DOCSLIB.ORG

Financing the NSDI: National Spatial Data Infrastructure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Financing the NSDI: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Federal Geographic Data Committee February 10, 2000 Financing the NSDI: National Spatial Data Infrastructure The report “Financing the NSDI: National Spatial Data Infrastructure” was prepared for the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDCFGDCFGDC) to research alternative mechanisms and options for securing financial resources for spatial data activities. The report has been delivered to the FGDC by Urban Logic. This report represents a significant accomplishment as a resource for use in considering a wide array of potential opportunities to align or leverage resources and investments for spatial data activities in support of the NSDI. The FGDC intends to use the report in support of ongoing activities to find additional ways of developing resources and providing incentives for NSDI actions. The FGDC is in the process of considering the Report’s recommendations and will formulate actions to capitalize on the results of this groundbreaking research and the ideas that it stimulates. Urban Logic, Inc. Draft Dated: 2/15/00 8:17 PM A Non-Profit Organization helping Pre-Print Version. Please report errors, Communities use Technology Better corrections or suggestions to the author. Bruce Cahan ([email protected]). Financing the NSDI: National Spatial Data InfrInfraaastructurestructure Aligning Federal and Non-Federal Investments in Spatial Data, Decision Support and Information Resources (Revision 2.0 for Public Comment) This Report is the result of research conducted by Urban Logic, Inc., for the Federal Geographic Data Committee, pursuant to Cooperative Agreement #98HQAG2193 with the U.S. Department of the Interior - U.S. Geologic Survey. Entire Contents © Copyright 1999-2000 by Urban Logic, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer of Warranties and Other Conditions of Use No copyright or other intellectual property interest is claimed by the author in any brand name, copyrighted work, registered mark, service mark, trademark or trade style referenced herein which are owned by or licensed to any third party, each of which shall be and remain the property of the respective lawful owner or licensee thereof. Such references are solely for the educational and research purpose of improving the reader's understanding of the concepts described herein (including, without limitation, the importance to NSDI diffusion of brand identification and uniformity), and in no way express or imply the review or approval by such owners or licensees of this Report or any part thereof. Subject to the aforesaid acknowledgement of third-party copyright and other intellectual property rights, the statements, findings, conclusions and recommendations are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Federal Geographic Data Committee or any other Agency or official of the Federal government. All items in this Report of a financial or legal nature are not intended to be specific or general advice in connection with any actual or potential dispute, problem, question, situation or strategy. Urban Logic, Inc. hereby notifies anyone reading this Report who seeks finance or legal information to consider obtaining independent professional financial or legal advice, as the case may be, that addresses the specific situation the person or the organization is encountering. Urban Logic, Inc. disclaims any liability for such misuse of this Report, and is not and does not make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy, up-to-date status, validity or applicability of financial or legal references or information referenced or contained in this Report. Any reader that relies on this information without consulting independent professional financial or legal counsel, as the case may be, does so solely at his, her or its own risk. 2 Table of Contents PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................... 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 11 Main Recommendations & Their Benefits ..................................................................................11 Specific Recommendations.......................................................................................................12 HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED.......................................................................................... 15 A USER’S GUIDE TO THE MATERIAL......................................................................................... 16 ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................ 17 CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF SPATIAL INFORMATION ................................................................. 18 Why is Government Spatial Information Processing More than Just Maps?..................................18 From Automatic Map-Making to Decision Support......................................................................19 Increasing Investment Expectations .........................................................................................19 CHAPTER 2. PREPARING SPATIAL INFORMATION FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY................................ 22 Changes in the Landscape for the NSDI: IT, Data Warehousing, the Internet & the GIS Industry23 Changes in the GIS Industry that affect Implementation of the NSDI .........................................28 The Need for a Thorough Analysis of Spatial Data Market Dynamics...........................................32 CHAPTER 3. PROCUREMENT PATTERNS ................................................................................ 35 Aligning Procurement & Investment Processes..........................................................................35 Leveraging Intergovernmental Procurement & Investment ........................................................37 CHAPTER 4. THE ROLE FOR FEDERAL IRM POLICY & EXISTING DATA MANDATES.......................... 42 CHAPTER 5. Y2K PROOF OF DATA INTERDEPENDENCY ............................................................ 56 Y2K – A Data Mandate by Default.............................................................................................56 Senate Finds Systemic Data Interdependencies and Intergovernmental Operability At The Heart of Y2K Concerns and Business Processes......................................................................................56 The Lessons of Y2K for NSDI Implementation...........................................................................59 CHAPTER 6. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS OF SPATIAL DATA ............................................................. 61 FOIL, and the Pricing & Licensing of Public Information .............................................................61 NAPA Study's Recommendations on Pricing Data and Data Access .............................................63 Tapping the Cash Flows from Knowing What Spatial Data to Use When .....................................65 Obsolescence Drives Market Potential - Spatial Data Ages, that’s Valuable for Old & New Data ....66 The Importance of Credit Ratings to Investors ..........................................................................67 Cash Flows in Spatial Data .......................................................................................................68 Repackaging Spatial Data Cash Flows.......................................................................................70 GASB Statement 34: Government Infrastructure Accounting Principles ......................................70 3 CHAPTER 7. THE ROLE THAT FINANCING COULD PLAY TO POOL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IN IT........... 73 CHAPTER 8. USING BRAND IDENTIFICATION OF FRAMEWORK DATA & INTEROPERABLE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS TO MAKE THE NSDI FINANCEABLE ............................................................... 77 Common Growth Patterns........................................................................................................77 Brand Identification of Service Bureau Capabilities.....................................................................77 Government Roles in Building Brand Loyalty .............................................................................78 Lessons for the NSDI...............................................................................................................78 CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 79 The Current State of the Spatial Data .......................................................................................79 What We Learned from the Analogies.......................................................................................79 An Inventory of Existing Capabilities .........................................................................................83 Developing a Set of Recommendations for Financing the NSDI ..................................................88 A Set of Recommendations for Financing the NSDI ...................................................................89 APPENDIX A ANALOGIES & THEIR LESSONS FOR FINANCING NSDI............................................. 96 CHAPTER A 1 SECURITIZABLE LOAN ANALOGY: RETAIL LEVEL - FANNIE MAE MORTGAGE ................. 97 Background of Need as Opportunity .........................................................................................97 Functional Role........................................................................................................................97
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Brokerage Commissions to Secure IPO Allocations1
    Working Paper No. 4/2010 Using Brokerage Commissions to November 2010 Secure IPO Allocations Sturla Lyngnes Fjesme, Roni Michaely and Øyvind Norli © Sturla Lyngnes Fjesme, Roni Michaely and Øyvind Norli 2011. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission, provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. This paper can be downloaded without charge from the CCGR website http://www.bi.no/ccgr 1 Using Brokerage Commissions to Secure IPO Allocations1 . Sturla Lyngnes Fjesme2 The Norwegian School of Management (BI) . Roni Michaely Cornell University and the Interdisciplinary Center . Øyvind Norli The Norwegian School of Management (BI) November 11, 2011 JEL classification: G24; G28 Keywords: IPO allocations; Equity issue; Commission; Rent seeking 1 We are grateful to Jay Ritter, Øyvind Bøhren, François Derrien, seminar participants at the Norwegian School of Management for valuable suggestions, “The Center for Corporate Governance Research (CCGR)”at the Norwegian School of Management for financial support, the Oslo Stock Exchange VPS for providing the data and the investment banks and companies that helped us locate the listing prospectuses. All errors are our own. 2 The Norwegian School of Management (BI), Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway. E-mail address: [email protected] Telephone: 607-793-6911. 2 Abstract Using data, at the investor level, on the allocations of shares in initial public offerings (IPOs), we document a strong positive relationship between the amount of stock-trading commission and the number of shares an investor receives in a subsequent IPO. We find no evidence to support the idea that investment banks allocate shares to investors that are perceived to be long-term investors.
    [Show full text]
  • AMR Corporation
    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. o Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Commission file number 1-8400. AMR Corporation (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 75-1825172 (State or other jurisdiction (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) of incorporation or organization) 4333 Amon Carter Blvd. Fort Worth, Texas 76155 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (817) 963-1234 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of exchange on which registered Common stock, $1 par value per share New York Stock Exchange 9.00% Debentures due 2016 New York Stock Exchange 7.875% Public Income Notes due 2039 New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: NONE (Title of Class) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes No o. Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
    [Show full text]
  • Swiss Biotech Report 2015
    Swiss Biotech Report 2015 Impressum Steering committee Domenico Alexakis, Swiss Biotech Association, Zürich Seraina Benz, SIX Swiss Exchange AG, Zürich Oreste Ghisalba, CTI, Bern Jan Lucht, scienceindustries, Zürich Liv Minder, Switzerland Global Enterprise, Zürich Heinz Müller, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Bern Swiss National Science Foundation, Bern Andrea von Bartenwerffer, SIX Swiss Exchange AG, Zürich Jürg Zürcher, Ernst & Young AG, Basel Further partners Daniel Gygax, biotechnet, Muttenz Concept, layout and design sherif ademi | kommunikationsdesign, Schlieren Scan the QR code to download the Swiss Biotech Report 2015. www.swissbiotechreport.ch Publicly traded Swiss biotech companies 3500 in CHF million 3061 2918 2012 3000 2843 2013 2014 2500 2064 1955 Source: Annual Reports, 2000 1852 website information and EY 1500 1000 728 691 678 525 500 374 233 0 –500 Revenues R&D expenses Profits/losses Liquidity Privately held Swiss biotech companies 2500 in CHF million 2012 2000 2013 1799 1826 1824 2014 1500 Source: EY 1000 848 725 673 650 606 602 500 –68 –63 –98 0 Revenues R&D expenses Profits/losses Liquidity –500 Cover Picture: Picture courtesy of Jürg Zürcher © View from Schynige Platte on “Ussri Sägissa” and “Winteregg”. 31 Table of contents Editorial 4 International relationships – Made in Switzerland 5 International cooperation a prerequisite to research 7 Switzerland 2i – innovation and internationalism 8 Short outline of CTI’s national and international activities 9 Patent literature reflects international focus of Swiss biotech 11 Global network and local production drive success 13 Switzerland: strategic business location for life sciences 14 Gearing up for growth: Molecular Partners powers Swiss biotechs’ rise 15 Year in review 19 Swiss biotech at a glance 28 Facts & figures 29 3 Editorial Switzerland’s success has been built on a combination of inter- nationalism and ‘Swissness’.
    [Show full text]
  • US and Plaintiff States V. US Airways Group, Inc. and AMR Corporation
    Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK Document 170 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:13-cv-01236 (CKK) US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC. and AMR CORPORATION Defendants. FINAL JUDGMENT WHEREAS, Plaintiffs United States of America ("United States") and the States of Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Michigan, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia ("Plaintiff States") filed their Complaint against Defendants US Airways Group, Inc. ("US Airways") and AMR Corporation ("American") on August 13, 2013, as amended on September 5, 2013; AND WHEREAS, the United States and the Plaintiff States and Defendants, by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law; AND WHEREAS, Defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of the Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court; 1 Case 1:13-cv-01236-CKK Document 170 Filed 04/25/14 Page 2 of 28 AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of certain rights or assets by the Defendants to assure that competition is not substantially lessened; AND WHEREAS, the Final Judgment requires Defendants to make certain divestitures for the purposes of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint; AND WHEREAS, Defendants have represented to the United States and the Plaintiff States that the divestitures required below can and will be made, and that the Defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions below; NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Performance of Investment Bank-Affiliated
    JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS Vol. 47, No. 3, June 2012, pp. 537–565 COPYRIGHT 2012, MICHAEL G. FOSTER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WA 98195 doi:10.1017/S0022109012000178 The Performance of Investment Bank-Affiliated Mutual Funds: Conflicts of Interest or Informational Advantage? (Grace) Qing Hao and Xuemin (Sterling) Yan∗ Abstract Using a comprehensive sample of U.S. mutual funds from 1992 to 2004, we find strong evidence that investment bank-affiliated funds underperform unaffiliated funds. Consistent with the conflict of interest hypothesis, we find that affiliated funds hold disproportionately large amounts of stocks of their initial public offering and seasoned equity offering clients. Moreover, worse-performing clients are more likely to be held by affiliated funds. Our re- sults are robust to alternative risk adjustments, portfolio weighting schemes, and regression methodologies. Overall, our findings are consistent with the idea that investment banks use affiliated funds to support underwriting business at the expense of fund shareholders. I. Introduction Bank funds buy clients’ shares as a show of support to help win more underwriting, lending, and merger work.... [Asaninvestment bank], you want to show that you are not only able to sell the deal, but you are able to put away the product. The more you can do that, the more your clients are going to be attracted to you. (Edward Siedle, former SEC attorney, cited in “Wall Street’s Dumping Ground,” Bloomberg (June 2004), by David Dietz and Adam Levy)
    [Show full text]
  • 1998 Annual Report
    AMR CORPORATION 1998 ANNUAL REPORT AMR Corporation is a worldwide leader in scheduled air transportation, in the development and application of information technology for aviation, travel and tourism, and in a wide range of other aviation-related activities. C ONTENTS Consolidated Highlights 1 Letter from the Chairman 2 1998 Quarterly Highlights 6 Shareholder Essay 8 Customer Essay 12 Employee Essay 16 The Sabre Group Essay 20 Financial Information 23 Eleven-Year Comparative Summary 58 Board of Directors and AMR Officers 60 Management–Divisions and Subsidiaries 61 Corporate Information 62 C OVER American Airlines’ new Boeing 777 CONSOLIDATED HIGHLIGHTS (Dollars in millions, except per share amounts) Percent Year Ended December 31, 1998 1997 Change Total operating revenues $ 19,205 $ 18,184 5.6 Total operating expenses $ 16,867 $ 16,277 3.6 Operating income $ 2,338 $ 1,907 22.6 Operating margin 12.2% 10.5% 1.7 pts. Income from continuing operations $ 1,306 $ 973 34.2 Net earnings $ 1,314 $ 985 33.4 Average shares of common stock outstanding (in thousands) 168,750 178,304 (5.4) Earnings per common share (basic) From continuing operations $ 7.73 $5.45 41.8 Net earnings $ 7.78 $5.52 40.9 Earnings per common share (diluted) From continuing operations $ 7.48 $5.32 40.6 Net earnings $ 7.52 $5.39 39.5 Return on equity 20.4% 16.6% 3.8 pts. Ratio of current assets to current liabilities at year-end 0.86 0.89 (3.4) 1 Average equivalent number of employees 116,300 113,900 2.1 Approximate number of common shareholders of record at year-end 14,000 14,300
    [Show full text]
  • Determinants of Foreign Equity Market Investment Decisions on Performance of Investment Banks in Kenya
    DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN EQUITY MARKET INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON PERFORMANCE OF INVESTMENT BANKS IN KENYA BY HUMPHREY GATHUNGU UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY - AFRICA SPRING, 2020 DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN EQUITY MARKET INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON PERFORMANCE OF INVESTMENT BANKS IN KENYA BY HUMPHREY GATHUNGU A Project Report Submitted to the School of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY - AFRICA SPRING, 2020 ii STUDENT’S DECLARATION I, the undersigned, declare that this project report is my original work and has not been submitted to any other college, institution or university other than the United States International University -Africa in Nairobi for academic credit. Signed: _______________________________ Date: _________________________ Humphrey Gathungu (ID 600748) This project report has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed supervisor. Signed: _______________________________ Date: _________________________ Dr. E. Kalunda Signed: _______________________________ Date: _________________________ Dean, Chandaria School of Business iii COPYRIGHT All rights reserved. No part of this proposal may be photocopied, recorded or otherwise reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or submitted in any electronic or mechanical means without prior permission of the copyright owner. Humphrey Gathungu©2020 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I thank God for the grace that enabled me to complete this research project. I appreciate my supervisor for the encouragement and dedication that enabled me to clear this research project. I thank the management of the respective investment banks in Kenya for granting me an opportunity to collect data that helped in analysis of the findings to write this research project. v DEDICATION I dedicate this research project to my family members.
    [Show full text]
  • American Airlines Bankruptcy
    The American Airlines Bankruptcy Bankruptcy and Reorganization Connor Lynagh Darryl Pinkus Andrew Ralph Michael Sutcliffe 12/12/2013 Introduction The AMR Corporation, parent company of American Airlines, filed for Chapter 11 on November 29th, 2011 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. While the actual day of the filing surprised the financial markets, the bankruptcy itself was an expected event given the turmoil the airline industry had endured. On December 9th, 2013, AMR Corp exited bankruptcy by merging with US Airways and became American Airlines Group Inc. The time in bankruptcy totaled two years and ten days which is above the average duration for a company in bankruptcy, and it was arguably the most dramatic bankruptcy in 2013. By the time AMR Corp filed a plan of reorganization in April 2013, the company, along with its creditors and labor unions, had agreed to a merger with US Airways. Despite AMR originally wanting to exit bankruptcy without a merger, the merger was estimated to create synergies of around $7 billion, a number that couldn’t be ignored by AMR’s management. Judge Sean Lane, the bankruptcy judge overseeing the AMR proceedings, approved the disclosure statement in June 2013, allowing AMR to solicit votes from its creditors. The vote in favor of the plan of reorganization was an overwhelming success, but in early August 2013, the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against the merger. Judge Lane approved the plan of reorganization, but the implementation of the reorganization was dependent on the DC court’s ruling.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Profile
    Corporate Profile The SABRE Group Holdings, Inc. (The SABRE Group) is a world leader in the electronic distribution of travel-related products and services and is a leading provider of information technology solutions for the travel and transportation indus- try. Through The SABRE Group’s global distribution system, more than 30,000 travel agency locations, three million reg- istered individual consumers and numerous corporations access information on and book reservations with more than 400 airlines, more than 50 car rental companies, 35,000 hotel properties, and dozens of railways, tour companies, passenger ferries and cruise lines located throughout the world. The SABRE Group also provides a comprehensive suite of decision- support systems, software and consulting services to the travel and transportation industry, and is increasingly leveraging its expertise to offer solutions to companies in other industries that face similar complex operational issues. Airport author- ities, railroads, logistical service providers, lodging companies, oil and gas companies, and leaders in the financial services industry are all customers of The SABRE Group. The SABRE Group operates one of the world’s largest privately owned, real-time computer systems. The vast SABRE® network links over 130,000 terminals located in travel agencies, as well as many more privately owned personal computers, and has sent up to 190 million messages per day to the central data cen- ter located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The data center is composed of 17 mainframe computers with over 4,000 MIPS of pro- cessing power and 15.3 terabytes of electronic storage. The SABRE Group’s objective is to be the leading provider of information technology solutions to the travel industry, and to broaden its customer base by expanding to other industries.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT AMR-US Merger Release
    FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2013 AMR CORPORATION AND US AIRWAYS ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL Settlement Allows for Completion of Merger in December FORT WORTH, Texas and TEMPE, Ariz, – AMR Corporation (OTCQB: AAMRQ), the parent company of American Airlines, Inc., and US Airways Group, Inc. (NYSE: LCC) today announced that the airlines have settled the litigation brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the States of Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Tennessee, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia challenging the merger of AMR and US Airways. The companies also announced an agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) related to small community service from Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA). Tom Horton, chairman, president and CEO of AMR, and incoming chairman of the board of the combined company, said, “This is an important day for our customers, our people and our financial stakeholders. This agreement allows us to take the final steps in creating the new American Airlines. With a renewed spirit, we are about to create the world’s leading airline that will offer, along with our oneworld® partners, a comprehensive global network and service by the best people in the business. There is much more work ahead of us but we’re energized by the challenge and look forward to competing vigorously in the ever-changing global marketplace.” Doug Parker, chairman and CEO of US Airways, and incoming CEO of the combined airline, said, “This is very good news and we are grateful to all who have made it happen.
    [Show full text]
  • American Airlines: Bankrupt, Like Every Other Legacy Airline
    American Airlines: Bankrupt, Like Every Other Legacy Airline June 2012 Written by Jeffrey S. Harrison, Siri Kalburgi and Colleen Koch Reed at the Robins School of Business, University of Richmond. Copyright © Jeffrey S. Harrison. This case was written for the purpose of classroom discussion. It is not to be duplicated or cited in any form without the copyright holder’s express permission. For permission to reproduce or cite this case, contact Jeff Harrison at [email protected]. In your message, state your name, affiliation and the intended use of the case. Permission for classroom use will be granted free of charge. Other cases are available at: http://robins.richmond.edu/centers/case-network.html In November of 2011, a giant fell. AMR, the holding company of American Airlines, American Eagle Airlines and AmericanConnection, which collectively serve 250 cities in 40 countries and average over 3,400 flights a day, filed for voluntary bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in a New York Federal Court.1 The roots of this legacy airline run deep. What is now American Airlines (“American”), principle subsidiary of AMR, started out as American Airways in the 1920s – the pioneer age of aviation. AMR is one of four remaining legacy carriers to have survived the Great Depression, 1978 Airline Deregulation, September 11 and the Great Recession that began in late 2007. Slowly fading from our consciousness are the legacy airlines of the past: TWA, Eastern, and Pan American. Only United, Delta, U.S. Airways and AMR still exist. The fact that AMR held out to the end was a point of pride, mostly for 2003-2011 Chairman and CEO Gerard Arpey, because Arpey saw bankruptcy as a sign of failure.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Airlines Bankruptcy
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Studies College of Law Student Work 4-28-2017 How to Get Away with Merger: The American Airlines Bankruptcy Kelsey Cunningham Osborne Christopher K. Coleman Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_studlawbankruptcy Part of the Bankruptcy Law Commons Recommended Citation Cunningham Osborne, Kelsey and Coleman, Christopher K., "How to Get Away with Merger: The American Airlines Bankruptcy" (2017). Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Studies. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_studlawbankruptcy/46 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law Student Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Studies by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. How To Get Away with Merger: The American Airlines Bankruptcy By: Kelsey Cunningham Osborne & Christopher K. Coleman Table of Contents Cast of Characters ...................................................................................................... 4 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6 II. The Debtor’s Business .......................................................................................... 7 III. Events Leading to Filing for Chapter 11 .....................................................
    [Show full text]