Viva Macau creditors won’t get money back

Bankruptcy proceedings for former Macau low cost airline, Viva Macau, concluded on June 6 and creditors will not be able to recover their investments, according to a statement issued by the office of the president of the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) yesterday.

The announcement comes after a long period of deliberation, with the courts trying to recover at least part of the company’s debt by selling their stock participation, which is in the possession of the government through the Industrial Development and Commercial Fund (FDIC). The fund is the company’s second largest creditor (MOP212 million) after Eagle Airways Holdings Limited, who Viva Macau owes around MOP470 million.
These are just two of the 1,841 known creditors which include airlines, airports of several cities, banks, partners, travel agencies, passengers and workers, among others.

After starting in April 2010 the process is now almost finished, with the creditors claiming a total debt that amounts to MOP1.14 billion due to incapacity or claiming more sums from the company’s stakeholders.
As TUI explains, the bankruptcy administrator was only be able to sell some of the seized assets (including automobiles, luggage containers, airplane meal trolleys, office supplies, etc.) to obtain MOP98,000, which when added to the MOP20,759.64 in their bank accounts at the time of bankruptcy, totaled a little less than MOP120,000.

A judge issued an order on January 23, noting that the sentence was final and that Viva Macau no longer had any other property or funds with which to pay creditors.

The courts also noted that efforts were intended to claim the payment of the debt from the grantor, Eagle Airways, a situation that was impossible to solve due to the attachment order over Eagle Airways’ Hong Kong bank account. At that time (October 2011), there were no signs of a judicial co-operation agreement between Macau and the neighboring region of Hong Kong.

The court also noted that Eagle Airways, called upon to be responsible for the case, is a Hong Kong registered investment company with a registered capital of HKD10,000, and is owned by a Hong Kong partner, Macau partner, a Samoan partner and three offshore companies based in the British Virgin Islands.

The office of the president of the TUI remarked that the FDIC should have started procedures in Hong Kong the moment it started judicial action in Macau in 2010, in order to determine the responsibility of the grantor, noting that it is not clear whether the current period for such an act has or has not already expired. RM