Avinco and Airbus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avinco and Airbus
Too early to make any real understanding on this story.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uardian-expose
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uardian-expose
There is more
Too early to make any real understanding on this story.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uardian-expose
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uardian-expose
In Autumn 2016 Eolia called Avinco holding to court because of strange shareholder transactions, resulting in doubts who was actually managing the 74% Avinco ownership. At same time it was contemplated to liquidate Avinco. Eolia wanted to protect their 26% ownership.
Court put a interim manager in place.
(To be continued)
Avinco is also the company who is to remarket the 21 ex-CHC H225.
https://www.rotor.org/Publications/R...per-Pumas.aspx
For me it is yet unclear on behalf of who Avinco is re-marketing as I do not believe It is 1 leasing company owning all 21.
Cheer SLB
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Monaco
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too early to make any real understanding on this story.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uardian-expose
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uardian-expose
Avinco's operational companies, business, staff and management are not implicated in this article’s allegations which specifically refer to Avinco shareholders.
Quick internet search gave following:
In Autumn 2016 Eolia called Avinco holding to court because of strange shareholder transactions, resulting in doubts who was actually managing the 74% Avinco ownership. At same time it was contemplated to liquidate Avinco. Eolia wanted to protect their 26% ownership.
Court put a interim manager in place.
(To be continued)
Avinco is also the company who is to remarket the 21 ex-CHC H225.
https://www.rotor.org/Publications/R...per-Pumas.aspx
For me it is yet unclear on behalf of who Avinco is re-marketing as I do not believe It is 1 leasing company owning all 21.
Cheer SLB
In Autumn 2016 Eolia called Avinco holding to court because of strange shareholder transactions, resulting in doubts who was actually managing the 74% Avinco ownership. At same time it was contemplated to liquidate Avinco. Eolia wanted to protect their 26% ownership.
Court put a interim manager in place.
(To be continued)
Avinco is also the company who is to remarket the 21 ex-CHC H225.
https://www.rotor.org/Publications/R...per-Pumas.aspx
For me it is yet unclear on behalf of who Avinco is re-marketing as I do not believe It is 1 leasing company owning all 21.
Cheer SLB
Avinco is mandated to remarket 21 super pumas on behalf of its owners, a banking consortium.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazdaság: Bull**** castle: felmelegített korrupciógyanús ügyek az Airbus bezárt részlegénél - HVG.hu
The Google English translation has some interesting bits.
The Google English translation has some interesting bits.
All this is related to the fact that Airbus has operated a special department with the aim of obtaining orders of great value. CEO Tom Endres, who came to the company in 2012, christened the department that had just terminated it, with Bulli**** Castle, which brought a lot of orders to Airbus, mainly in the Middle East. Where corruption is the normal course of business.
But in both America and Great Britain, laws have been passed that allow law enforcement agencies to look for ways to get the best-selling domestic companies with foreign markets. This is why British Bureau of Exceptional High Scams has stated that Airbust has been targeted. And of course because, before 2012, 80 percent of state export subsidies were pocketed by this company. But what did these money spend with Airbus? Which, of course, has strong cards in Britain with more than 15,000 people.
But in both America and Great Britain, laws have been passed that allow law enforcement agencies to look for ways to get the best-selling domestic companies with foreign markets. This is why British Bureau of Exceptional High Scams has stated that Airbust has been targeted. And of course because, before 2012, 80 percent of state export subsidies were pocketed by this company. But what did these money spend with Airbus? Which, of course, has strong cards in Britain with more than 15,000 people.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick search of the Avinco contacts list will probably reveal all. But like monacoheligirl says there will be some good people there, not all who had filled that Castle with Bulls**t.
The structure and ownership of the company certainly looks very dodgy and the usual reason for this, as we all probably know, is to circumvent some sort of tax or business ethics.
The structure and ownership of the company certainly looks very dodgy and the usual reason for this, as we all probably know, is to circumvent some sort of tax or business ethics.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeliHub.com Airbus takes H225 to Helitech
Airbus takes H225 to Helitech
Airbus takes H225 to Helitech 2 Oct, 17, Source: HeliHub.com
Airbus Helicopters have brought an H225 to the Helitech International show which starts tomorrow at the ExCeL exhibition centre close to London City Airport. The helicopter touched down around 11.15L this morning. In an attempt to improve the PR surrounding the helicopter type, Airbus has brought an example which they have had stored at the factory at Marignane for a number of months. HeliHub.com owner Jeremy Parkin saw the aircraft there on a factory visit in February 2017, and we understand it is one of four unallocated “white tail” airframes owned by leasing company Milestone. All four of these aircraft are on the German civil aircraft register.
While the H225 as a type has had its approval to fly restored by EASA, the outcome of the April 2016 accident to a CHC aircraft in Norway has not yet been announced by AIBN, the Accident Investigation Board Norway. Once the results of that process have been published, and any further modifications set in place resulting from that document, it will then be an elongated process for the operators, oil exploration companies and oil worker unions to reach an agreement for the type to be flying once again. Some oil companies, notably StatOil, have already stated that they will not allow their staff to fly in an H225 in the future.
HeliHub.com research suggests that 140 H225s are currently stored, including lease hand-backs. 21 of these are owned by leasing company Parilease, part of French bank BNP Paribas. These are, in turn, being marketed by Avinco, previously thought to be an independent company but recently revealed as a company “in the control of Airbus”.
Airbus takes H225 to Helitech
Airbus takes H225 to Helitech 2 Oct, 17, Source: HeliHub.com
Airbus Helicopters have brought an H225 to the Helitech International show which starts tomorrow at the ExCeL exhibition centre close to London City Airport. The helicopter touched down around 11.15L this morning. In an attempt to improve the PR surrounding the helicopter type, Airbus has brought an example which they have had stored at the factory at Marignane for a number of months. HeliHub.com owner Jeremy Parkin saw the aircraft there on a factory visit in February 2017, and we understand it is one of four unallocated “white tail” airframes owned by leasing company Milestone. All four of these aircraft are on the German civil aircraft register.
While the H225 as a type has had its approval to fly restored by EASA, the outcome of the April 2016 accident to a CHC aircraft in Norway has not yet been announced by AIBN, the Accident Investigation Board Norway. Once the results of that process have been published, and any further modifications set in place resulting from that document, it will then be an elongated process for the operators, oil exploration companies and oil worker unions to reach an agreement for the type to be flying once again. Some oil companies, notably StatOil, have already stated that they will not allow their staff to fly in an H225 in the future.
HeliHub.com research suggests that 140 H225s are currently stored, including lease hand-backs. 21 of these are owned by leasing company Parilease, part of French bank BNP Paribas. These are, in turn, being marketed by Avinco, previously thought to be an independent company but recently revealed as a company “in the control of Airbus”.
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Paris
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The board of Avinco Group Holdings NV was replaced in January 2016. The recently appointed directors were the subject of a court case for mismanagement by the directors of Eolia Ltd in the autumn of 2106.
The Eolia team had been involved with Airbus SMO on "secret projects" since 2003 acting at the highest level in Airbus (dixit Ian Whitehall in front of the court in Amsterdam). it should be noted that Ian Whitehall, now officially a partner in Eolia, appeared to have the external lawyer who structured the various transactions under suspicion from 2003 to 2008, involving Airbus, Eolia and Avinco.
A forensic investigation was conducted at the request of the directors of Avinco Group Holdings NV in 2016 and 2017 and the report given to the court in Amsterdam. The court dismissed the allegations of mismanagement by the directors of Avinco Group Holdings NV, which had just been recently appointed.
You will find below a summary of some main points of the compliance report:
1. Eolia Limited was created with a capital of USD1,500.
2. Eolia Limited appeared to have been funded through loans/advances from Airbus, as well as bank guarantees provided by Airbus through the French investment bank Calyon.
3. Income from Airbus related entity were allegedly transferred to Eolia Limited and Eolia trading thus concealing the true sources and subsequent use of funds.
4. Loans from Airbus to Eolia Limited representing around USD 31 million was never repaid and never intended to be repaid, as the transaction had been structured to allow the transfer of the proceeds by Airbus as part of the operations of the SMO.
5.Despite having injected no capital (US$1,500) and the Eolia group making significant losses, the Eolia team got remunerated very generously by Airbus:
Two members of the Eolia team were paid respectively US$5.7 million and US$1.4 million.
The legal fees paid represented US$5.8 million, part of it was use to remunerate Ian Whitehall, who was then a partner at the law firm Burges Salmon and who is now officially the third partner in Eolia.
The judgement noted that in the submission to the court, Eolia had failed to disclose that it was in discussion with Airbus to obtain a settlement from Airbus and failed to disclose that Eolia had been funded and controlled by Airbus through a mechanism of Put and Call with Projic 9 SAS, an Airbus subsidiary. These points were admitted by Ian Whitehall following specific questions raised by the judges.
The judges also wondered why Eolia was asking the recently appointed directors to explain a transaction which had taken place 8 years before their appointment, while the Eolia team was part of the original transactions.
The judges asked whether Eolia, represented by Ian Whitehall which admitted being in direct and frequent contacts with Airbus to obtain a settlement from Airbus, had not instead asked the question to Airbus directly.
Last, Ian Whitehall had also been a director of Airbus Group Limited in England previously.
The Eolia team had been involved with Airbus SMO on "secret projects" since 2003 acting at the highest level in Airbus (dixit Ian Whitehall in front of the court in Amsterdam). it should be noted that Ian Whitehall, now officially a partner in Eolia, appeared to have the external lawyer who structured the various transactions under suspicion from 2003 to 2008, involving Airbus, Eolia and Avinco.
A forensic investigation was conducted at the request of the directors of Avinco Group Holdings NV in 2016 and 2017 and the report given to the court in Amsterdam. The court dismissed the allegations of mismanagement by the directors of Avinco Group Holdings NV, which had just been recently appointed.
You will find below a summary of some main points of the compliance report:
1. Eolia Limited was created with a capital of USD1,500.
2. Eolia Limited appeared to have been funded through loans/advances from Airbus, as well as bank guarantees provided by Airbus through the French investment bank Calyon.
3. Income from Airbus related entity were allegedly transferred to Eolia Limited and Eolia trading thus concealing the true sources and subsequent use of funds.
4. Loans from Airbus to Eolia Limited representing around USD 31 million was never repaid and never intended to be repaid, as the transaction had been structured to allow the transfer of the proceeds by Airbus as part of the operations of the SMO.
5.Despite having injected no capital (US$1,500) and the Eolia group making significant losses, the Eolia team got remunerated very generously by Airbus:
Two members of the Eolia team were paid respectively US$5.7 million and US$1.4 million.
The legal fees paid represented US$5.8 million, part of it was use to remunerate Ian Whitehall, who was then a partner at the law firm Burges Salmon and who is now officially the third partner in Eolia.
The judgement noted that in the submission to the court, Eolia had failed to disclose that it was in discussion with Airbus to obtain a settlement from Airbus and failed to disclose that Eolia had been funded and controlled by Airbus through a mechanism of Put and Call with Projic 9 SAS, an Airbus subsidiary. These points were admitted by Ian Whitehall following specific questions raised by the judges.
The judges also wondered why Eolia was asking the recently appointed directors to explain a transaction which had taken place 8 years before their appointment, while the Eolia team was part of the original transactions.
The judges asked whether Eolia, represented by Ian Whitehall which admitted being in direct and frequent contacts with Airbus to obtain a settlement from Airbus, had not instead asked the question to Airbus directly.
Last, Ian Whitehall had also been a director of Airbus Group Limited in England previously.
