These are tumultuous times for the aviation industry. Never before has the industry been confronted with such a confluence of events, lead amongst which is the seizure of the money markets resulting in a scarcity of liquidity, which has crippled the ability of airlines to raise secured debt financing for the acquisition of its 'tools of the trade' namely, aircraft and other aircraft related objects, eg engines.

Any available debt in the market has been priced at record high margins even when borrowed on the basis of security granted against brand new aircraft. Airlines, which are already facing deteriorating operating profits from a slowdown in the world's economy, would struggle in any case to meet the high periodic interest payments even if they did take on such debt in order to purchase aircraft ordered from manufacturers.

There is, however, a silver lining on the horizon, and its name is the Cape Town Convention.

The Convention came into force on 1 March 2006 and has to date been ratified by over 25 contracting states, including the United States (collectively, the Contracting States). As of 1 June 2009, the Convention will come into effect in the most populous country in the world, also the country with the single most expected deliveries of new aircraft in the next few years, China.

This international treaty offers secured financiers for the acquisition of 'aircraft objects' (and lessors of 'aircraft objects' unrivalled rights and remedies when compared to other mobile assets (for instance ships and rolling stock) and, in most cases, a certainty of enforcement within a time scale which should significantly decrease the risk to such lending (or leasing, in the case of a lessor). Reduction in risk should provide the airline with both access to more readily available liquidity and improved and reduced cost of borrowing.

The Problem Addressed by the Convention

From the perspective of both aircraft financiers/lessors and airlines, the financing of mobile high-value assets such as aircraft gives rise to several problems and uncertainties. Aircraft are readily capable of moving across borders, and since each country may have materially different laws, financiers/lessors face concerns that laws in certain countries which such aircraft fly into may not afford adequate recognition of their rights or adequate protection in terms of remedies in the event of airline default or insolvency whilst the aircraft is in that country. The uncertainty of a financier's/lessor's ability to, for instance, repossess an aircraft mortgaged to it as security (in the case of a financier) or leased by it (in the case of a lessor) in such country is understandably a serious concern, and has a material impact on the risk profile of any loan (in the case of a financier) or lease (in the case of a lessor) offered to such airline and goes to the 'financeability' of aircraft as an asset class.

How the Convention Achieves its Objectives
The Convention:

• establishes one international register for recording 'international interests' in aircraft objects (ie airframes, aircraft engines and helicopters of a certain size and performance);
• creates a clear set of priority rules where there are competing international interests for the same aircraft objects; and
• provides for default remedies to enforce such international interests.

These are explained in greater detail below. Note that the operation of the Convention only applies to interests arising in certain types of agreements (discussed below) and is triggered (amongst other things) if the 'debtor' (normally the airline) is located in a Contracting State or if the aircraft is registered in a Contracting State: see the diagram on what type of interests are registrable under the Convention.

What is an international interest?
An 'international interest' is a proprietary interest in an aircraft object which has been granted under a security agreement, vested in a seller under a conditional sale agreement (more commonly known as a 'litle retention agreement', or vested in a party under a leasing agreement (Cape Town contracts). The aircraft objects themselves must satisfy certain size and performance criteria in order that an international interest may arise under the Convention.

Registration of international interests
Where an international interest arises under the Convention, the holder of that international interest may register the interest on the International Registry of Mobile Assets (the Registry). Registration is optional, but provides significant benefits, as it is notice to the world (ie countries which have ratified and implemented the Convention) that such international interests exist over the relevant aircraft object. Registration also determines priority of rights when more than one creditor has a competing right over the same aircraft object (discussed below). The Registry is computer-based and can be accessed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Searches of the Registry to see if an aircraft object is the subject of an international interest can be conducted by any person for a fee.

Priority of interests
Essentially, priority is determined on the basis of the order in which international interests are entered onto the Registry. In other words, the first person to register has priority over the next person to register in relation to the same aircraft object. In addition, a person who has registered its international interest in the register will have priority over another person who has not registered its international interest over the same aircraft object regardless of when such international interest arose.

It is also possible to register international interests which are intended to be created in the future (referred to as prospective international interests). For the purposes of deciding priority, an international interest which later arises under such prospective registration will be taken to have been registered at the time the prospective international interest was registered/entered onto the Registry.

Default Remedies
The Convention provides for certain 'default' remedies to enforce international interests:

• a chargee may take possession or control of the charged aircraft, sell or grant a lease of such aircraft and/or collect proceeds in respect of the such aircraft;
• a lessor or conditional seller of an aircraft may terminate the relevant agreement and take possession or control of the aircraft;
• pending final determination of a claim, the holder of an international interest may seek 'speedy' interim relief through various court orders (including preservation of the aircraft object and its value; immobilisation of and/or possession/control/custody of the aircraft object etc); and
• in the event of insolvency of the debtor/airline, remedies may be exercisable by creditors within certain defined time limits (depending on the declarations of the relevant Contracting State) and local courts may not stay proceedings beyond such time limits.

Impact on Airlines and Other Aviation Industry Players

Not surprisingly, the impact of the Convention on airlines, financiers and lessors operating in Contracting States has been generally positive.

Improved access to financing
The Convention has delivered improved access to financing for aircraft assets in many of the countries which have implemented it. This is particularly so for airlines located in, or wishing to register and operate financed aircraft out of, jurisdictions with less mature legal systems. Export credit agencies in all the major aircraft manufacturing countries are also offering discounted premium rates (eg Eximbank offers a third off their usual rate) to support financing of the sale of their aircraft to airlines in such Contracting States. The Convention has also helped financiers to mitigate the impact of credit defaults by providing greater certainty in relation to default remedies. These benefits, which reduce costs for aircraft financiers and lessors, have in turn been passed on to airlines in the guise of more competitive borrowing costs/lease rentals and should create a larger and deeper market for aircraft financing activity.

Financing of aircraft engines
Those involved in financing aircraft engines also stand to benefit from the Convention. Whilst it has always been possible in most countries to register security/ownership interests in airframes in local corporate or asset registers, prior to the Convention there was no recognised unified system for registering security/ownership interests in aircraft engines on their own. The Convention has now given participants in the engines financing/leasing business the ability to avail themselves of the benefits of engine registrations at the Convention Registry by recognising engines as separate aircraft objects from the airframes to which they may be attached.

Implementation of the Convention in Mainland China

Given the size and obvious potential of the Chinese aviation market, the coming into effect of the Convention in China is being watched very closely by the aviation industry. Some of the material declarations are considered below.

1. A key declaration adopted by China is that all non-consensual rights or interests (as defined by reference to the Insolvency Law of the PRC and other relevant regulations) which have priority over secured creditors under Chinese law will have priority over registered international interests. Non-consensual rights or interests having such priority include:

• bankruptcy expenses and community debts;
• employee wages;
• taxes arising prior to the mortgage, pledge or lien of the aircraft;
• remuneration for rescuing the aircraft; and
• fees for the custody and maintenance of the aircraft.

2. Many of the Convention remedies (eg repossession, power of sale) are in the nature of self-help remedies and should not customarily require the intervention or assistance of local courts. However, China has adopted the Convention subject to the reservation that all remedies require leave or permission of the relevant court to enforce. It remains to be seen whether the court, as an administrative act, will merely sanction the enforcement of remedies once a default by the borrower has been established, or whether the court will exercise other discretionary powers to assess the merits of the case before permitting the exercise of remedies under the Convention.

3. China has adopted the creditor-friendly 'alternative A' insolvency option under the Convention. As such, following a default by a debtor airline, if the insolvency of such debtor airline ensues and a court exercises its prerogative to stay proceedings against the defaulting debtor airline, such stay of proceedings cannot exceed the 'waiting period' of 60 calendar days. Thereafter, the creditor will be free to exercise its remedies (including taking possession of the aircraft object) if the relevant default has not been cured, regardless of whether the debtor airline is at that time solvent. Whilst, insolvency of airlines is rare in China, in the current unprecedented financial climate such insolvency cannot be said to be improbable. Financiers/lessors will welcome this new development as previously the relevant courts in China had great discretionary powers in staying the taking of any proceedings (eg preventing repossession) against any insolvent entity in China for unspecified periods of time, leaving creditors uncertain as to how long they would have to wait before they could enforce their rights under defaulted contracts.

4. As to interim relief under the Convention (which refers to relief granted to a creditor prior to final determination of a claim, as discussed above), China has declared that the relevant people's court will deliver its decision whether to grant such relief within ten calendar days of receiving the relevant application, with orders to be enforced 'immediately'. For other interim relief involving the leasing or management of the aircraft object and the income therefrom, the people's court will deliver its decision on applications within 30 calendar days, and will similarly enforce such orders 'immediately'. Creditors will welcome this measure as it provides much needed certainty as to the speedy action from local courts.

5. China has declared that the Convention will only apply to cross-border transactions and will not apply to any 'internal transactions' within the PRC. This means that if all the parties to the relevant Cape Town Contract are based in China (for the purposes of the Convention, a party is based in China if the centre of the main interests - management, place of business etc - of that party are situated in China) and the aircraft object is located in China at the time of the 'conclusion' of the contract, the rules and principles of the Convention will not apply to such a Cape Town contract. In other words, either (i) at least one party to the relevant Cape Town Contract must be based outside China or (ii) the aircraft object should be located outside China at the time of the 'conclusion' of the relevant Cape Town contract (presumably the time of due execution by all the parties) in order for the Convention to apply.

6. China has designated the Aircraft Rights Registry operated by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) as the 'entry point' for China. The CAAC has recently issued an administrative regulation providing some guidance as to the operation of the 'entry point'. It states, inter alia, that for the registration of international interests arising in relation to a qualifying aircraft or helicopter with a Chinese nationality registration, an authorisation code will need to be obtained from the CAAC before registration at the International Registry in Dublin. Each such international interest will require its own authorisation code. Airlines have now started to submit their applications for such authorisation codes and it will be interesting to see how efficient this process proves to be and what issues will arise with the issuance of codes going forward.

Conclusion

Whilst the supporters of the Convention have managed to convert legislators of influential countries in the aviation industry into believers in the cause advocated by the Convention, the ratification and coming into force of the Convention in these countries is not the final step. It remains to be seen, as in the case of China, how the aviation authorities, regulatory bodies and judiciary will apply the principles of the Convention. Their actions will greatly determine the impact and success of the Convention in the aviation industry in their country and thus whether the intent, aspirations and benefits of the Convention will manifest themselves fully in those countries. Only time will tell.



Paul Ng
Partner, Global Head of Aviation
Stephenson Harwood

《開普敦公約》— 航空業的一場寂靜革命
Paul Ng分析了在新訂立的國際制度下，對航空器設備的登記及權益執行方面所帶來的好處。

對於航空業來說，如今真的是一個多事之秋。最沉重的莫過於貨幣市場的收緊，導致流動資金短缺，削弱了各家航空公司通過有抵押債務融資，採購航空器及航空器相關設備，如引擎等「行業工具」的能力。

長期以來，市場上用於融資的債務都是在極高的邊際水準之上定價的，即使是以最新型航空器作為借貸抵押也是如此。因為全球經濟持續下滑，航空公司運營利潤原本已是不斷萎縮，在這種情況下，即使有幸能夠通過融資借債，從生產商手中買回訂購的航空器，也必然會為需要支付高額的定期利息而煩惱。

然而，我們似乎還可以看到一線曙光，答案就是《開普敦公約》。

《開普敦公約》於2006年3月1日生效後，迄今已經獲得超過25個締約國，包括美國（下文統稱「締約國」）的承認。截至2009年6月1日，《公約》亦將在中國，這個世界上人口最多，同時也是預期在未來數年唯一最有可能購入新航空器的國家。
較之於其他移動資產（如船隻與車輛），這一國際協定可以為「航空器設備」的採購（及「航空器設備」出租）的抵押融資提供無可爭議的權利和救濟保障。同時，在大多數情況下，它所保障的一定時期內強制執行的確定性，將大大減低借貸（或出租，如在出租業務中）的風險。而風險的減低，將大大增加航空公司利用流動資金的機會，同時改善及降低借貸的成本。

《公約》著力解決的問題

無論從航空器融資提供方／出租方或是航空公司的角度來看，移動性高價值資產的融資，例如航空器的融資，都會引發眾多問題與不確定性。因為航空器經常會飛越國界，而每個國家的法律具有巨大差異，於是融資提供方／出租方將要面對的隱憂包括：當航空器飛入其他國家後，航空公司出現違約或是破產的情形時，這些飛入地所在國的法律也許無法確保通過救濟的途徑，對他們作為出資或出租方的權利給予充分的認可，或是給予他們充分的保護。例如，在該等國家，融資提供方／出租方是否能夠對作為抵押品而向其抵押的（在融資的情況下）或由其租出的（在出租航空器的情況下）某一航空器重新獲得管有權，這將變得無法確定，這自然會是航空器融資提供方或出租方的重大關注地方，並將對提供給此等航空公司之任何貸款（提供融資情況下）或是出租（出租航空器的情況下）的風險評價產生巨大影響，同時導致航空器作為一種資產類別「融資能力」的不確定性。

《公約》如何實現其目標
《公約》：

• 建立了一種國際登記制度，對航空器設備（如機身、航空器引擎及某些型號與性能的直升機）之上的「國際權益」加以記錄；
• 建立一套明晰的優先規則，作出對同一航空器設備的競爭性國際權益規定；及
• 為違約情形提供救濟方法，以強制履行此等國際權益。

以下對這些方面加以詳述。需要注意的是，《公約》的實施僅適用於某些類型協議（下文將加以討論）之上的權益，且僅當「債務人」（一般情況下為航空公司）處在締約國或當航空器是在締約國登記（具體參見後文所述有關《公約》可登記之權益類型）之時（連同其他條件的共同作用）才發揮效力。

何為國際權益？
所謂國際權益，是指依照某一個安全協議所授予的在航空器設備之上的一種權屬利益，經由具體的有條件銷售協議（更多被稱為「所有權保留協議」）授予賣方，或依照某一租賃協議而授予某一方（以下稱開普敦合約）。航空器設備本身必須符合有關型號與性能方面的標準，從而確保在《公約》下形成國際權益。

國際權益的登記
倘在《公約》下產生國際權益時，該等國際權益的持有人可以在「國際移動資產登記處（下文稱「登記處」）」對該權益進行登記。登記是非強制性的，但它可以提供顯著的利益，因為登記意味著向全世界（即已經承認及執行《開普敦公約》的國家）宣告在相關的航空器設備上，已經有此等國際權益的存在。當多個債權人對同一個航空器設備擁有競爭性權利時，登記可以確定權利的優先順序（見下文論述）。登記處通過電腦來運行，每週7天、每天24小時開放。任何人交費後均可在登記處進行搜尋，確定某一航空器設備是否已經登記國際權益。

權益優先順序
基本上，優先順序是以國際權益登錄的先後次序來確定。換言之，對於同一個航空器設備的權益登記來說，先登記的人優先於後登記者。同時，已經在登記處對其國際權益加以登記的人士，優先於未在登記處登記該航空器設備的國際權益者，不論此等國際權益於何時產生。

同時，還可以對意圖在未來設定的國際權益（稱之為潛在的國際權益）進行登記。為確定優先次序，依照此等潛在的國際權益方式登記的國際權益其後產生時，將以該等潛在的國際權益實際登記／登錄於登記處系統之日，作為該等國際權益認定的登記日期。

違約補救
《公約》對於具體的「違約」提供了補救手段，以便確保國際權益的實現：

受押人有權佔有或控制受抵押航空器，出售或授予此等航空器之出租及／或收取此等航空器之相關收入；

• 航空器之出租方或有附帶條件的賣方有權終止相關協議並佔有或控制該航空器；
• 在對某一索償加以裁定之前的時期內，某項國際權益之持有人有權通過法庭發出各項救濟令（包括保有航空器設備及其價值、固定及／或佔有／控制／扣留航空器設備等方式）尋求「迅速」臨時濟助的實現；及
• 在債務人／航空公司破產情況下，債權人可以在某些確定的時限內（依相關締約國的聲明而定）實施救濟，而當地法院不得將審理程序拖延至該等時限以外。　

對於航空公司及 其它航空工業參與方的影響

不難理解，《公約》對於在締約國內運作的航空公司、融資提供方及出租方來說，普遍具有積極的影響。

融資管道得以改善
借助實施《公約》，很多國家在為航空器資產提供融資管道方面得到改善，尤其對位於法律制度相對欠成熟的司法管轄區，或是對於希望在該等管轄區以外登記及運作融資支持航空器的航空公司而言，情況更是如此。所有主要航空器製造國的出口信貸機構，同樣都提供折扣的優惠保費率（如Eximbank提供在其慣常收費標準上給予三分之一的折扣優惠），用於為向締約國航空公司出售航空器提供融資支持。《公約》同時還有助於融資提供方通過增加違約救濟方面的確定性而減輕信貸違約的影響。通過《公約》的作用，可以減低航空器融資提供方及出租方的成本，從而令航空公司得以從更具競爭力的借貸成本／租金方面受惠，為航空器融資活動創造出更大並更深遠的市場。

航空器引擎融資
為航空器引擎提供融資支援的各方也將從《公約》中得益。大多數國家都允許在本地的企業或資產登記部門對機身的安全／所有權利益進行登記。在《公約》之前，並無任何公認及統一的對引擎的安全／所有權利益進行登記的獨立登記系統。現在通過《公約》，引擎融資／租賃業務的參與方，具備了藉《公約登記處》對引擎作為獨立於其所在機身以外的航空器設備進行識別後登記而從中受益。

中國大陸地區實施《公約》的情況

鑒於中國航空市場的巨大規模及顯而易見的潛力優勢，《公約》在中國的生效引起了航空業的普遍關注。以下對部分重要聲明加以論述。

1. 中國所採納的一個關鍵性聲明是，依照中國法律，對於有抵押債權人具有優先權之所有非經雙方認可之權力或權益（其定義參照《中華人民共和國破產法》及其他相關法規）依然保留對於業經登記國際權益的優先權。非經雙方認可之權力或權益具有如下各項優先權：

• 破產費用與群體債務；
• 員工工資；
• 先於航空器之按揭、質押、留置權之前產生的稅負；
• 救援航空器所應付報酬；以及
• 扣留及保養航空器的所需費用。

2. 《公約》規定之眾多救濟手段（如重獲管有權、出售權等）從其性質來說，屬自我救助性質救濟，所以無須以慣常方式要求當地法院的協助或介入。但是，中國在採納《公約》時有所保留，即所有救濟均須取得相關法院的批准或允許方得實施。那麼，是否法院在一旦確定借款人違約後僅作為例行公事而批准救濟的執行，還是會實施其他的自行裁量權，而對該案的情由於進行評估後，才決定是否依照《公約》批准救濟的實施，這就須拭目以待了。

3. 中國已經採納了《公約》規定的對債權人友好的「A選項」破產處理方式。由此，在債務人航空公司違約後，若此等債務人航空公司發生破產，而法院則實施其法律特權，對於針對作為違約債務人的航空公司的訴訟拖延不理，這種拖延不決，不得超過六十個日曆天的「等待期限」。若經過該等期限後，相關違約依然未得以補救，無論債務人航空公司當時有無償債能力，債權人均有權行使其救濟權（包括佔有航空器設備等）。融資提供方／出租方對於這一進步必將表示歡迎，因為之前曾多次出現中國相關法院藉著其廣泛的自由裁量權，對於針對中國破產實體的訴訟拖延不予受理（如阻止重獲管有權等）卻並不提供任何確定期限的情況出現，造成了債權人根本無法預知，如按照被對方違背之合同約定行使其應有權力還須等待多久。

4. 而有關依照《公約》發出臨時救濟令（是指如前述在對索償請求的最終裁定之前向債權人授予的救濟令），中國已經宣佈，各相關人民法院須在收到該等相關申請之後十個日曆天內作出裁決，確定是否批准該等臨時救濟請求，而該裁決令 「即時」生效。對於其他涉及航空器設備租賃或航空器及相關收入的管理等事宜，人民法院須在收到該等相關申請之後三十個日曆天內作出裁決，確定是否批准該等臨時救濟請求，而該裁決令同樣亦「即時」生效。債權人必然對此規定表示歡迎，因為據此，債權人可以顯著提高其就是否可以得到本地法院及時裁定的確定性。

5. 中國已宣佈，中國僅將《公約》適用於跨境交易，而不會適用於中華人民共和國境內的任何「內部交易」。這意味著，若涉及到《開普敦公約》之各方均屬基於中國國內（按照《公約》適用之約定，所謂基於中國意指該方的主要權益中心—管理、業務所在等—位於中國境內），而在合約「訂立」之時航空器位於中國境內，《公約》包含之任何原則與規則，將不再適用於該等「開普敦」合約。換言之（1）：相關的開普敦合約立約至少一方必須屬基於中國以外；或是（2）：於該等相關的「開普敦」合約「訂立」之時（指各方全部在合約上簽署完畢為「訂立」之時）航空器設備應當處於中國以外，由此《公約》方有適用效力。

6. 中國已經指定由中國民航管理總局（CAAC）運作的「航空器權益登記處」作為在中國的「輸入點」。CAAC已發佈了一項管理規定，對於「輸入點」的運行問題提供指引。規定包括，在對具有中國國籍登記的合格航空器或直升機相關的國際權益進行登記時，在完成位於都柏林的「國際登記處」正式登記前，需要從CAAC取得一個授權碼。各家航空公司目前已經開始提交各自的授權碼申請。對於授權碼申請的受理與審批效率如何，以及授予授權碼之後會發生何等情形，相信會成為各方饒有興趣的關注點。

結論

正當《公約》支持者們努力設法將各國具有影響力的航空業立法者們拉向《公約》所宣導的路線之時，《公約》在這些國家獲得批准，乃至發生效力都不能算是終極目標的達成。正如中國的情況，很多問題，如航空機關、管理部門以及司法部門如何適用《公約》確立的原則等，還有待確認。他們的行動方向將在很大程度上決定《開普敦公約》對該國航空業的影響力與成敗，並由此決定《公約》所蘊含的意圖、理想與惠益能否在該國徹底得到體現。這些都需要時間來證明。

Paul Ng
Partner, Global Head of Aviation
Stephenson Harwood