Palermo, the disastrous management of Gesip: the Municipality risks big

#Palermo #disastrous #management #Gesip #Municipality #risks #big

A bandwagon sunk in debt.
The bill could be huge

PALERMO – The Gesip question is not closed.
There is a civil lawsuit still pending.
The Municipality of Palermo, a sole shareholder, risks paying a very high bill for the management of the former municipal subsidiary.
A bandwagon that before failing was kept alive for “social reasons”, but in the meantime has accumulated millions of euros in debt.

There was the protest in the square of the precarious workers, who more than once put the city to fire and fire in the face of the risk of losing their job.
And there was the need to guarantee the essential services entrusted to the company by the municipal administration.

Criminal investigation closed

All this, as Livesicilia has reconstructed, has led tofiling of the criminal investigation borne by the statutory auditors Leoluca Orlando and Diego Cammarata and by the top management who followed at the helm of the company.
The game, however, is not over.
In fact, a proceeding has been underway since 2017 before the civil judge Claudia Turco.

The Gesip bankruptcy trustee, represented in court by the lawyer Michele Perrino, sued all the directors of the company and the sole shareholder of the Municipality of Palermo (Orlando and Cammarata are not part of the civil trial).

Someone paid

They already made a transaction, so they paid, Piero Mattei, Massimo Primavera, Guido Barcellona, ​​Claudio Iozzi, Nunziata Bucca, Giovanna La Bianca, Salvatore Cottone, Luigi Passaglia.
They are all former liquidators and members of the board of statutory auditors.
In total they paid out 458,000 euro, but the delicate position of the Municipality of Palermo remains at stake.
And the figure goes up a lot.

The appraisal that nails the Municipality

The judge entrusted an appraisal to the accountant Filippo Spaggia.
Lhe advisory was filed last December. The expert was called upon to answer a series of questions.
One above all: to ascertain whether the continuation of the business activity after the resolution of the liquidation of the company (adopted by the extraordinary assembly on 12.7.2010) has caused specific damage to the company and its creditors.

Gesip was declared bankrupt on 31 August 2012.
What damage did the activity of the previous two years cause? Was there a management based on economic criteria?

A hole of 26 million euros

And here is the heart of the expertise.
According to the consultant, it occurred “A differential of overall
26,563,194 euros
equal to the extent of the incremental losses suffered until the activity is definitively discontinued “.

The accountant adds that “the examination of the documentation unequivocally emerged lat the will of the sole shareholder to continue the social activity despite the awareness of the lack of suitable economic conditions (production costs were greater than revenues) and financial (the fees, however insufficient, were collected late with a consequent increase in debt exposure and the related cost) “.

Erosion, deficit and bankruptcy

And here is the conclusion: “The undue hetero-management of the Municipality of Palermo has therefore involved
at first the erosion of capital, then the capital deficit and, then, bankruptcy due to the perpetual payment of an unsuitable consideration, the failure to adopt policies for the management of personnel (and the related cost) as well as, more generally, the failure to remedy entrepreneurial dysfunctions that did not guarantee the pursuit of economic-financial equilibrium of the company despite several interlocutors (administrative body, liquidation body, control body, Board of Auditors of the Municipality, General Accounting Office, Court of Auditors) had repeatedly given evidence of it for various reasons “.

He was only running up debts

In short, Gesip could not stand on his own strength.
He was piling up debt upon debt and the national government funding was useless, which at first plugged a hole, but fueled the chasm of debt.
In the end there were “further economic worsening following the losses suffered in the period in which the social activity continued only on the basis of the financial contributions received, but still inefficiently due to the aforementioned dysfunctions”.

If “the strategic nature of the type of services provided as well as the social impact that would have entailed a possible interruption of the same” were sufficient to avoid the suspects a criminal trial, “they do not appear to be an exemption for the sole shareholder to the extent that which already (at least) since 2007, significant economic and financial inefficiencies had emergeddue to the inadequacy of the fees paid to Gesip “.

The disaster was certain “nevertheless, no intervention appears to have been carried out in order to resolve these rather, the modus operandi already adopted has been perpetuated (even after the liquidation resolution), leading to the determination of a capital deficit of an entity such as to make insolvency proceedings inevitable “.

This post is also available in: English