Features of bankruptcy of unitary enterprises. Activities of local governments. Read about this topic

A fundamentally important issue in the bankruptcy of state and municipal unitary enterprises: does the head of the debtor enterprise have the right to independently apply to the arbitration court with the debtor's application for bankruptcy?

The current Federal Law "On insolvency (bankruptcy)" does not give a direct answer to this question. The ambiguity of judicial practice regarding the powers of the head of a unitary enterprise to apply to the arbitration court with a debtor's application is explained by the fact that the legislator does not seem to have raised such a question at all. Therefore, the answer to it must be sought by following general principles and based on the analysis of civil legislation.

Article 9 of the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” establishes that upon the occurrence of signs of insolvency, the law provides that the head of the debtor is obliged to apply to the arbitration court with the debtor’s application for recognition as insolvent (bankrupt) if:

1) satisfaction of the claims of one or several creditors will lead to the impossibility of satisfying the claims of the rest in in full;

2) the body authorized by the owner of the property has made a decision to apply to the arbitration court with the application of the debtor;

3) levying execution on the debtor's property will complicate or make it impossible for the debtor's economic activity.

Moreover, the debtor's application must be filed no later than one month from the date of occurrence of the above circumstances.

However, Art. 30 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" provides that in the event of signs of bankruptcy, the head of the debtor is obliged to send information about the presence of signs of bankruptcy to the owner of the property of the debtor - a unitary enterprise. The owner of the property of the debtor - a unitary enterprise is obliged to take timely measures to prevent the bankruptcy of enterprises and restore the debtor's solvency before filing the debtor's application.

Article 65 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that declaring a legal entity bankrupt entails its liquidation. Decisions on liquidation in relation to state and municipal enterprises can only be taken by the owner.

The application of the debtor to declare the enterprise bankrupt, as a rule, is aimed at liquidating the enterprise, respectively, the decision to apply to the arbitration court with such an application should be made by the authorized body of the owner of the property.

Thus, we can conclude that without the consent of the owner of the property, the head of the debtor is not authorized to apply to the arbitration court with the debtor's application for bankruptcy.

The question of the rights of the head of a unitary enterprise without the consent of the owner of the property of the enterprise to apply to the court with a debtor's application in practice is of tremendous importance. Since if the manager has such a right, then with the help of well-known technologies, subject to a clear legal work the leader costs nothing in the most short time bankrupt the organization entrusted to him and choose a self-regulatory organization from among whose members a manager will be appointed.

Unfortunately, law enforcement practice has taken the path of simplifying the bankruptcy filing procedure. In Resolution No. 29 of December 15, 2004 “On Certain Issues in the Practice of Applying the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated that “when considering the application of Art. 9 of the Bankruptcy Law, when the satisfaction of the claims of one or more creditors leads to the impossibility of fulfilling the debtor's monetary obligations in full to other creditors, the application of the head of the debtor is accepted by the arbitration court for consideration, regardless of the decision of the body authorized in accordance with the constituent documents of the debtor to make a decision on the liquidation of the debtor, or the decision of the body authorized by the owner of the property of the debtor - a unitary enterprise.

This practice is clearly not aimed at protecting the interests of the owner and significantly weakens his control over the actions of the management. In the event that the manager applies with a debtor's application for declaring him bankrupt, the owner can generally learn about such an application only after it is accepted by the arbitration court and the monitoring procedure is introduced.

Reading time: 8 min

Situations when unitary enterprises go bankrupt are far from uncommon. State and municipal structures do not always demonstrate efficiency in managing commercial organizations. As a result, they have a significant amount of outstanding debt obligations for mandatory payments (in terms of taxes and fees), electricity and gas supply, as well as wages.

Dear readers! Each case is individual, so check with our lawyers for information.Calls are free.

The concept of MUP and SUE and features of their legal status

Based on the provisions of Art. 2 161-FZ of 2002 “On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises”, unitary enterprises are understood as certain commercial structures, the specificity of which lies in the absence of ownership of property used in work. The list of such property is assigned to the unitary enterprise by its owner.

Unitary enterprises (MUP and SUE) are classified under the Civil Code as a certain type of legal entities, the founders of which are not their participants (according to Article 65.1 of the Civil Code). In addition to enterprises, state-owned institutions, funds and ANOs are also considered unitary organizations.

According to the norms of the law, property rights to property can belong only to the state (represented by the Russian Federation or a region of the Russian Federation) or municipal authorities. Depending on the ownership of property, unitary enterprises are divided into the following:

1. MUP- municipal unitary enterprises.
2. SUE- state unitary enterprises.

At the same time, unitary enterprises have a number of similarities with private commercial companies:

1. The management of a unitary enterprise is accountable to the founder.
2. MUP and SUE are responsible for all their property belonging to them.
3. The owner of the property represented by the state or municipality may bear with MUP and SUE for unfulfilled debt obligations.

To solve the problem of debt obligations in unitary enterprises, two main schemes are used:

1. Privatization- within which the search for an interested buyer is carried out and the change of ownership is carried out. As a result, the company is transferred from state and municipal ownership to private hands.
2. Bankruptcy- recognition procedure, which is aimed at solving the problem of debts to creditors in a strictly regulated procedural order.

Through the mechanism of bankruptcy, unitary enterprises today solve two main tasks: clear the MUP or SUE from and re-register the ownership of assets to another person.

SUE and MUP go through bankruptcy procedure general rules 127-FZ "On Insolvency" of 2002, according to which all Russian legal entities and individuals go bankrupt. But a certain imprint on their bankruptcy leaves legal status such enterprises.

The procedure for the organization, reorganization and liquidation of the MUE is based on the norms of the Civil Code (in particular, Articles 65.1, 113-114) and special legislation.

The activities of SUE and MUP are regulated by the provisions of the Federal Law-161 "On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises" of 2002. This law contains the following provisions:

1. The head of a unitary enterprise is appointed to his position by the owner of the property(state or municipal authorities). He should not be among the founders of another legal entity, engage in commercial practice and entrepreneurial activities, be the sole executive body, or participate in a strike. The only permitted additional practice for the management of a unitary enterprise is teaching, research and other creative activities.
2. Legislation imposes certain restrictions on the disposal of the property of the enterprise. SUE is not entitled to carry out a number of operations with property without the consent of the owner. In particular, to transfer it as a pledge, to sell, to contribute as authorized capital another company without the consent of the owner.
3. Some transactions with municipal unitary enterprises and state unitary enterprises related to the provision of loans, guarantees, obtaining guarantees, encumbrances, simple partnership agreements are signed only with the consent of the owner of the property.

All this is aimed at preventing the illegal withdrawal of assets from the company.

Grounds for declaring enterprises bankrupt

The process of recognizing enterprises as financially insolvent is based on the provisions of Art. 65 of the Civil Code and FZ-127 of 2002. Based on the provisions of Art. 65 of the Civil Code, any legal entity may become bankrupt, except for state institutions, political parties and religious organizations. SUE and MUP are not listed in the list of exceptions, therefore they are declared bankrupt on a general basis.

In order for a unitary enterprise to meet the signs of bankruptcy, it must meet a number of conditions:

1. Have documented debt obligations in the amount of 300 thousand rubles. and more.
2. Have a delay in debt repayments with a duration of 3 months and more.

The amount of debt obligations includes debts to all counterparties under civil law contracts, to the budget for unfulfilled tax obligations and to unitary enterprises for wages and severance pay.

Municipal Unitary Enterprises, which have the status of management companies in the housing and communal services sector, have another sign of insolvency. In addition to the debt to their creditors, they lose the ability to fulfill their debt obligations to final consumers-citizens, namely, they are not able to supply them utilities proper quality.

According to the provisions of 127-FZ of 2002, an initiative to declare an enterprise bankrupt can be filed by a debtor, creditor or an authorized body. No exceptions and reservations regarding MUP and GUP GK and 127-FZ do not contain. But taking into account the fact that only regional or municipal authorities can become the owner of the property of such institutions, the right to apply to the court for recognition of bankruptcy belongs only to them, and not to the head of the MUP or SUE.

Owners can initiate the bankruptcy procedure of a unitary enterprise using the mechanism. If, after the decision to close the institution and the preparation of the liquidation balance sheet, the fact of insufficiency of property to pay off the claims of creditors was revealed, then the appointed liquidation commission is obliged to apply to the court with a bankruptcy petition.

But in practice, the own initiative of the bankruptcy of the MUP or SUE is very rare due to the inability of the management to make cardinal decisions without additional coordination with the controlling authorities. They will have to enlist the support of senior management, the liquidation project must undergo an examination for negative consequences etc.

Features of the bankruptcy procedure

127-FZ does not contain the fundamental features of the bankruptcy of unitary enterprises, only if they are not among the city-forming enterprises under Art. 169.

With the adoption of Federal Law No. 127, which regulates the bankruptcy procedure, property owners have a real opportunity to influence the process of recognizing financial insolvency.

The debtor influences the course of the bankruptcy process through the implementation of the following range of rights:

1. Filing a petition to the arbitration court for the introduction. To do this, he must first obtain guarantees for the repayment of debt by the enterprise through the implementation of the schedule.
2. Inclusion in the plan of the item on the sale of the enterprise as a property complex.
3. The property of SUE and MUP, which is subject to evaluation, is evaluated by the appraiser through the provision of its opinion by the state body for financial control. This gives additional guarantees for an independent assessment.

In general, during the bankruptcy procedure under the rules of 127-FZ since 2002, the position of the debtor has been strengthened, and must take into account not only the position of creditors when making decisions.

The fundamental point in initiating and conducting the bankruptcy proceedings of the MUP or SUE is the presence or absence of the company's management of the right to apply to the arbitration court with a bankruptcy petition. The ambiguity of this aspect is due to the fact that the management of such enterprises has only the rights of operational management and temporary possession of the debtor's property.

Subject to Art. 9, 30 127-FZ and Art. 65 of the Civil Code, in the event of insolvency of the MUP or SUE, the head is obliged to inform the owners of the property (municipal and regional authorities) about this fact. The owner of the property, on the basis of information received about the threat of bankruptcy, takes timely measures to restore the balance of payments of the debtor or submits a bankruptcy petition to the arbitration court.

If the enterprise meets the signs of insolvency, then the owner of the property of the unitary enterprise is obliged to apply to the court for bankruptcy within a month. If the owner neglects this obligation, he will be liable. It will consist in the obligation to indemnify for damages arising from this violation. In this case, the owner of the property will bear subsidiary liability for the debts of the enterprise.

Step by step order

The bankruptcy procedure of unitary enterprises takes place according to a general algorithm, which involves the passage of the following steps:

1. Bankruptcy petition filed with arbitration court.
2. During the first court session, the received application is evaluated for validity..
3. If the company meets the signs of bankruptcy, then a procedure is introduced in relation to it. A bankruptcy trustee is appointed.
4. During the observation stage, the financial situation of the debtor is analyzed, creditors are formed, and their first meeting is held. At the first meeting, a decision is made on the future fate of the debtor: on the transition to one of the rehabilitating procedures (financial recovery or external management) or to bankruptcy proceedings.
5. The court proceeds to the stage if the rehabilitative procedures did not lead to the proper result, or if the court has not found the potential to restore the debtor's solvency.
6. According to the results of bankruptcy proceedings, the claims of creditors are paid off through the sale of the enterprise's property at auction.
7. After completion of settlements with creditors based on the results of the formation, the court issues a decision on the completion of the bankruptcy procedure. Such a definition becomes the basis for excluding information about the institution from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, which in fact means the termination of its activities.

If the initiative to declare the enterprise bankrupt came from the liquidation commission, then it will be necessary to go through a number of preliminary stages before starting the bankruptcy process. Among them are the following:

1. The decision is made by the owner of the property of a unitary enterprise on the liquidation of MUP or SUE.
2. Appointed upon liquidation or. All management functions are transferred to them.
3. Information about decision , and indicates the time limits for the presentation of claims by creditors, as well as the address for their transfer.
4. Preparing an interim, which lists the assets of a unitary enterprise and its debt to creditors. If the fact of insufficiency of property to pay off all debts was revealed, then a bankruptcy petition is submitted to the court.

Consequences of becoming bankrupt

The consequences of the bankruptcy of a MUP or SUE may be different. They differ depending on the stage at which the procedure was completed.

At introduction of surveillance certain restrictions are not imposed on the activities of the management of enterprises, except for the obligation to comply with the approval procedure when concluding individual transactions. Observation cannot last more than 7 months.

If the enterprise can enlist the support of the guarantor, then a stage of financial recovery can be introduced in respect of it.

During financial recovery a payment schedule and a recovery plan are being prepared, which the company must follow. If during this stage it is possible to repay the debt to creditors (it is introduced for a period of up to 2 years), then the bankruptcy process is terminated.

At external management the main civil law consequence will be the transfer of the entire management of the MUP or SUE in favor of an external manager. This procedure is introduced for a period of up to 18 months.

If the debtor stopped at the stage of external management, then during this stage, with the consent of the owners, the enterprise, as a property complex, can be sold. The result will be an actual change of ownership, but the enterprise itself will continue to operate, possibly under the leadership of a private individual. If the proceeds from the sale of property turned out to be enough to pay off all the debt obligations of the enterprise, then the bankruptcy procedure is closed.

But within the framework of external management, it is allowed to implement other measures, except for the sale of the enterprise as a property complex. For example, staff reduction, in the format of a legal entity in the form of a merger or acquisition, re-profiling of a company or closing unprofitable production facilities, recovery accounts receivable etc. If these measures can restore the solvency of the enterprise, then it will be able to maintain its status, and bankruptcy will be completed.

The parties can sign at any stage, and then the repayment of the debt by the unitary enterprise will take place in a contractual manner. The enterprise will not be liquidated, and the bankruptcy proceedings will be prematurely terminated.

In case of transition to the final stage bankruptcy proceedings the management of the unitary enterprise is removed from business, and all managerial powers are transferred to the bankruptcy trustee. His tasks include the formation of a bankruptcy estate by evaluating and selling the debtor's property. All proceeds are distributed among the debtor's creditors in accordance with the priority and go to the repayment of procedural costs. Based on the results, the outstanding debt is considered fulfilled and canceled, and the enterprise ceases to exist as an economic unit.

Thus, according to 127-FZ, unitary enterprises in the status of MUP and SUE are not prohibited from going bankrupt. The procedure for recognizing financial insolvency is carried out in a standard manner. The main feature is that the owner of the property of a unitary enterprise and its head do not coincide, and the latter is not entitled to initiate bankruptcy. Bankruptcy of the MUP or SUE involves the passage next steps: supervision, financial recovery, external management, bankruptcy proceedings and amicable agreement.

Now, when the market is subject to fluctuations caused by objective and subjective reasons, practically no one is insured against situations when it is impossible to fulfill their credit obligations. Thus, the bankruptcy of a municipal unitary enterprise is just as commonplace. Extremely unpleasant for creditors, but commonplace. Therefore, it would be useful to know what important points and features of the process of liquidation of the MUP through declaring it bankrupt.

Principal differences of MUP bankruptcy

Usually, in order to start the procedure for closing a company due to an inability to repay debts, the head must apply with a corresponding application to the court dealing with legal entities. A creditor or an employee of an enterprise who is not paid wages, that is, in fact, the same creditor, can also apply there. In the case of declaring a municipality bankrupt, there is a controversial legislative issue about the possibility of applying to the judiciary specifically for the head of the enterprise. This is due to the fact that enterprises of this type have only the possibility of operational management of property. Ownership belongs to the city or other municipality. Thus, in fact, the decision to send an application to the court to start the bankruptcy procedure of a unitary enterprise is made not by the head, but by the owners of the property, that is, local authorities.

There are a few more differences:

• the founders of the company cannot be its participants;
• the organization is managed by one head alone;
• MUP reports to the founders, but manages the property independently;
• in the event of bankruptcy, first the property under the management of the MUP is used, and then, on the terms of subsidiary liability, the property of the founders.

Legal provisions

At the legislative level, the bankruptcy procedure is regulated by several legal documents. First of all, it is the civil code. Specifically, Article 61 defines the concept of liquidation of an enterprise, describes the options for the liquidation process, and when a company is declared insolvent before creditors. The lower legislative acts on bankruptcy include the law adopted at the level of the Federation Council No. 161 dated November 14, 2002 “On municipal enterprises”. It describes in detail the entire process of education, work and termination of activity.

Special bankruptcy conditions apply to municipal enterprises

Federal law No. 127, also adopted on October 26, 2002, regulates the procedure and features of the bankruptcy process. Bankruptcy of state and municipal enterprises also appears in this legal act. The latest changes to this law came into force on October 29, 2017. Some controversial points arising from the application of this law are covered in the Resolution of the Supreme Arbitration Court No. 29 of December 15, 2004.

Criteria by which an organization is liquidated as unable to repay debts

Despite all the differences between a unitary organization and an ordinary one, the criteria for declaring a municipal enterprise bankrupt are no different. There are two such criteria:

• the organization has not paid wages and social payments for three months, has tax debts and does not have money for such payments;
• the amount of the debt is not less than three hundred thousand rubles.

For organizations - public utilities there is one more additional criterion: failure to fulfill promises to suppliers and, consequently, to citizens - the final recipients of services.

Who initiates the bankruptcy procedure of a municipal enterprise

In accordance with the legislation of Russia and common sense, it is possible to determine the categories of individuals and legal entities that have the opportunity to apply to arbitration to initiate a case on the termination of the organization's activities due to the inability to pay the amount of debt.

• The organization itself is a debtor. If the management realizes that the amount of debt to creditors exceeds the amount indicated in the law, and there are no options for a positive resolution of the situation, then the head of the enterprise, with the consent of the municipality, files for bankruptcy.
• Organizations are lenders. Suppliers natural resources, financial institutions, suppliers of inventory items that delivered on credit. This group applies, after a long, unrecoverable debt, to collect funds from municipal property or otherwise legally. Suppliers take such steps when the risk of not receiving the full amount of the debt is lower than the risk of full non-payment if the organization continues to exist.

Appeal to the arbitration court allows creditors to recover the amount of the debt

• MUP employees who do not receive payment for work or various benefits for the time established by law. The meaning of their actions to declare the organization bankrupt is to receive their legal compensation for their work.
• State bodies. The activities of the organization can be recognized as irrational. Its functions are transferred to another office, with more efficient management.

Bankruptcy Procedure

If the court satisfies the plaintiff's application, then a standard procedure follows, which includes several points. initial stage will be an observation. Controlling structures collect all the information about the company, create plans to get out of the financial crisis without liquidation. This stage lasts a maximum of 7 months from the date of application.

Then comes the rehabilitation phase. Here, the external manager gets some opportunity to influence the decisions of the current leader. A debt repayment schedule is drawn up. The current leader is still working. It may take up to two years.

If at the stage of rehabilitation the restoration of solvency did not occur, the process goes to the third stage. The external manager fully controls the activities of the organization, takes measures to improve the financial condition. The seals of the organization are also kept by the external manager. The only thing he cannot do is to sell the property of MUP to pay off obligations to creditors. This period lasts up to a year, but can be extended for another six months. If contracts for large amounts are concluded in the period, this process is usually coordinated with the board of creditors of the organization.

As a result of the third stage, several options are possible. If the actions of the external manager were successful, the bankruptcy procedure is terminated and the MUP returns to its normal mode of operation.

Competent activity of the external manager is a guarantee of successful financial recovery of the enterprise

If it was possible to agree with creditors, then a settlement agreement is concluded, the organization continues to function, debts are extinguished according to the plan.

Important: a settlement agreement with creditors can be concluded at any stage of bankruptcy. If for some reason the existence of a particular MUP is important for a credit institution, then it can agree to an agreement even at the monitoring stage.

If there are no improvements, bankruptcy proceedings are appointed, the functions of which include the sale of property and the repayment of debts at the expense of the funds received. The term is set to one and a half years. During this period, all accruals of penalties cease, documentation on loan obligations is with the external manager.

Liquidation conditions

The main conditions for the liquidation of MUP - non-payment of debts within three months and the amount of debt over 300 thousand - were described above. In addition, in case of liquidation on a voluntary basis, the municipality must issue a liquidation order, appoint a commission for liquidation. As a rule, it is created with the participation of municipal employees. It is necessary to notify the tax authorities, workers of the enterprise, creditors.

Official information about the upcoming bankruptcy is published in the media. Debt repayment plans are created, which are then implemented. As a result of all actions, the seals of the organization are broken. The company is excluded from accounting with the tax authorities. All documentation is archived.

Consequences and liability

The consequences of the bankruptcy procedure directly include the liquidation of a unitary structure and the sale of its property to pay off debts. A responsibility individuals at such events does not go beyond the scope of administrative and criminal liability. Working CBM, according to official duties are responsible for the completeness and correctness accounting, for the full reflection in it of all the property of the organization, as well as for creating obstacles to the external manager. Fictitious intentional bankruptcy is also a punishable act.

You can learn about the bankruptcy of the enterprise from the video:

Attention! Due to recent changes in legislation, the legal information in this article may be out of date!

Our lawyer can advise you free of charge - write a question in the form below:

Free consultation with a lawyer

08.02.2018
Developments. The Central Bank adjusted the dictionary. New concepts have appeared in the program document of the Bank of Russia. Yesterday, the Bank of Russia's policy document was published, describing plans for the development and application of new technologies in financial market for the coming years. The main ideas, concepts and projects have already been announced by the regulator in one way or another. At the same time, the Central Bank introduces and discloses new terms, in particular, RegTech, SupTech and “through identifier”. Experts note that these areas have been successfully developing in Europe for a long time.

08.02.2018
Developments. The State Duma issued a pass to Russia for capital. It was decided to repeat the one-time business amnesty. The State Duma of Russia adopted on Wednesday in the first, and a few hours later in the second reading, a package of bills initiated by Vladimir Putin on the resumption of the capital amnesty. The new act of “forgiveness” was announced as the second stage of the 2016 campaign, which was then presented as a one-time campaign and was actually ignored by the business. Since the attractiveness of the Russian jurisdiction and confidence in its law enforcement officers have not increased over the past two years, now the stake is placed on the thesis that capital must be returned to the country because it is worse for them abroad than in Russia.

07.02.2018
Developments. Control and supervision are customized. Business and authorities compared approaches to reform. The results and prospects of the reform of control and supervisory activities were discussed yesterday by representatives of the business community and regulators as part of the Russian Business Week under the auspices of the RSPP. Despite a 30% decrease in the number of scheduled inspections, businesses complain about the administrative burden and call on the authorities to respond more quickly to entrepreneurs' proposals. The government, in turn, plans to revise the mandatory requirements, reform the Code of Administrative Offenses, digitalize and accept reports in the "one window" mode.

07.02.2018
Developments. Issuers will add transparency. But investors are waiting for additions to the meetings of shareholders. The Moscow Exchange is preparing changes to the listing rules for issuers whose shares are on the highest quotation lists. In particular, companies will be required to create special sections on their websites for shareholders and investors, the maintenance of which will be controlled by the exchange. Large issuers already meet these requirements, but investors consider it important to fix these obligations in the document. In addition, in their opinion, the exchange should pay attention to the disclosure of information to shareholders' meetings, which is the most painful issue in the relationship between issuers and investors.

07.02.2018
Developments. The Central Bank of Russia gets a grasp of advertising. The financial regulator has found a new field for supervision. The honesty of financial advertising will soon begin to be assessed not only by the Federal Antimonopoly Service, but also by the Central Bank. Starting this year, as part of behavioral supervision, the Bank of Russia will detect advertising financial companies and banks, containing signs of violations, and report this to the FAS. If banks receive not only fines from the FAS, but also recommendations from the Central Bank, this may change the situation with advertising in the financial market, experts say, but the procedure for applying the Central Bank's supervisory measures in the new area has not yet been described.

06.02.2018
Developments. Not by accent, but by passport. Foreign investments under the control of the Russians will be left without international protection in the spring. A government bill depriving Russian-controlled foreign companies and persons with dual citizenship of the protection of the foreign investment law, in particular, guarantees of freedom to withdraw profits, will be adopted by the State Duma of Russia in early March. The document does not recognize as foreign and investments through trusts and other trust institutions. Structures controlled by the Russians, investing in strategic assets in the Russian Federation, White House is still ready to consider foreign investors - but for them, as before, it only means the need to coordinate transactions with the commission on foreign investments.

06.02.2018
Developments. Banks are not given to state structures. FAS Russia intends to limit the expansion of the public sector in the financial market. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has developed proposals to limit the purchases of banks by government agencies. The FAS plans to amend the law "On Banks and Banking Activities" and is currently working on them with the Central Bank (CB). An exception may be the reorganization of banks, ensuring the availability of banking services in areas that need it, as well as issues of the country's security. The head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, has already supported this initiative.

06.02.2018
Developments. Online audit was given a chance. IIDF is ready to support remote checks. Online auditing, hitherto a side branch of this business, which was carried out mainly by unscrupulous companies, has received support at the state level. The Internet Initiatives Development Fund invested 2.5 million rubles in AuditOnline, thus recognizing the prospects of this area. However, market participants are confident that there is no legitimate future for online audits - remote audits are contrary to international auditing standards.

05.02.2018
Developments. It is recommended to refrain from legitimate transactions. The Central Bank of Russia considered the "hidden trust management" unethical. The Bank of Russia warns professional participants against using some popular, but not entirely ethical practices in relation to clients in the stock market. The schemes described in the letter of the regulator lie in the legal plane, so the Central Bank limited itself to recommendations. But in fact, the regulator is testing the application of a motivated judgment, the right to use which has not yet been legally approved.

05.02.2018
Developments. Absorption will be less entertaining. The Central Bank of Russia encourages banks to reduce lending to M&A transactions. The idea of ​​the Central Bank to encourage banks to lend not to mergers and acquisitions of companies, but to the development of production takes on concrete features. The first step could be to instruct banks to form increased reserves for loans issued for M&A transactions. According to experts, this will reduce such lending, but in order for bank resources to go to the development of production, additional stimulus measures will be required.

At least three aspects of their activity should be singled out.

Firstly, the authorized bodies of local self-government, which have the right to file an application for declaring a debtor - a unitary enterprise bankrupt, represent the interests of the municipality as a creditor. Secondly, the authorized bodies of local self-government (committees and departments for the management of municipal property, sectoral committees and departments) represent the interests of the municipality as the owner of the property of the debtor - a unitary enterprise. Thirdly, a municipal entity may be a debtor of a unitary enterprise, which is associated with the failure of the administrations of municipal entities to fulfill their financial obligations in relation to the MUP and is the direct cause of the crisis or aggravates it.

Since when resolving issues of insolvency (bankruptcy) of municipal unitary enterprises, consolidation of the interests of the municipality as a creditor and owner should be ensured, as a rule, the right to represent the interests of the municipality in the event of bankruptcy of legal entities with the right to claim on behalf of the municipality is vested in the Municipal Property Management Committee or other authorized body of the local administration. A committee or other structural subdivision of a local administration (in cases where it acts as a founder of a municipal unitary enterprise) has the right to:

• 1) review the financial condition of the municipal unitary enterprise and make decisions on insolvency and unsatisfactory balance sheet structure;
• 2) make decisions on the voluntary liquidation of the debtor municipal unitary enterprise;
• 3) make decisions on applying to the arbitration court with an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt.

In accordance with Article 30 of the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”, in the event of signs of bankruptcy, the head of the MUP is obliged to notify the owner of the debtor’s property - a unitary enterprise. In turn, the owner of the debtor's property - a unitary enterprise, local governments are obliged to take timely measures to prevent the bankruptcy of organizations. In particular, the owner, before filing an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt within the framework of pre-trial rehabilitation, takes measures aimed at restoring solvency to the arbitration court. On the part of the owner, a unitary enterprise may be provided with financial assistance in an amount sufficient to pay off monetary obligations and mandatory payments and restore solvency.

Decisions on liquidation are made in case of impossibility of financial recovery, but the sufficiency of the enterprise's assets for settlements with creditors and for liquidation activities. If neither one nor the other is possible, proposals are made to initiate bankruptcy proceedings.

If the owner of a unitary enterprise is not interested in continuing its activities, the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" makes it possible to voluntarily declare bankruptcy of the debtor enterprise. The basis for declaring a debtor - a unitary enterprise bankrupt is the decision of the owner of its property represented by the authorized body.

According to the Federal Law "On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises", in the event of liquidation of a unitary enterprise by decision of the owner of the property, in case of his inability to satisfy the requirements of creditors in full, the head of the municipal enterprise or the liquidation commission are obliged to apply to the arbitration court with an application for declaring the enterprise bankrupt. The situation is complicated by the fact that a number of municipal unitary enterprises, in respect of which decisions on liquidation have been made, do not have own funds and property in order to fully satisfy the claims of creditors and reimburse the costs of liquidation activities. For such enterprises, the arbitration court refuses to accept an application for declaring insolvent (bankrupt), referring to the insufficiency of funds to finance court expenses, namely, the remuneration of the arbitration manager and payment for the services of involved persons, and the publication of relevant information.

Since July 2005, due to changes in the federal law"On State Registration of Legal Entities and Individual Enterprises" and Art. 49 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a new way has appeared to terminate the activities of a legal entity (except for reorganization and liquidation) - exclusion from the unified register of legal entities by decision of the registering authority. If a legal entity during the last 12 months preceding the moment when the registering body took the relevant decision did not submit the reporting documents provided for by the legislation on taxes and fees, and did not conduct operations on at least one bank account, then it is recognized as having actually ceased its activities.

The body coordinating and organizing the implementation of anti-crisis measures in relation to MUP is the Municipal Property Management Committee, which, in accordance with the regulations on insolvency (bankruptcy) of enterprises, performs the following actions:

• 1) conducts a quarterly analysis of the financial stability of the MUP;
• 2) on the basis of this analysis draws up acts on the recognition of the enterprise as insolvent and having an unsatisfactory balance sheet structure;
• 3) on the basis of these acts, obliges the enterprise to develop and submit, in accordance with the established procedure, for consideration and approval to the Committee, financial recovery plans, previously agreed upon in the sectoral department and the economics committee of the local administration;
• 4) if available real opportunity restore solvency prepares recommendations on measures aimed at preventing the bankruptcy of MUP, develops proposals for its rehabilitation;
• 5) participates in the creation and organization of the activities of target budget funds for the rehabilitation (sanation) of insolvent enterprises;
• 6) considers applications and appeals of interested parties on issues related to the application of reorganization procedures in relation to CBM;
• 7) during the liquidation of the enterprise by the decision of the owner, in case of insufficient property to satisfy the claims of all creditors, he goes to the arbitration court with a statement to initiate proceedings on the insolvency (bankruptcy) of the enterprise.

A special role in the decision-making process is given to the balance commissions, which:

• (1) consider the results of the financial and economic activities of MUP for the reporting period;
• (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the use of municipal property assigned to enterprises on the right of economic management;
• (3) assess the fulfillment by the leaders of the MUP of the terms of the contract;
• (4) develop recommendations for the preparation of financial recovery plans (business plans) and set deadlines for their submission;
• (5) make decisions on the mandatory repayment of debts by non-paying enterprises.

The financial recovery plan should contain the following sections:

• - general characteristics MUP;
• - analysis of the financial condition of MUP;
• - analysis of the market for manufactured products (works and services) and competition in this market;
• - analytical assessment of the balance structure;
• - a list of measures to restore solvency and support efficient economic activity.

The responsibility for drawing up financial recovery plans rests with the head of the MUE. The plan is coordinated with the sectoral department, the economics department of the administration, the deputy head of the administration in charge of the given enterprise, and is approved by the chairman of the Municipal Property Management Committee. Personal responsibility for the implementation of the measures provided for by the plan is assigned to the head of the MUP, and the functions of monitoring the implementation of measures are assigned to the sectoral departments of the administration and the Committee. After the expiration of the period for which the financial recovery plan was drawn up, the results of the MUE's activities are considered at a meeting of the balance commission, which makes proposals for its further functioning.

In the event that rehabilitation measures have not yielded positive results, bankruptcy procedures are applied.

Decisions of the balance commission are drawn up in the form of minutes of its meetings, and, if necessary, in the form of draft resolutions and orders of the head of local self-government.

Among the variety of tools for the financial recovery of enterprises, including unitary ones, one should single out their restructuring.

Restructuring in the narrow sense refers to a set of measures aimed at overcoming financial instability and restoring solvency, or at the implementation of procedures for the liquidation of enterprises and organizations in accordance with applicable law.

If we consider restructuring in a broad sense, then in this concept it is necessary to single out at least three main aspects:

Ё financial (transformation of the structure of assets and liabilities);

Ё structural (transformation of the internal structure and system of external relationships);

Ё legal (legal procedures and technologies for enterprise restructuring).

The restructuring of municipal unitary enterprises can be defined as a set of legal procedures aimed at transforming their organizational and (or) production structure and (or) optimizing the structure of their assets and liabilities.

The restructuring of municipal unitary enterprises will allow:

• (1) to attract additional investments and financial resources in the development of promising CBMs, incl. through their privatization;
• (2) to receive additional budgetary revenues through the sale or leasing of part of the unused property;
• (3) to reduce the burden on the budget by terminating or reducing the volume of activities of unprofitable MUEs;
• (4) improve the efficiency of MUP by optimizing the ownership structure.

According to the methods of legal consolidation and redistribution of ownership and control rights, there are two types of restructuring of the MUP:

• reorganization, change in the scale of a unitary enterprise (merger, accession, division, spin-off);
• · change of organizational and legal form of a unitary enterprise, incl. transformation of a unitary enterprise into a state-owned enterprise or a municipal institution, privatization by transforming a unitary enterprise into a joint-stock company with a 100% share of municipal property.

The federal law "On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises" establishes the forms of reorganization of unitary enterprises presented in Table 3. Deciding on the form in which a unitary enterprise whose property is in municipal ownership will operate, falls within the competence of the municipality as the owner represented by local governments.

Table 3 - Forms of reorganization of unitary enterprises

A change in the organizational and legal form of a unitary enterprise occurs when it is transformed into an open joint-stock company in accordance with the legislation on privatization. This procedure is one of the methods of privatization and involves the mandatory inclusion of a unitary enterprise in the forecast plan (program) of privatization, preparation for privatization, drawing up a deed of transfer, as well as compliance with all other legal requirements for the transformation procedure.

The transformation of a unitary enterprise based on the right of economic management into a municipal institution is carried out by the decision of its owner, which involves appropriate preparation and justification.

In order to streamline and comprehensively address restructuring issues, it is advisable for local administrations to annually form a program for the restructuring of municipal unitary enterprises that do not correspond to the composition of long-term and current socio-economic tasks facing local governments. The main goal of such a program should be to determine the sources and mechanisms of financing, the timing and objectives of restructuring.

The program should include the following main provisions:

Ё the list of enterprises under restructuring;

Ё goals, objectives and directions of enterprise restructuring;

Ё the procedure, methods and criteria for making a decision on restructuring;

Ё financial support and financing mechanism;

Ё measures for the social protection of employees of enterprises;

Ё interaction of enterprises with the owner of the property.

To provide financial support to unitary enterprises, by order of the head of the municipality, a financial support fund is formed at the expense of voluntary contributions from municipal unitary enterprises, the funds of which are transferred to the target budget account. The procedure for deductions to the fund and receipt of funds from the fund by municipal unitary enterprises is regulated by a special regulation.

Thus, it can be stated that the Recovery procedures are divided into two types - pre-trial rehabilitation and judicial rehabilitation (financial recovery and external management).

Measures to prevent the insolvency of a participant in property turnover do not constitute an independent bankruptcy procedure, but their timely application can have a significant impact on changing financial position debtor.

Since July 2005, a new method of terminating the activities of a legal entity (except for reorganization and liquidation) has appeared - exclusion from the unified register of legal entities by decision of the registration authority.