You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 27, 2020

COVID-19 and Aircraft Leases: Lessor Options under Thai law

Subscribe to Updates

The COVID-19 outbreak has had a devastating effect on Thailand’s aviation industry. Both international and domestic flights have been dramatically curtailed or stopped altogether. When operations do resume, it is uncertain how many passengers will actually fly because of virus fears and economic impacts. Meanwhile, while airlines’ revenue drops, their expenses continue. A lack of cash flow has resulted in airlines resorting to laying off employees or having their employees take leave without pay.

Under these unprecedented social and economic conditions, airlines who lease aircraft may face severe challenges making rental and maintenance reserve payments to lessors. Lessors must be prepared for lessee defaults, and even bankruptcy. In such circumstances, lessors have a number of options under Thai law. 

Payment restructuring

Payment restructuring may be a viable option for lessors and lessees, depending on the terms of the lease agreement and the parties’ commercial positions. Under this option, a lessor and lessee can agree to restructure the amount and timing of rental and maintenance reserve payments. For example, a lessor may permit an airline to defer rental payments until an agreed upon future time when business is expected to improve. A lessor may also consider lowering the rental payments and applying the security deposit to make up the difference, or any combination that is doable for the parties. 

Thai law is flexible in this regard and recognizes the parties’ right to contract. The Thai courts and the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) will generally allow any payment restructuring arrangement agreed by the parties, so long as the new arrangement forms a valid contract and does not contravene the law. As a practical matter, if there are any guarantee agreements associated with the lease, it is recommended that the guarantors give their consent to the new restructuring arrangement.   

Repossession

If a payment restructuring agreement cannot be reached, or is not a feasible option, a lessor may seek to repossess the aircraft upon a lessee’s default. Thailand’s normal repossession procedures would apply here. A lessor may apply to the CAAT to deregister the aircraft, or obtain the lessee’s consent to voluntarily deregister and return the aircraft. Obtaining a lessee’s consent is the fastest, easiest, and usually cheapest option. However, if the lessee refuses to return the aircraft, a lessor must seek CAAT intervention.

Pursuant to CAAT Regulation No. 11, which became effective on August 6, 2018, the director-general of the CAAT has authority to deregister an aircraft on various grounds, including if the lessee’s possessory right to the aircraft has expired for any of the following reasons:

  • The lease agreement has expired due to the lease term;
  • The lease agreement has been terminated by either the lessor or the lessee;
  • The lessor and lessee agree to terminate the lease agreement;
  • The lessor notifies the CAAT of the termination of the lease agreement and submits an irrevocable deregistration power of attorney to them, together with an application requesting the exportation of the aircraft.

If a lessee defaults and the lessor terminates the lease, the lessor can submit a deregistration application to the CAAT, which includes, among other things, a deregistration power of attorney. The CAAT will then examine the application and decide how to proceed. If the CAAT concludes that the lease termination is valid and the lessee no longer has possessory rights, the CAAT will deregister the aircraft.

Litigation

If the CAAT declines to deregister the aircraft, or if a lessor also wants to pursue monetary damages against a lessee, the lessor must initiate legal action by filing a complaint in a Thai court, as the CAAT does not have the authority to award damages under the lease. Thailand does not enforce foreign court judgments, and enforcing a foreign arbitral award in Thailand with respect to aircraft deregistration is problematic since the CAAT only has express legal authority to deregister an aircraft based on a Thai court order. 

The case would thus need to be litigated until either settlement or judgment. If the court orders the lessee to deregister, the lessee will have a fixed deadline to comply. If the lessee fails to comply with the judgment, the lessor can present the judgment to the CAAT. The CAAT will then deregister the aircraft.

An important consideration before commencing litigation is whether the lessee will have assets to pay any judgment. Freezing assets is challenging under Thai law, and the COVID-19 situation will also likely drive down a lessee’s assets. By the time a case reaches judgment, the airline may not have any assets for the lessor to enforce.

Force majeure 

Due to the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, a lessee-airline may raise force majeure as a defense for not making lease payments. Thai law defines force majeure as an event that a party is not able to protect against, despite taking the appropriate level of care that should be reasonably expected in such event. Under this definition, when a debtor owes a debt to a creditor, the debtor is responsible to pay the debt, even during a disaster or economic crisis, since a disaster or economic crisis does not make it impossible to pay the amount owed.

However, if the debtor’s business is forced to close because of the law or a government order, and the debtor cannot pay its debt as scheduled, this could be considered an event that temporarily prevents the performance of the obligation. A debtor may raise this issue as a defense for default. A lessor must therefore carefully examine the circumstances of each lessee default to determine if force majeure truly applies. For example, if the lessee’s default was a direct result of the CAAT’s grounding of all of the lessee’s flights, force majeure may be invoked. If the lessee defaulted because of the economic crisis resulting from COVID-19 however, force majeure may not apply. 

Bankruptcy

Lessors should also consider the possibility that an airline may use bankruptcy law to seek protection. An airline may file a petition for business rehabilitation (i.e., reorganization) with the Central Bankruptcy Court. Under Thai bankruptcy law, an automatic stay on civil actions is imposed when the Bankruptcy Court accepts the rehabilitation petition. (The court’s acceptance of the petition does not mean that it is granting or allowing the airlines to enter rehabilitation. It just means that the court has agreed to decide whether to allow the airlines to enter rehabilitation.) 

The automatic stay also suspends all civil court proceedings against the debtor. The automatic stay will end if:

  1. the Bankruptcy Court dismisses the rehabilitation petition;
  2. the rehabilitation plan fails; or
  3. the rehabilitation plan succeeds and there is no need for a further automatic stay.

If the Bankruptcy Court allows an airline to enter rehabilitation, the automatic stay could potentially last for years while the rehabilitation plan is implemented.

The lessor has the option to object to the airline’s rehabilitation petition. If the lessor’s objection is successful, the court will dismiss the airline’s petition, and the lessor can repossess the aircraft. If the lessor chooses not to object, it can submit a claim as a creditor and join the rehabilitation process until the case’s conclusion. However, unless the lease term expires through the passage of time, the lessor cannot request the return of the aircraft from the Bankruptcy Court while the automatic stay is in place. 

Thai government measures 

The COVID-19 outbreak has upended the global aviation industry, Thailand included. To help support Thai airlines during this difficult time, the government has implemented the following assistance measures:   

  • 50% reduction in landing and parking fees for all Thai and foreign airlines from April 1 to December 31, 2020.
  • 50% reduction of the air navigation service charge for domestic flights and 20% for international flights.
  • Reduction of arrival and departure fee from THB 15 to THB 10 per passenger for all Thai and foreign airlines.
  • Reduction in jet fuel excise for domestic flights for Thai airlines from THB 4.726 (USD 0.15) per liter, which had been the rate for 24 years, to THB 0.20 (USD 0.01) per liter, up to the end of this year.
  • 50% reduction in office rental fees for Thai airlines.

In addition to the above aviation-specific measures, the government has also launched an overall corporate assistance package, including loan payment holidays, soft loans, and other fiscal and monetary incentives. Time will tell if these measures prove to be effective. However, in the meantime, lessors should consider preparing plans in case of default by their Thai airline customers.

Related Professionals

Industries

Aviation

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 28, 2024
Attorneys from the aviation team in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter for Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024 from Chambers and Partners. The guide covers the key legal issues affecting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in 37 jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the Thailand chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Vietnam chapter to Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024. The Thailand chapter provides in-depth details on the country’s legal regime affecting all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance, including sale and lease agreement terms; taxation; lease registration and enforcement; lease assignment/novation; insurance and reinsurance; debt structuring; securities; liens; and many other matters that have implications for day-to-day operations in the aviation industry. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with expert legal commentary focusing on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across a range of key jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024 is available as a PDF through the button below, courtesy of Chambers and Partners. The full guide is accessible for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
April 2, 2024
Aircraft lease agreements are commonly governed by the law of England and Wales, New York, or another common-law jurisdiction. This article examines the challenges of applying these and other foreign laws to an aircraft lease dispute in Thailand. The applicability of foreign law in Thailand is subject to the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481 (1938). Section 8 of the Conflict of Laws Act states, “Whenever the law of a foreign country which is to govern is not proved to the satisfaction of the court, the internal law of Thailand shall apply.” According to this section, the burden of proof is on the party that claims the foreign law. The claiming party must prove to the court the existence of the foreign law and how the law applies. However, in aircraft lease disputes, especially those that involve seizing or repossessing aircraft, generally only Thai law will apply. Seizing or repossessing an aircraft involves Thai government authorities such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) and the Airports of Thailand (AOT), among others, and these authorities will only comply with Thai law. Moreover, foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Thailand. This means that any action to seize or repossess an aircraft in Thailand must be initiated in Thailand and using Thai law. Foreign court judgments, however, can be used as evidence and may be helpful in convincing the CAAT or court that the lessor is entitled to repossess an aircraft, and in proving damages. The Thai laws relevant in a hostile repossession or seizure action include the Air Navigation Act, the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), and the Civil Proceedings Code (CPC). The CCC provides guidelines on contract termination and the rights of parties in lease agreements. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which a lessor can terminate
Read More
December 15, 2023
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2023. This guide outlines the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource for planning international business strategy and researching new markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand is available through the button below.
Read More
October 25, 2023
Sale and leaseback structures and pledges of an aircraft are primary tools in Thailand for lenders to secure aircraft financing. However, these prevalent approaches come with certain limitations. Sale and leaseback structures usually require lots of documentation, while the use of pledges requires delivery of the pledged property to the pledgee and the pledged property must always remain in the possession of the pledgee or a third-party custodian as agreed to by the parties, because the pledge will be legally discharged if the pledged property is returned into the possession of the pledgor. Since 2015, there has been another alternative for securing aircraft financing in Thailand. This came with the introduction of the Business Security Act B.E. 2558 (“BSA”). The BSA allows creation of a security interest over movable property (including aircraft) as collateral to secure debt repayment or other obligations without having to deliver the property to the secured party. Therefore, it is now possible for a security interest to be created over an aircraft on a non-possessory basis. To realize this type of security interest, the BSA requires that a business security agreement be made in writing and registered with the Business Security Registration Office. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the security providers still retain the right to transfer or dispose of the secured property. However, the BSA prohibits the security providers from transferring or selling the secured property when there is a cause for enforcement of the secured property and the security receivers have notified the security providers about this cause in writing. According to the BSA, entities that are eligible to be a security holder and take business security as a secured creditor include financial institutions and other persons prescribed in ministerial regulations issued by the Ministry of Commerce or the Ministry of Finance. However,
Read More