified. Don Quixote can take action against it ;-)

So underrate the outstanding work and claim the difference.

Nooo. Forget any difference calculations: this practice usual in peaceful times becomes the most worthless theory ever in insolvency cases. I already mentioned the reversal of the normal sense of justice in post #10. The claims of the insolvency administrator are due immediately in full and without any offsetting, one usually does not even get to benefit from the offset amount as litigating it is generally uneconomical; and one gets to enjoy other—i.e. no longer disputable—counterclaims at an average rate of ten percent in an average of two and a half years.

It can’t be stressed enough that a completion guarantee is the ONLY security for builders. An insolvency differs from other shipwrecks mainly in that women and children board the lifeboats last and the court-appointed new captain leaves the ship dry-shod. There is no security in insolvency, because whether Schneider GbR or Holzmann AG, there is no too big to fail.

How does the handover of warranty to the executing trades look like? The construction company itself only provided the shell, the rest was done by subcontractors.

I once bought an apartment from an insolvent developer, everything was there from "we'll come and repair tomorrow" to "I won't do anything anymore, not even respond to calls." It probably depends on whether the subcontractors were paid and how likely it is that things will continue.

Nno. Forget any difference calculations: this practice common in peacetime becomes the most worthless theory ever in the event of insolvency. I already mentioned the reversal of the normal sense of justice in post #10. The claims of the insolvency administrator are due immediately in full and without any set-off; usually, one will not even enjoy the benefit of the set-off amount because contesting it is generally uneconomical; and any other - i.e. no longer disputable - counterclaims are enjoyed at an average rate of ten percent in an average of two and a half years.

There are still possibilities for set-off in insolvency law - isn't that possible with asserted defects, insofar as at least in the preliminary insolvency administration a deadline was set and has expired? Or is your view that even if it were possible, a preliminary or non-preliminary insolvency administrator simply would not cooperate, disputes the defects, and if necessary takes it to court?

There are still possibilities for set-off in insolvency law

Enlighten me where they are supposed to be. Basically, set-off is alien to the nature of insolvency proceedings. The insolvency administrator has to throw himself in front of the assets of the insolvent debtor like a lioness.