Although two trusts are generally structured in this way, the judgment underlines the importance of all these elements and makes it clear that a derogation from this standard may jeopardize the interests of beneficiaries in the guarantee. Although the wording of the trust agreement provided in several places that it was to protect beneficiaries from the payment risks associated with X`s insolvency, the fiduciary relationship between X and the agent and beneficiary was unclear. The trustee`s fiduciary duties to X (and not to the beneficiaries) were mentioned in only one clause of the trust agreement. Under the agreement, beneficiaries had no direct right against the trustee, but could only demand the sale of their assets and payment of the proceeds of the sale of X as soon as their claims were due (i.e. during retirement). Other claims against the agent have been expressly excluded in the contract. To do this, in the case of dual administration, it is not enough for a single administrative trust to be agreed between trustee and settlor, as this does not sufficiently separate the assets of the Settlors in the event of insolvency. In an administrative trust, the settlors` assets are managed by the agent in the name and for the benefit of the Settlors. Such a trust will no longer exist in the insolvency of the Settlors under the law.
In order to sufficiently separate the assets of the trust from the assets of the trust, it is necessary to create, in addition to this administrative trust, a security trust between the trustee and the beneficiary of the trust. This requires an explicit trust agreement that allows the beneficiary to assert rights against the agent, without the head of the configuration being able to intervene in this right. This allows beneficiaries to benefit from a separate satisfaction in favour of the beneficiary when the settlor becomes insolvent. It is clear from the decision that, in order to maintain a contractual trust agreement in the event of the insolvency of the Settlors, it is essential to correctly transpose all the elements of the double trust into the underlying trust agreement and that it is not sufficient to agree solely that the purpose of the trust is to protect the beneficiaries in the event of insolvency. The underlying trust agreement must therefore ensure that the court has denied the existence of a separate right to satisfaction from the agent in favour of the former employee due to the lack of trust structure. The beneficiaries did not have the opportunity to assert the representative directly in the form of a contract in favour of a third party. Where a works council has been elected from the employer, the employer in practice seeks the anchor of the beneficiaries` agreement by concluding with the works council an agreement to amend the trust agreement which the works council concludes on behalf of and on behalf of the beneficiaries. A contractual trust agreement is constructed as a double trust with two different trust plans: after X`s bankruptcy, a former employee claimed that the agent had the right to separately satisfy his benefits in the event of X`s insolvency on the basis of the trust agreement. . .
.
