Additionally, I was referring to the insolvency clause, with us for example like this, not to have to dispute ownership with an insolvency administrator
Additionally, I meant the insolvency clause, with us e.g. like this, so that one does not have to fight over ownership with an insolvency administrator
You actually always argue with insolvency administrators. Unfortunately, this is the legal field (aside from administrative law) where the most arrogant know-it-alls accumulate. "In case of doubt, in favor of the administrator" would be a cheeky simplification, but basically that is a fundamental tenor of insolvency law. Defensive clauses are only worth as much as they come from a very experienced specialist (and even then, you have to prepare for legal proceedings). For the judges involved, this is not a pleasant area either. But feel free to provide an example of your insolvency clause and report in which year it was considered sufficiently effective.
The photo of the clause with a warning to me was removed. Now in text from 2018, "Dem AG steht das Recht zu, den Vertrag aus wichtigem Grunde zu kündigen, wenn der AN Antrag auf Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens oder eines vergleichbaren Verfahrens stellt." This clause should immediately and legally separate us from the GU.
"The client has the right to terminate the contract for good cause if the contractor files an application for the opening of insolvency proceedings or comparable proceedings." This clause should immediately and legally effectively separate us from the general contractor
From the exercise of the right of termination, probably yes. However, until then services will already have been received, to which the famous double standard is applied: as a creditor, the client is served later with patience and then according to the quota, as a debtor, however, immediately and in full. Set-offs are not possible, absolutely not 1:1 as would correspond to the legal understanding of the lay client, that regularly causes disputes. Such a clause is therefore only "really secure" for the client who smells the rat before any service by the contractor has been rendered. Practically, this means: the client must check insolvency announcements daily in order to be able to terminate before performance begins. Even well-informed businessmen do not always manage this. And as you rightly pointed out, it only serves as an additional measure; it cannot replace a completion guarantee.
The photo of the clause with a warning to me was removed. Now in text from 2018, "The employer has the right to terminate the contract for good cause if the employee files for insolvency proceedings or a comparable procedure." This clause should immediately release us legally from the general contractor
We also have such a clause. On the one hand
Without prejudice to the regulation in §8 VOB/B, the employer is entitled to immediate termination if ... insolvency or composition proceedings have been applied for due to the employee's inability to pay.
And afterwards
... in the event of extraordinary termination by the employer for which the employee is responsible, the employee is only entitled to remuneration for the services rendered by him ...