According to a ruling by the Sixth Senate of January 19, 2006 ( 6 AZR 529/04 ), a contractual amendment can also regulate a reduction in working hours with a corresponding reduction in their remuneration in a company in need of restructuring with employees as a contribution to the restructuring , that in the event of insolvency the employees must be restored to the position they would have been in without a change to their contract in terms of work obligations and remuneration for the last twelve months before their insolvency-related departure. Such an insolvency clause is neither immoral nor subject to insolvency challenge if the need for restructuring persists until insolvency proceedings are opened. According to Section 133 Para. 1 Sentence 1 InsO, any legal act that the debtor has undertaken in the last ten years before the application to open insolvency proceedings or after this application with the intent to disadvantage creditors is contestable if the other party was aware of the debtor’s intent at the time of the act. However, there is no legal act in the agreement of the insolvency clause that objectively leads to a disadvantage for creditors. The insolvency clause cannot be viewed in isolation without the entire restructuring agreement. Given the necessary economic consideration, the contract change, which is intended to help the company restructure, is more favorable for the majority than if it were to remain with a continuous full-time employment relationship. It also does not contradict the sense of decency of all those who think fairly and fairly if an employee’s voluntary contribution to company rescue and the associated waiver of full working hours and remuneration are limited by a return to the right to full remuneration in the event of insolvency. Differences in remuneration resulting from the insolvency clause and the occurrence of the subsequent condition for the period after the opening of insolvency proceedings are mass liabilities, even if the insolvency administrator did not make use of the increased work performance or release the employees until the employment relationship was terminated through operational dismissals. ( 6 AZR 364/05 ) he decided that a severance payment claim provided for in a collective agreement in the event of termination of the employment relationship due to rationalization measures is also simply a claim for insolvency within the meaning of of Section 38 InsO if the termination is only declared by the insolvency administrator after the insolvency proceedings have been opened. Such a claim to severance pay under a collective agreement is not due to an action by the insolvency administrator in the sense of of Section 55 Para. 1 No. 1 InsO was founded. The basis for the collective bargaining agreement’s claim to severance pay was laid before the insolvency proceedings were opened. Even if the specific claim usually only arises when the employee is terminated or leaves the company, a suspensory claim resulting from the dismissal event is established before the procedure is opened with the conclusion of the collective agreement and therefore not due to an action by the insolvency administrator. The strengthening of the expectant right into a full right does not lead to the creation of a debt to the estate, even if the condition only occurs after the opening of insolvency proceedings and the claim only arises at this point in time. The termination, like the termination of the employment relationship or the actual departure of the employee, only represents a circumstance that triggers a claim. Such a compensation claim is also not a liability arising from a mutual contract, the fulfillment of which must be fulfilled in accordance with Section 55 Para. 1 No. 2 Alternative 2 InsO for the period after the opening of the insolvency proceedings. The severance payment claim does not constitute consideration for the services provided by the employee after the opening of insolvency proceedings.