The first 225 shucking its Rotorhead may not....but the second occurrence damn sure did.
Management would be blind to the obvious if they took any other view of the situation.
How they analyzed the potential impact re contracts and warranties, etc would be the key to whether they misstated the situation in SEC Reports and a review of that process might determine if there was willful misrepresentation.
I am sure that issue and others shall be fully examined by the various and many Legal Actions filed recently.
Re the 225's.....if a subsidiary owns the aircraft and leases them to the operational unit....BRS still owns those dog houses and the associated costs.
As they are not flying....and the purchase payments are probably still on-going, though possibly offset somewhat by claims against Airbus (if ever paid by Airbus)....it still must be a massive hit cost wise.
How does one break a Lease Agreement with one's own self?