Continuation of old direct insurance from 2001

Good morning everyone,
my wife has an old direct insurance policy from 2001 which is subject to §40b Income Tax Act.
It has now passed half of the payment phase. Capital upon cancellation approx. 33k; payout in 2045 upon suspension approx. 53k.
Now she has an employer who says we only want one provider in-house and our own tariff line. Our contract is Swiss Life, theirs is Nürnberger.
The broker advises to quietly suspend the SL and take out a new policy. An insurance acquaintance says to transfer the credit to Nürnberger. So far, we have also temporarily (approx. 7 months) paid the approx. €145 monthly contribution ourselves during unemployment.
Questions:

[*]Continue SL privately. Is it sensible due to taxation in retirement?
[*]Is transferring the credit to Nürnberger sensible?
[*]If you transfer, do you also lose §40b? Isn't this tax advantage huge compared to newer contracts?

The insurance acquaintance also says yes, in SL you still have a good guaranteed interest rate, but if you invest the money on the capital market anyway, it beats Nürnberger.
Are there any other options? Does the company really not have to continue the old contract?

The §40 contracts no longer exist and therefore nothing can be transferred or newly concluded, I don't think the contribution can even be changed. The employer must continue it and only with the new salary conversion can he determine the provider. §40 is the flat-rate taxation with 20% and upon payout everything is tax-free but health insurance contributions must be paid. A new contract is only worthwhile with at least a 30% subsidy from the employer.

The §40 contracts no longer exist and therefore nothing can be transferred or newly concluded, I don't think the contribution can even be changed. The employer must continue it and only with the new final salary conversion can he determine the provider.
§40 is the flat-rate taxation of 20% and upon payout everything is tax-free but health insurance contributions must be paid. A new contract only makes sense with at least a 30% subsidy from the employer

Hi, but we changed the employer. Or rather, the branch office closed. That means the new company has its insurance company and does not want countless others.

For us it is of course uneconomical

I would not continue privately. A new contract only if the employer subsidies are attractive. In the worst case, suspend the SL contract and try to get it reactivated in case of a future employer change. Maybe she can talk to the new employer again, perhaps he will agree if, for example, the payment method is changed to annual installments? My new employer did not want to at the beginning either, but the new boss spoke a good word with HR and suddenly it worked after all…

new company has its insurance company and does not want countless others

The desire for uniformity and the offer to make another contract is fine. Putting pressure on would not be acceptable at all. Who at the new employer wants to enforce this nonsense? If this person is irrelevant - do not worry about it further. If this person is relevant - consider whether this is the right employer.

The new employer is liable upon takeover for old contracts that the previous employer messed up. The new employer would be exposing themselves to enormous risk. Therefore, they would have to thoroughly review every inherited old contract from the very beginning. However, they do not have any documents or records for this. Consequently, this effort is unreasonable to expect from a new employer, and that is why the contracts are no longer taken over. Most employers also have framework agreements with their provider.

I do not know the advantages and disadvantages of a porting. Presumably, a new contract is more reasonable.