"Virgin Australia Mk II could launch in as little as three months"

[Paragraph377]

Originally Posted by exfocx

I'm with Sunfish on this "holding a/c thingy". Not only may the agreement be worthless if the a/c are leased the actual owner cannot be held liable for the a/p loss.

I think AsA had some success on liens back in the Compass 1 & 2 days, but I pretty certain back them the gov had written that into legislation. If my memory is correct there was an uproar when they held the a/c and demanded payment from the lessors. Cannot recall how this panned out.

Has anybody had a read of Perth airports Terms of Condition or Terms of Reference? There would normally be a legal clause written into the Document, basically advising tenants and users that if you fail to pay us we will seize your assets - planes, GSE, office infrastructure etc. The Tenant, in this case VA, should have at some stage received a copy of the TOR and signed in agreement. Now if the Perth TOR says ‘we will take a lien against your shiny toys if you go tits up’ and VA signed off on that, then the airport have a legal right to do what they have done. But if VA didn’t sign off on the document or if there was nothing in the document that refers to placing a lien on aircraft in the event of unpaid bills then Perth airport has possibly broken the law. It becomes a very complex matter and I’m not a qualified Solicitor so who knows exactly what is in the fine print.

What I do know is Perth airport has done itself reputational damage. And why hasn’t the brave Scottis CEO tried to pull the same stunt on the Irish toad at QF? Both CEO’s are proud, conceited narcissists so it would be fun to watch the two in a battle Royale. Kevin Brown, as proud and as conceited as he is, has a very small set of jewels and will always back down from a fight or send a woman out to do the dirty work. He will always make sure a fallguy is in arms reach so I think Deb Blasken ought to watch her back because if the heat in the kitchen becomes too great, the spineless Scotsman will let her take the fall for him. Beware of buses Deb, you might end up beneath one.

[Sunfish]

Para337, the point of my earlier post was that just because Virgin may have signed an agreement doesn’t necessarily make all its clauses enforceable and legal.

Perth Airport may have a clause saying they can chop you aeroplane into little pieces if you don’t pay your bill, I’ve had agreements with stupid clauses like that offered to me many times. All it demonstrates is that the other party and her lawyer are idiots.

Yes, there may be mediation clauses but ultimately if there is a dispute, both parties can argue their case in court and a judge will TELL you what you will do - and that might be very different from what the agreement says.

I guess we will find out shortly. The only thing for sure is that lawyers and accountants will be big winners.

[Denied Justice]

The only thing for sure is that lawyers and accountants will be big winners.

With a voluntary administration and possible receivership ahead, this will nett Deloitte a windfall.

[B772]

TBM-Legend and mrs nomer: I did not refer to or mention payment, only supply.

[Icarus2001]

It is illegal for anyone to refuse supply to the administrator except for certain assets.

I did not refer to or mention payment, only supply.

Interesting idea, where do you get that idea from?

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/ant...ts-or-services

[rattman]

Originally Posted by B772

Strobes on. Effectively Virgin are out of business, there can be no rush by creditors. The business is under administration. It is illegal for anyone to refuse supply to the administrator except for certain assets.

God you no nothing about business or contract law. Stop talking about stuff you know less than nothing about.

[Forced Labor]

B772 - I think you are way off the mark. Suppliers are able to refuse supply. The only exceptions are contained in the reference above.

there can be no rush by creditors

Creditors most certainly can decide on a course of action that may not align with the administrators views.

[non_state_actor]

From the publically available photos it appears that all the aircraft that have supposedly been impounded are owned by banks or leasing companies. So other than some cheap PR airports won't be getting a cent. If it all goes bad the leasing companies will just come and fly them off into storage somewhere.

[wheels_down]

Any successful backer is going to have to pour in, what, $2b bucks?

I just can’t see it. How is this even possible? Not even equity giants are this stupid.

[Icarus2001]

Creditors most certainly can decide on a course of action that may not align with the administrators views

Forced Labor, I think that is the single most important sentence in this whole thread. Spot on.

There is not even any guarantee that these particular administrators, being Deloitte, will be approved by the creditors.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Icarus2001

Forced Labor, I think that is the single most important sentence in this whole thread. Spot on.

There is not even any guarantee that these particular administrators, being Deloitte, will be approved by the creditors.

While its a voluntary administration they cant be removed (except by the board or the courts), soon as its an involuntary its get resolved at the first creditors meeting

[Turnleft080]

Any successful backer is going to have to pour in, what, $2b bucks?
I just can’t see it. How is this even possible? Not even equity giants are this stupid.

However, in the past history of airline flying (about 100 years) if ever your going into
voluntary admin now is the time. It couldn't be more perfect. The whole world is depressed.
Backers need to back something to get out of this slump. Lessors can't afford to have their
aircraft back either because no other airline need any more. It's another perspective.

[Icarus2001]

https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resou...tors/#meetings

While its a voluntary administration they cant be removed (except by the board or the courts)

Are you sure about that? Not according to ASIC. It is up to a vote of the creditors.

[Paragraph377]

Perth airport still in the news with some other tidbits reported on today. One of Joyce’s gripes was this;“Mr Joyce has claimed the disputed Perth fees amounted to a 40 per cent rise over five years which they were very unhappy about shelling out for. I can’t see us flying from Perth to Paris before 2022. Had we not had this dispute we could have been flying the route by early 2020.”
Funny thing is that the Perth airport CEO, Kevin Brown was a Managing Director at Edinburgh airport and all he did was increase fees, charges and public car parking costs. He was not popular and finally walked. He then did the same when he was CEO for Cairns and Mackay airports, plus he closed down Cairns second runway to drive out small operators. Once again, he bolted after receiving a ‘please explain’ by some JP Morgan’s suits in New York. Of course, here we go again, he has been at Perth for 4 years and fees and charges have been ruthlessly jacked up. When oh when are they going to punt this kilt wearing numpty. The egghead is bad for long term business.

[exfocx]

Originally Posted by Paragraph377

Has anybody had a read of Perth airports Terms of Condition or Terms of Reference? There would normally be a legal clause written into the Document, basically advising tenants and users that if you fail to pay us we will seize your assets - planes, GSE, office infrastructure etc. The Tenant, in this case VA, should have at some stage received a copy of the TOR and signed in agreement. Now if the Perth TOR says ‘we will take a lien against your shiny toys if you go tits up’ and VA signed off on that, then the airport have a legal right to do what they have done. But if VA didn’t sign off on the document or if there was nothing in the document that refers to placing a lien on aircraft in the event of unpaid bills then Perth airport has possibly broken the law. It becomes a very complex matter and I’m not a qualified Solicitor so who knows exactly what is in the fine print..............................................

I'm not a lawyer either, but with regards any T&C if those A/C are leased VA does not own them, and I'm reasonably certain VA cannot commit those leased A/C in any way, just as they could not use them as collateral for any finance as they are not the owner. A lease is just a fancy word for RENT, you don't have any right over a rented car or any rented property other than that permitted by law. That's the point I was making about Compass 1 or 2, the gov had passed legislation.

STOP PRESS:

Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airser...nal_LtdBetween December 1990 and December 1991 Compass Airlines Pty Ltd ("Compass") carried on business as an Australian domestic airline. The business subsequently failed, and in December 1991 Compass went into provisional liquidation. The aircraft operated by Compass were leased from Canadian Airlines International Ltd.

At the relevant time, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 contained provisions relating to the imposition of charges for services and facilities provided to airline operators. The legislation also created a statutory lien over aircraft to secure payment of such charges. At the time Compass went into provisional liquidation, it owed the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA, later "Airservices Australia") substantial amounts in respect of charges and penalties payable in respect of the operations of each of the leased aircraft. The CAA invoked its statutory liens. Each respondent paid, under protest, the charges and penalties claimed to be owing in respect of each aircraft. Upon receipt of those payments, the CAA discharged the liens it asserted. The amounts were paid pursuant to agreements which entitled the respondents to recover the moneys, together with interest, if it were to be held that, as against the respondents, the liens did not validly secure payment of the charges, or for any reason the liens, or the charges, or both, were, in whole or in part, illegal, void or unenforceable.

In the Federal Court Canadian Airlines successfully contended that the charges contravened section 67 of the Act, in that they amounted to taxation. Airservices Australia subsequently appealed the decision.

Decision[edit]

The High Court held there was no discernible relationship between Airservices Australia and the services received by Canadian Airlines. The method of calculation meant the amount paid by Canadian Airlines was not in proportion to their use of the services. Expert testimony said that the method of calculation to establish the payments owed was the best possible allocation. As a consequence the court decided it was a fee and not a tax.

The court held that there has to be a discernible relationship between the fee paid and the service provided, though they relaxed the requirement somewhat because the fee paid by Canadian Airlines was not in proportion to their use of services. There was however, a bona fide attempt to recover the costs, and it was the only way to spread the cost among the spectrum of airlines and users. Ultimately there is no need for actual correlation between services used and the charge imposed.

There has been no agreement between the A/C owner and Perth Airport, I doubt this nothing but a cat & mouse game.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by Icarus2001

https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resou...tors/#meetings



Are you sure about that? Not according to ASIC. It is up to a vote of the creditors.

Didn't realise there had to be a creditors meeting for voluntary, thought it (creditors meeting) only had to be with 7 8 days of involuntary. That said there was some talk that kordamentha might be taking over but the unions and a few other creditors have said they are happy with deloite atm. So that would mean the first creditors meeting must be very soon

[Icarus2001]

I believe the first creditors meeting is this Thursday 30 April. They applied to the court to allow a video conference.

[Section28- BE]

First Creditors Meeting- Thursday, 30/04/2020: 11:00 AEST.

Ex 'the' Administrators (as appointed by VAH), Thursday at 11:00 AEST is THE GO TIME.

Link HERE: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/da...ors-220420.pdf

Extract here (and 'it' wont come across as formatted...):

"First Meeting of Creditors:

The first meeting of creditors has been convened for:
Date Thursday, 30 April 2020
Meeting time11:00 AM (AEST)
This meeting will only be held virtually to adhere to government policies in place due to COVID-19.That is, no physical meeting place will be available. Further details regarding on how to participate at the meeting will be provided in due course.

The purpose of this meeting is to consider:

1. our appointment.

2. whether to appoint a Committee of Inspection.

Attendance at meeting:

Attendance at this meeting is not compulsory.
Due to COVID-19 restrictions we require all creditors we require all creditors to provide documentation via email."

So, Rock On- with

‘majority in number and value’

, and 'own' the show/your own destiny- fix all the impounded Hulls and whatever else 'Ails' you, at This time- 1x shot, and/as the 'game' shall be 'loaded'......

At least nil Chains around MLG Legs- YET....

'Nod/Hat-Tip', toward Mr Icarus- patience of 'A Saint', should that be acceptable........

Rgds
S28- BE

[Superman1]

Will the meeting be viewable to anyone or invited attendees only?

[t_cas]

Originally Posted by Superman1

Will the meeting be viewable to anyone or invited attendees only?

If you are not party to the business, or.creditor, you have no need to attend the meeting.
Except, of course, to feed the ongoing bloodlust that seems to be prevalent in this forum. The government have not provided a loan, so it is no longer public interest...!
move along to the next tragedy about to materialize.