Frustrated, not grumpy OK, a little But yes, they are different, but neither are run in the public interest. They are simply to improve outcomes for creditors compared to liquidation. The US has a slant to shareholder interest over creditors.
Technically, it's SAAT, but that de facto means SAA. SAAT comprises 30% of the concurrent creditors, so has huge control. They are the single biggest concurrent creditor. This was for maintenance. The aircraft were definitely not subsidized since the aircraft lessors are clearly indicated in the list of concurrent creditors, and owed a sizable sum.GL wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:27 amI don't know who Mango's creditors are and how much each is owed (although yes - it may be public knowledge). It is somewhat surprising that SAA should be a major creditor - as Mango kept arguing that it was not subsidized by SAA. viz - the a/c leases were AFAIK no longer through SAA. So what was Mango getting from SAA? - office space? perhaps fuel?
SAA were owed some money themselves in the initial listing but this was removed from the liquidation estimate. It was likely treated as a subordinated claim. Looking through the published list, nothing stands out and, if anything, it looks simply like trade terms, i.e. that the outstanding liabilities were general trade credit and nothing to suggest that Mango was anything other than a decent performer pre COVID. No bank loans. The outstanding leases seem to have been up to date prior to COVID.
Indeed. I would agree with this. It's a great way for Takatso and SAA to cancel out a lot of the operational debt that accrued during the COVID shutdowns. SAA will have to write off nearly a billion from Mango, but it'll be a net gain of about R1.7 billion. I always felt Comair was doing the same, however, their strategy was predicated on refinancing the fleet which didn't work out as well.