Supreme Court of Russia specified the features of bankruptcy of municipal unitary enterprises

The Economic Board considered the case on the complaint of the debtor's managers brought to the subsidiary liability.  The applicants disagreed with accusations, claiming that they had taken measures to prevent the insolvency of the company.

The question concerned the bankruptcy of a municipal unitary enterprise, which carried out the functions of providing citizens with services for the operation and maintenance of the housing stock.

Bringing the former managers of the debtor to justice, the lower courts indicated that despite the deplorable financial condition of the company, none of its managers had filed a bankruptcy petition.

Countering such arguments, the former managers claimed that they had been taking measures to get the company out of the crisis, tried to collect accounts receivable, and also notified the owner of the enterprise about financial difficulties.  He, in turn, promised to find a solution to the problem.

Assessing the position of colleagues, the Supreme Court of Russia pointed out a significant difference between an ordinary commercial organization, the main purpose of which is to make a profit, and a municipal unitary enterprise, created for the needs of the population and providing socially significant services.

The difference also lies in the management system, where in the first case, the manager has a wide range of powers, while in a unitary enterprise the manager is more dependent on the owner of the company.

Consequently, when considering the issue of bringing the persons controlling debtor to subsidiary liability, one should not forget about the owner of the company as well, and the courts should examine his relationship with managers and possible guilt in the financial collapse of the enterprise in detail (definition No. 307-ES21-5954 (2, 3  ) dated October 21, 2021 in case No. А42-9226 / 2017).