Irish Court Approves Rescue Scheme For Irish-based Aircraft Lessor Nordic Aviation

M
Matheson

Contributor

Established in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland and with offices in Cork, London, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco, more than 700 people work across Matheson’s six offices, including 96 partners and tax principals and over 470 legal and tax professionals. Matheson services the legal needs of internationally focused companies and financial institutions doing business in and from Ireland. Our clients include over half of the world’s 50 largest banks, 6 of the world’s 10 largest asset managers, 7 of the top 10 global technology brands and we have advised the majority of the Fortune 100.
The High Court recently in an ex tempore (unwritten) judgment (to be followed by a more detailed written judgment) approved a scheme of arrangement under Part 9 of the Companies Act 2014 in...
Ireland Transport
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The High Court recently in an ex tempore (unwritten) judgment (to be followed by a more detailed written judgment) approved a scheme of arrangement under Part 9 of the Companies Act 2014 in what may be a template for future restructurings in the aviation sector and a further example, following on from the Weatherford and Ballantyne cases, of the Irish courts' willingness to facilitate large international restructurings.

The case concerned the Nordic Aviation group, the largest regional aircraft lessor and the fifth largest aircraft lessor globally.

A scheme of arrangement under Part 9 of the Companies Act 2014 is very similar to a scheme of arrangement under the law of England and Wales. It is a flexible restructuring tool, requiring the approval of at least 75% in value and a majority in number of affected classes of creditors and court sanction to be binding. A significant distinction between such scheme of arrangement and its counterpart in England and Wales is that the court may on application grant a moratorium with regard to creditor actions to facilitate approval of the scheme. This is a feature of examinership also, the more widely used restructuring process in Ireland, which also, perhaps confusingly, entails use of a scheme of arrangement.

Although ultimately unopposed, the judgment of the High Court clarified a number of matters, including the following.

It re-affirmed, following Ballantyne, the ability to affect third party liabilities. It went one step further than the court in Ballantyne in that the company which proposed the scheme was the guarantor of the relevant liabilities and the third parties were the principal creditors.
Following case-law in England and Wales, it confirmed that the order approving the scheme was a judgment enforceable under the Brussels Regulation.
It held that, because of the overwhelming creditor support the scheme received, it did not constitute a non-consensual restriction on an enforcement remedy for the purposes of Article XI of Alternative A of the Aircraft Protocol to the Capetown Convention.

It is proposed that recognition of the order under chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code will be sought.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More