Facts
The [D. AG] , as successor to [I.] and mortgagee, conducted a mortgage realization procedure regarding the property [Z.] -Gbbl. No. .... The building mortgage claim of [D. AG] was assigned to the 7th rank in the list of encumbrances. It was preceded by mortgage rights totaling around CHF 10 million.
The list of encumbrances, which was initially drawn up in 2010, led to mutual encumbrance settlement proceedings. [D. AG] sued the preceding mortgagees in the 4th to 6th ranks. The mortgagees in the 4th to 6th ranks, in turn, conducted proceedings against the preceding mortgagee in the 1st to 3rd ranks, [E. GmbH] .
The encumbrance settlement proceedings were concluded before the Oberland Regional Court with a settlement on August 24, 2012. Among other things, it was agreed that [E. GmbH] and [I.] or [D. AG] would receive a total of CHF 2.4 million before all other mortgagees.
By letter of September 21, 2012, the Oberland Debt Collection Office, Oberland West Branch, indicated that, in its opinion, this settlement did not change the applicability of the coverage principle. The presiding judge of the court then attempted in vain to persuade the parties to conclude an additional agreement.
The settled list of encumbrances and the auction conditions were publicly available from November 5 to 15, 2012. The auction conditions stipulated the coverage principle and set the minimum price of the property at CHF 10,430,955.55.
[D. AG] complained about this on November 15, 2012, requesting the repeal of the auction conditions insofar as they contained the coverage principle. Additionally, it requested the postponement of the auction date of December 10, 2012.
By order of November 30, 2012, the Bern Cantonal Court, as the supervisory authority in debt collection and bankruptcy matters, suspended the auction.
By decision of December 14, 2012, the Cantonal Court upheld the complaint, repealed the auction conditions with regard to the coverage principle, and instructed the debt collection office to issue a new ruling.
On December 28, 2012, [A. AG] , [B. AG] , and [C.] jointly filed a complaint in civil matters (proceedings 5A_1/2013). They request that the Cantonal Court's decision be overturned and that the debt collection office be instructed to continue the realization procedure based on the auction conditions and the list of encumbrances of November 5, 2012.
On January 14, 2013, [F. AG] and [G.] also jointly filed a complaint in civil matters (proceedings 5A_38/2013). They make the same requests as the complainants in proceedings 5A_1/2013.
Considerations
The Federal Court has joined the complaints in proceedings 5A_1/2013 and 5A_38/2013 and is treating them together. The complainants in both proceedings were unsuccessful before the lower court and have a legitimate interest in the overturning of the contested decision.
The Cantonal Court made the decision as the supervisory authority in debt collection and…