48 IFLR/May 2015 www.iflr.com The collapse in 2001 of Switzerland’s national airline Swissair, until then regarded as a symbol of the country’s reliability and efficiency, sparked a debate over the need to amend Swiss insolvency laws. Criticism was raised that the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (DEBL) had proven ineffective in facilitating the restructuring of companies in distress and was not adequate to deal with the insolvencies of large groups of companies.
For aircraft leasing companies, having to repossess an aircraft from an airline that misses its rental payments is usually an option of last resort. The repossession process in Thailand can be time-consuming and costly, and often precludes future earnings. However, as a number of Thai airlines have defaulted on their payments over recent years, lessors have been left with no choice but to seek recovery of their valuable assets. This article provides an overview of the practical and legal considerations of aircraft repossession in Thailand.
The Zurich High Court,(1) as court of second instance, recently dismissed a liability claim, to the amount of €150 million, initiated by the liquidator of Swissair against former members of Swissair's board of directors.
On 29 December 2012, pursuant to the order of the Commercial Court of the Kyiv Region, the bankruptcy proceedings in respect of Aerosvit were initiated based on the application of the debtor. Pursuant to the said order the court introduced the procedure of administration of debtor's assets, appointed the administrator of assets and imposed moratorium on satisfaction of creditors' claims.
Currently, when a UK airline enters insolvency, its operations cease, aeroplanes are grounded and passengers are stranded – in part due to the heavy industry regulation and, in part, because of complex aeroplane financing arrangements. Any operational continuity enabling the repatriation of passengers would be a loss-making activity likely to deplete the amount of money available to the company’s creditors; a result that would be contrary to the aim of UK insolvency processes in general. This starkly contrasts with insolvent U.S. airlines, all of which have been in U.S.
Despite discussion in 2019 about corporate insolvency reforms and the reintroduction of the Crown Preference for certain tax debts, the Queens Speech on 19 December 2019 did not indicate any concrete plans to legislate for these areas this year. Airline insolvency, however, has made the list for 2020.
Why is airline insolvency a priority?
Tamara Oppenheimer, Rebecca Loveridge and Samuel Rabinowitz, Fountain Court Chambers
This is an extract from the fourth edition of GIR's The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations. The whole publication is available here.
35.1Introduction
The liquidation of Thomas Cook Group last month – and the ensuing cancellation of all flights and repatriation of 140,000+ customers – has prompted fresh scrutiny of the UK’s approach to airline insolvency.
Commissioned shortly after the Monarch Airlines collapse in October 2017, the UK Government's Airline Insolvency Review has published its Final Report. This article looks at how the Report's recommendations – if implemented - would impact passenger protection if, in the future, airlines become insolvent and what these recommendations mean for airlines.
The Government’s final report on how to deal with insolvent airlines has been criticised by major UK carriers for its headline-grabbing suggestion of a new Flight Protection Scheme which would see a levy of about 50p put on customer fares to cover the costs of any future repatriation exercise. But the implications of the report are potentially far more significant and wide-ranging for all stakeholders.
On closer analysis, the report could see changes in: