FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post

Mar 9, 2020, 6:23 pm

#7

Reply1984

Join Date: Jun 2018

Posts: 415

Quote:

Originally Posted by percysmith

I missed the 2018 articles.

The 2 January 2018 filing referred to is here https://di.hkex.com.hk/di/NSForm2.as...=MAIN&lang=EN&
The attachments are:
https://di.hkex.com.hk/di/report_ful...0000055384.pdf
https://di.hkex.com.hk/di/report_ful...0000055385.pdf
https://di.hkex.com.hk/di/report_ful...0000055386.pdf

55385 is the 2006 agreement, when CA established the cross-holding.
At the time the cross-holding was established, the shareholders' agreement was not disclosed, only summarised in page 11 of the link I provided above.

The 2 January 2018 is around the same time as the Qatar investment into CX.
I am not sure whether the investment triggered the filing.

Page 11 of the 2006 shareholders' agreement di.hkex.com.hk/di/report_full/2018_01_02/CS20180102E00058/A0000000000000055385.pdf#page=11 established the shareholders' obligation not to invest in any other HK carrier.

Although it did give CA an exception - it can ignore the clause if the CPG requires CA to do so.
The investment in CA doesn't appear to be "required" by the CPG (not explicitly, anyway).

But I wonder what the consequences of the prohibition in investment in other airlines clause will be.
CX can certainly take legal action to block CA from doing so.
But will it?

Maybe CA and CX is closer than imagined. Thay may have talked and agreed on this...

The agreement asks parties to get consent from the other parties when they would like to invest in other HK-based airlines, instead of a total ban. When CX bought UO, I believr they talked about it with CA in advance.

Reply