Court orders Virgin
aircraft engines to fly home to Florida
The Virgin Airlines insolvency has shed new light upon
aircraft repossession procedure under the Cape Town
Convention. In Wells Fargo Trust Company, National
Association (trustee) v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (administrators
appointed) [2020] FCA 1269 (3 September 2020), Justice
Middleton in the Federal Court of Australia, decided two
issues:
- The meaning of “shall give possession of the
aircraft object to the creditor” in the context of Art
XI of Protocol to the Convention on International
Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to
Aircraft Equipment (the “Aircraft Protocol” to the
“Cape Town Convention”); and
- The relief from liability of an insolvency
administrator who disclaims property in aircraft engines
subject to lease under a Notice given under s 443B of
the Corporations Act 2001.
This is an analysis:
Background
Between May and September 2019, Wells Fargo Trust (the
legal owner) entered into four General Terms Engine
Lease Agreements, each to lease one aircraft engine and
various other aircraft objects (Engine Stands, QEC
units, including Engine records) to VB Leaseco.
Each engine had at least 24,000 pounds of thrust and
was used on Boeing 737 aircraft. The agreed value of
equipment (the engines and objects) is US$40,000,000.
At the same time, Willis Lease Finance (the beneficial
owner) entered into Engine Lease Support Agreements with
VB Leaseco. VB Leaseco subleased the engines and
equipment to Virgin Australia Airlines. This was a cross
border transaction as Wells Fargo and Willis are based
in the USA. On 20 April 2020, insolvency
administrators were appointed to the Virgin Australia
Group, which included VB Leasco and Virgin Australia
Airlines. Willis requested the delivery up of the
engines and the equipment.
On 16 June 2020, the administrators’ immunity of
liability for rent and other obligations under the
agreements expired.
On 16 June 2020, the administrators issued a property
disclaimer Notice to Willis under s 443B(3) of the
Corporations Act (Cth) disclaiming liability under the
leases, advising that the engines which were “on the
wing of” four separate Virgin Airlines aircraft in
Adelaide and Melbourne, were available for collection,
and that they were insured until 30 June 2020.
On 30 June 2020, Wells Fargo and Willis filed an
Originating Application in the Federal Court of
Australia seeking orders for delivery up of the engines
and equipment to their Coconut Creek Facility in
Florida, USA.
‘Giving possession’ of an aircraft object under the Cape
Town Convention Article XI – Remedies on
insolvency, is the relevant part of the Aircraft
Protocol. It was legislated in Australia as
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town
Convention) Act 2013 (Cth), which came into effect
on 1 September 2015. The provisions prevail over local
law, to the extent of inconsistency. These are some
extracts:
- Upon the occurrence of an insolvency-related
event, the insolvency administrator or the debtor,
as applicable, shall, subject to paragraph 7, give
possession of the aircraft object to the creditor no
later than the earlier of:
(a) the end of the waiting period; and
(b) the date on which the creditor would be
entitled to possession of the aircraft object
if this Article did not apply.
(Note: Australia has adopted Alternative A and has
declared 60 days to be the “waiting period”)
- Unless and until the creditor is given the
opportunity to take possession under paragraph
2:
(a) the insolvency administrator or the
debtor, as applicable, shall preserve the
aircraft object and maintain it and its value in
accordance with the agreement; and
(b) the creditor shall be entitled to
apply for any other forms of interim relief
available under the applicable law.
(Note: “aircraft object” is defined to include
“aircraft engines” which includes “all modules
and other installed, incorporated or attached
accessories, parts and equipment and all data,
manuals and records relating thereto”.
Wells Fargo argued that “shall give
possession” required delivery of the aircraft
engines and equipment to its facility in the
United States (at the administrator’s cost).
The administrators agued it only required it to
make the engines and equipment available for
collection on as ‘as is, where is’ basis. The
Court concluded:
“The advantages of the Convention and
Aircraft Protocol are predictability and
enforceability, as well as reducing the
risks for creditors (and consequently the
borrowing costs of debtors) through the
resulting improved legal certainty.” “By
their nature, aircraft engines have no fixed
location, and different legal systems have
different approaches to such matters like
securities and repossession remedies. The
Convention and Aircraft Protocol were
intended to ensure that interests (in, for
example, aircraft engines) were “recognised
and protected universally”, as indicated in
the preamble to the Convention.” [Judgment,
paragraph 10] “In my view, to interpret
the relevant words, namely “shall … give
possession of the aircraft object to the
creditor”, as requiring redelivery in the
manner ordered in these proceedings, which
is effectively in accordance with the terms
of the lease agreements, is consistent with
the ordinary meaning of the phrase, the
contractual bargain reached between the
parties, the context in which the phrase is
found in the Convention and Aircraft
Protocol, and their object and purpose.”
[Judgment, paragraph 9]
The Court ordered:
- The administrators to “give possession”
of the “aircraft objects” by transporting
them consistent with the applicable engine
manufacturer’s procedures for removal and
the terms of the Engine Leases, to Willis’
facility in Florida on or before 15 October
2020.
- Until possession is given, the
administrators are to maintain the engines
and to maintain insurance cover over the
aircraft objects to the same extent as when
they were appointed.
The
relief from liability of the insolvency
administrator On 16 June 2020,
the administrators issued a s 443B Notice
which enclosed a Form 509B ‘Notice of
Administrators’ Intention Not to Exercise
Property Rights’, and advised that they did
“not intend to exercise any of their rights
in respect of the property identified in the
enclosed”. The administrators argued that
the Notice was sufficient to comply with its
obligation to give possession in a
“commercially reasonable” manner. The Court
held the Notice was not valid.
The Court concluded:
The s 443B(3) Notice did not serve
the purpose for which it was purportedly
given, and on this basis was ineffective
according to its terms as at 16 June
2020. It was of no effect to discharge
the obligations on the Respondents under
Art XI of the Aircraft Protocol.
[Judgment, paragraph 158] The
Administrators have acted reasonably and
were always willing to provide practical
assistance to the Applicants to assist
in the recovery of the aircraft objects.
Whilst the s 443B(3) Notice was of no
effect, this was upon the basis that the
Notice (and for that matter the
subsequent conduct of the
Administrators) did not fulfil the
obligations under Art XI(2), and any
deficiencies in the s 443B(3) Notice
were inadvertent, although still in my
view of sufficient significance to
invalidate the s 443B(3) Notice.
[Judgment, paragraph 159] I consider
on the basis of the principles that
apply to granting relief under s 443B(8)
and s 447A, the Court should grant [the
administrators] relief [from liability
to pay rent and other amounts payable
under the Leases] from the period 16
June 2020 to 20 October 2020 (the period
of time allowed to arrange and give
possession of the aircraft objects).
[Judgment, paragraph 160]. The Court
will make an Order so that the costs
incurred by the Applicants are
recoverable as costs in the
administrations of the First, Second and
Fourth Respondents. [Judgment, paragraph
194]
Conclusions It’s a long and
expensive flight from Melbourne to Atlanta,
then by road to Florida. But that is what
the Federal Court of Australia ordered the
administrator to carry out for the four
leased CFM International Aircraft Engines,
their cradles and bases, Historical Operator
Records, End of Lease Operator
Records/Status Statements and Lease
Inspection Records.
The cost will be borne by the insolvency
administrators of the Virgin Australia Group
as an administration cost, reducing the pool
of funds available to unsecured creditors.
The issue litigated, whether “shall give
possession” under Article XI (2) of the
Aircraft Protocol to the Cape Town
Convention is to make available or to
deliver up aircraft objects, is unusual
given that aircraft equipment lessors will
usually act quickly to repossess to preserve
their asset when the lessee becomes
insolvent, as opposed to insisting on
delivery according to their lease.
The explanation in this case is that the
mass cancellations of flights caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic means there is no demand
for aircraft engines - no quick sale.
Provided they are well maintained and
insured, there is no reason to repossess.
Willis decided that it was preferable to
have the insolvency administrators deliver
up the aircraft engines in accordance with
the terms of the lease, at their cost.
But it’s not a free ride for aircraft
lessors. In this case, the Court relieved
the insolvency administrators from liability
for rent and other amounts payable under the
leases because they had acted reasonably.
The administrators, in the Report to
Creditors of the Virgin Australia Group
dated 25 August 2020 (before the judgment
was handed down), said:
“We anticipate that judgment will be in
favour of Willis. Should the judgment be as
anticipated, we intend to seek an expedited
appeal.” This is an unusual comment for
the administrators to make. It indicates
that the significance of the court ruling
extends beyond Wells Fargo and Willis. Other
financiers and lessors whose aircraft and
accessories are not required by the new
owner of the Virgin Australia Group and who
have requested delivery up of their assets
will benefit from this ruling. |