Aircraft financing - a brief guide to Cayman

Published: 4 May 2022
Type: Insight

Legal and administrative service providers in the Cayman Islands such as Appleby can offer aircraft owners and financiers much more in the way of financing, leasing, securitisation and ownership structures not limited to Cayman registered aircraft. A common component to these structures is the use of a Cayman Islands special purpose vehicle (“SPV”) through which funding and leasing arrangements may allow for certain tax, accounting and regulatory relief.


SPV contractual arrangement

Subject to the nature of the particular finance package and the commercial drivers in any particular deal, the general goal of any contractual arrangement which is set up using an SPV in these circumstances is to:

  • achieve an off-balance sheet structure which does not affect the accounting position of the financier, the airline, the trustee, or the originator;
  • achieve bankruptcy remoteness from the originator – particularly where there is a connection with the United States bankruptcy courts, which have a power to consolidate groups of companies in certain circumstances;
  • ensure the SPV does not part of the assets available to creditors of the trustee or originator if either were to become insolvent; and
  • achieve limited recourse – the recourse of the financiers will be limited to the aircraft and any other supporting security provided by the SPV over its ancillary assets. In order to provide the best possible security to the financiers, the aircraft can be ring-fenced by comprehensive security over the aircraft so that in the event of insolvency of the SPV the aircraft will not form part of the insolvent estate of the SPV.

SPV Formation

In a typical transaction structure utilizing a Cayman Islands incorporated bankruptcy remote SPV, the company is incorporated as an exempted company, the shares of which are issued to a Cayman Islands trustee (usually a licensed trust company) for the benefit of a charitable or purpose trust. The aim is to ensure that the SPV’s shares are vested in a third party so that it is not regarded as a subsidiary of the originator or financier and is therefore often referred to as an orphan SPV.

A charitable trust is used most regularly to facilitate  these transactions however alternative structures can of course be considered.

In respect of such an orphan SPV, any potential profit upon an eventual sale of the aircraft must be considered, as this could become payable to the charity upon termination of the trust arrangements at maturity of the transaction. It is usual for the SPV to receive a small profit (eg. US$1,000) which is helpful for commercial benefit issues of the SPV and also ultimately paid to the charity. Because recourse to the SPV is usually limited, the small profit can usually be justified by the minimal risk involved.

The SPV will also appoint an administrator to provide directors and officers and day to day administration of the SPV. Appleby, through its various service companies and subsidiaries, can simplify this process by providing the trustee, administrator and independent directors.

Independent directors are essential to assist with “off-balance-sheet” treatment and to avoid the risk that the directors may not be able to discharge their fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the SPV.

aircraft finance Legal Framework

There are broadly three basic structures (or a combination of) seen in aircraft finance transactions:

  • A borrower incurs a loan from a financial institution secured by, at a minimum, a mortgage over the aircraft;
  • The ownership and lease of the aircraft (involving either an operating lease or a finance lease);
  • A capital markets transaction whereby an entity issues bonds or notes secured by, at a minimum, a mortgage on the aircraft.

In a common scenario, by way of general example, an airline will contract with an aircraft manufacturer to purchase the aircraft. Prior to delivery of the aircraft the airline will assign that purchase agreement to the SPV pursuant to which the SPV will purchase the aircraft and register it on delivery in the registry of choice, as may be commercially agreed with financiers or investors.

For bankruptcy remoteness purposes, the SPV will enter into the relevant contractual arrangements with the original owner of the aircraft (“Originator”) to ensure that a “true sale” of the aircraft from the Originator has been effected (by which we mean that the asset has been removed from the insolvency estate of the Originator).

The SPV might obtain the monies to purchase the aircraft from the Originator by issuing asset-backed commercial paper in the form of debt notes to chosen investors. By use of this particular financing structure, any incidental borrowing costs are reduced with the issuance of notes and the airline does not need to be concerned with incorporating the aircraft (and related debt) into its balance sheet.

Once it owns the aircraft, the SPV will enter into a lease arrangement with the airline or lessee depending on the broader commercial structure of the deal. The lease documentation will provide for payment of lease rentals and covenants in favour of the lessor in default of which the SPV shall have available a number of remedies including repossession.

There will most often be security documents as part of the financing package which secure the obligations of the SPV which might include an aircraft mortgage, a debenture, a security assignment (usually assigning rights under particular contracts which are the focus of the transaction e.g. insurances, rights of the aircraft owner under the lease arrangement in any operating lease transaction, or the purchase agreement in a PDP financing etc). There is often also an equitable mortgage over the shares of the SPV granted by the trustee which enables financiers, as mortgagees, to assume control of the SPV in the event of default in a financing or leasing arrangement.

An aircraft mortgage will enable a financier, as mortgagee, to assume control of the aircraft and by taking the necessary steps on enforcement to ultimately transfer registered ownership of the aircraft into its own name.

There will also often be an IDERA and deregistration power of attorney enabling the financier, in an event of default, to deregister the aircraft from its existing registry and take ownership.

Cape Town Convention

The Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the associated Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (collectively, the “Cape Town Convention”) came into effect in Cayman on 1 November 2015, in line with its entry into force in the United Kingdom on the same date. The Cape Town Convention provides for an internationally recognised system of “international interests” to be created and registered, and standard remedies in a default scenario giving creditors certainty as to the likelihood of being able to recover the aircraft.  The effect of the Convention further enhances the desirability of using a Cayman Islands entity for aviation finance as financiers and lessors can now rely on the certainty of the International Registry and international enforcement.

Economic substance

The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (as amended) was originally introduced in the Cayman Islands in 2019 and is supported by the International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Regulations, 2020 as amended (together, the “ES Act”). There has also been published ES Guidance on Economic Substance for Geographically Mobile Activities (“ES Guidance”), most recently the third version was published on 13 July 2020.

The ES Act imposes requirements on certain types of entities including an SPV typically found in an aircraft finance structure. With respect to an in-scope entity that carries on certain designated activities which may capture certain types of financing and leasing, subject to certain exceptions, these requirements include a requirement to satisfy an economic substance test in respect of those activities. It will be key to ensure Cayman Islands legal advice is obtained at the outset in structuring any aircraft financing deals utilizing any Cayman Islands incorporated SPVs to ensure that the relevant analysis is undertaken to confirm whether the proposed transaction is in scope for the purposes of the ES Act.

Conclusion

As a creditor friendly jurisdiction, the sophistication of the financing and leasing structures available in the Cayman Islands coupled with the expertise of the service providers, lends itself to transactions capable of being structured to meet the requirements of leading aircraft lending institutions free of unnecessary risks as well as meeting the unique requirements of airlines in their home jurisdictions.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance
13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.