The repeal of the Economic Code of Ukraine in 2025 and the introduction of a new model for the functioning of state enterprises mark an important stage in the transformation of the Ukrainian economy, which is gradually shifting from a system with a special legal status of certain entities to the general rules of corporate law. The termination of the Economic Code on August 28, 2025, eliminated the dualism of legal regulation and introduced mandatory corporatization of state enterprises, aimed at ensuring equal conditions for all market participants. However, such transformation poses a range of new challenges in the field of restoring the solvency of public-sector debtors. Under these conditions, judicial reorganization (sanátsiia) acquires particular significance as the only form of financial rehabilitation provided by the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine. It becomes the main tool for preserving the economic value of enterprises and ensuring a balance between public and private interests. At the same time, practice reveals a number of serious problems: the complexity of coordinating reorganization plans with state property management authorities, the impossibility of restructuring arrears of the Unified Social Contribution and personal income tax, the untimely actions of state creditors, as well as the absence of a «silent consent» mechanism to prevent bureaucratic delays. The study emphasizes that the reorganization plan is a basic procedural document concentrating the key measures for restoring solvency: debt restructuring, production re-profiling, attracting investors. Its realism and timely approval directly affect the success of the entire procedure. An analysis of judicial practice shows that commercial courts increasingly act as arbiters in the conflict between the state as creditor and the state as owner, upholding the principle of the rule of law and the interests of the majority of creditors. The article concludes that improving the effectiveness of reorganization procedures in the public sector is possible only through strengthening the institutional framework: enhancing the accountability of state property management bodies, addressing the issue of social debt, improving the professional training of insolvency practitioners, and reinforcing the role of judicial oversight. The presented material combines an analysis of updated legislation with examples from judicial practice and outlines the prospects for the development of the institution of judicial reorganization under the transition to a corporate model of state enterprise management.
Yu. M. Tatik (Tue,) studied this question.