The Moscow company was unable to buy the Perm defense plant – Kommersant
[ad_1]
On August 18, FSUE Dzerzhinsky Machine-Building Plant and LLC PSK Spetsproektstroy signed an agreement to terminate the transaction for the sale of the property complex of the Perm enterprise. According to Lev Shlyapin, the bankruptcy trustee of the plant, this is due to the fact that the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation annulled the LLC’s license to work with materials constituting a state secret. Under these conditions, he cannot transfer the equipment and secret documentation to the winner of the auction.
The plant has been in bankruptcy proceedings since 2005. The enterprise produces radio fuses and other components for missile warheads, oil separators used on Navy ships, and civilian products. Registered payables of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise amount to about 400 million rubles, most of which (about 88%) is controlled by the Federal Tax Service.
The property complex of the debtor was put up for auction as a single lot. In April, the sole participant of PSK Spetsproektstroy LLC was recognized as the winner. A contract for the sale of a lot was concluded with him at a price of 725 million rubles. In May, the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation tried to achieve the recognition of the auction as invalid, its position was supported by the Federal Property Management Agency and the prosecutor’s office. The claims were denied, after which the applicants filed complaints for appeal.
At a meeting of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal, a representative of the supervisory authority pointed out that at the time of filing the application, Spetsproektstroy did not have a license to work with classified information. The company received it before summing up the results of the auction. At the meeting, representatives of the LLC and Mr. Shlyapin reported that the contract was terminated due to the revocation of the license shortly before the appeal was considered. Nevertheless, they insisted that the auction was legal, since the company had a license at the time the winner was determined. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals.
[ad_2]
Source link
