LATAM Airlines Group S.A.

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------- x
In re:
LATAM Airlines Group S.A., et al.,
Debtors.1
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 20-11254 (JLG)
Chapter 11
(Jointly Administered)
-------------------------------------------------------- x
ERRATA ORDER REGARDING MEMORANDUM DECISION ON CONFIRMATION
OF THE JOINT PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF LATAM AIRLINES GROUP, S.A.
ET AL. UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE
This matter having come up on the Court’s own motion, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. 	The Court’s Memorandum Decision on Confirmation of the Joint Plan of Reorganization
of LATAM Airlines Group, S.A. et al. Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code dated
June 18, 2022 [Case No. 20-11254, ECF No. 5754] (the “Memorandum Decision”), is
corrected in the manner described below:
a. 	The citation on page 20 of the Memorandum Decision:
Debtors Omnibus Reply ¶ 56 n.53.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
Debtors Omnibus Reply ¶ 108 n.53.
1 	The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s tax identification number
(as applicable), are: LATAM Airlines Group S.A. (59-2605885); Lan Cargo S.A. (98-0058786); Transporte Aéreo
S.A. (96-9512807); Inversiones Lan S.A. (96-5758100); Technical Training LATAM S.A. (96-847880K); LATAM
Travel Chile II S.A. (76-2628945); Lan Pax Group S.A. (96-9696800); Fast Air Almacenes de Carga S.A. (96-
6315202); Línea Aérea Carguera de Colombia S.A. (26-4065780); Aerovías de Integración Regional S.A. (98-
0640393); LATAM Finance Ltd. (N/A); LATAM Airlines Ecuador S.A. (98-0383677); Professional Airline Cargo
Services, LLC (35-2639894); Cargo Handling Airport Services, LLC (30-1133972); Maintenance Service Experts,
LLC (30-1130248); Lan Cargo Repair Station LLC (83-0460010); Prime Airport Services Inc. (59-1934486);
Professional Airline Maintenance Services LLC (37-1910216); Connecta Corporation (20-5157324); Peuco Finance
Ltd. (N/A); Latam Airlines Perú S.A. (52-2195500); Inversiones Aéreas S.A. (N/A); Holdco Colombia II SpA (76-
9310053); Holdco Colombia I SpA (76-9336885); Holdco Ecuador S.A. (76-3884082); Lan Cargo Inversiones S.A.
(96-9696908); Lan Cargo Overseas Ltd. (85-7752959); Mas Investment Ltd. (85-7753009); Professional Airlines
Services Inc. (65-0623014); Piquero Leasing Limited (N/A); TAM S.A. (N/A); TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. (65-
0773334); Aerolinhas Brasileiras S.A. (98-0177579); Prismah Fidelidade Ltda. (N/A); Fidelidade Viagens e
Turismo S.A. (27-2563952); TP Franchising Ltda. (N/A); Holdco I S.A. (76-1530348) and Multiplus Corredora de
Seguros Ltda. (N/A). For the purpose of these chapter 11 cases, the service address for the Debtors is: 6500 NW
22nd Street Miami, FL 33131.
20-11254-jlg Doc 5900 Filed 07/07/22 Entered 07/07/22 15:13:22 Main Document
Pg 1 of 8

2
b. 	The following sentence beginning on page 20 of the Memorandum Decision and
ending on page 21:
As discussed below, the Court finds that TLA is insolvent because: (a) the TLA
Claimholders have failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate that the sum of
TLA’s debts exceeds the sum of its property at a fair valuation, see 11 U.S.C. §
101(32), and (b) in any event, the Debtors have set forth affirmative evidence
demonstrating that TLA is insolvent under section 101(32).
shall be corrected to read as follows:
As discussed below, the Court finds that TLA is insolvent because: (a) the TLA
Claimholders have failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate that the sum of
TLA’s property at a fair valuation exceeds the sum of its liabilities, see 11 U.S.C.
§ 101(32), and (b) in any event, the Debtors have set forth affirmative evidence
demonstrating that TLA is insolvent under section 101(32) of the Bankruptcy
Code.
c. 	The following citation at the beginning of page 25 of the Memorandum Decision:
See May 20, 2022 Hr’g Tr. – Public Session, 194:2-10.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
See May 20, 2022 Hr’g Tr. – Public Session at 194:2-10.
d. 	The following citation at the top of page 33 of the Memorandum Decision:
See May 17, 2022 Hr’g Tr. – Public Session, 117:21-118:3; see also id. at 118:10
(admitting he did not calculate the proceeds from the sale of individual assets).
shall be corrected to read as follows:
See May 17, 2022 Hr’g Tr. – Public Session at 117:21-118:3; see also id. at
118:10 (admitting he did not calculate the proceeds from the sale of individual
assets).
e. 	The following sentence at the top of page 40 of the Memorandum Decision:
He also points to examples outside the aviation sector in an effort to purportedly
discredit Mr. Edgar’s methodology, noting that Starbucks’s recent Form 10-K
suggests that it is “balance-sheet” insolvent, yet trades a value of $133 billion. Id.
¶ 24.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
20-11254-jlg Doc 5900 Filed 07/07/22 Entered 07/07/22 15:13:22 Main Document
Pg 2 of 8

3
He also points to examples outside the aviation sector in an effort to purportedly
discredit Mr. Edgar’s methodology, noting that Starbucks’s recent Form 10-K
suggests that it is “balance-sheet” insolvent, yet trades at a value of $133 billion.
Id. ¶ 24.
f. 	The following sentences in the middle of page 41 of the Memorandum Decision:
TLA is insolvent under the Balance Sheet Test because the sum of TLA’s assets
exceed the sum of its liabilities by approximately $360 million to $1.3 billion
using year-end 2021 financial statements and March 2021 month-end statements,
respectively. Edgar Decl. ¶ 11.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
TLA is insolvent under the Balance Sheet Test because the sum of TLA’s
liabilities exceeds the sum of its assets by approximately $360 million to $1.3
billion using year-end 2021 financial statements and March 2021 month-end
statements, respectively. Edgar Decl. ¶ 11.
g. 	The following sentence beginning at the bottom of page 41 and ending at the top
of page 42 of the Memorandum Decision:
Moreover, courts regularly employ balance sheet tests to determine insolvency,
i.e., whether the sum of an entity’s assets exceeds the sum of its liabilities. See,
e.g., In re PTM Techs., Inc., 2013 WL 4519306, at *6 ("the Bankruptcy Code
defines insolvency using the balance sheet test, not cash flow. The test for
whether a debtor is solvent is whether the debts of such entity are less than its
assets, at fair valuation”); In re Uhlmeyer, 67 B.R. 977, 980 (Bankr. D. Ariz.
1986) (“Insolvency is determined by use of § 101[32] of the Code, the so-called
balance sheet test: Debtor is insolvent if the sum of her debts is greater than her
assets at fair valuation”); see also 2 Collier on Bankruptcy P 101.32 (16th ed.
2022) (“the Code definition of insolvency is essentially a balance sheet test”).
shall be corrected to read as follows:
Moreover, courts regularly employ balance sheet tests to determine insolvency,
i.e., whether the sum of an entity’s liabilities exceed the sum of its assets. See,
e.g., In re PTM Techs., Inc., 2013 WL 4519306, at *6 (“the Bankruptcy Code
defines insolvency using the balance sheet test, not cash flow. The test for
whether a debtor is solvent is whether the debts of such entity are less than its
assets, at fair valuation”); In re Uhlmeyer, 67 B.R. 977, 980 (Bankr. D. Ariz.
1986) (“Insolvency is determined by use of § 101[32] of the Code, the so-called
balance sheet test: Debtor is insolvent if the sum of her debts is greater than her
assets at fair valuation”); see also 2 Collier on Bankruptcy P 101.32 (16th ed.
2022) (“the Code definition of insolvency is essentially a balance sheet test”).
20-11254-jlg Doc 5900 Filed 07/07/22 Entered 07/07/22 15:13:22 Main Document
Pg 3 of 8

4
h. 	The following citation in the middle of page 45 of the Memorandum Decision:
Compare In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 624 B.R. 178, 198-199 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.
2020) (“Ultra Petroleum II”) (contract rate) and In re Mullins, 633 B.R. 1, 19-20
(Bankr. D. Mass. 2021) (state judgment rate), with Hertz, 2021 WL 6068390, at
*16 (federal judgment rate) and In re PG&E Corp., 610 B.R. 308 (Bankr. N.D.
Cal. 2019) (same).
shall be corrected to read as follows:
Compare In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 624 B.R. 178, 198-199 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.
2020) (“Ultra Petroleum II”) (contract rate) and In re Mullins, 633 B.R. 1, 19-20
(Bankr. D. Mass. 2021) (state judgment rate), with Hertz, 2021 WL 6068390, at
*16 (federal judgment rate) and In re PG&E Corp., 610 B.R. 308 (Bankr. N.D.
Cal. 2019) (same).
i. 	The following citation in footnote 55 on page 57 of the Memorandum Decision:
See TLA Claimholders Supplemental Objection ¶¶ 1-7.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
See TLA Claimholders Suppl. Obj. ¶¶ 1-7.
j. 	The following sentence in the middle of page 60 of the Memorandum Decision:
It contends that the Plan violates the preemptive rights of LATAM Parent’s
shareholders over stock, and securities convertible into stock, because it offers
Class B Notes and new LATAM Parent shares underlying the notes to the RSA
Shareholders on better terms than it offers to existing LATAM Parent
shareholders. See id. ¶¶ 1, 8, 27; Ried Decl. at 3, 5.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
It contends that the Plan violates the preemptive rights of LATAM Parent
shareholders over stock, and securities convertible into stock, because it offers
Class B Notes and new LATAM Parent shares underlying the notes to the RSA
Shareholders on better terms than it offers to existing LATAM Parent
shareholders. See id. ¶¶ 1, 8, 27; Ried Decl. at 3, 5.
k. 	The following sentence in the middle of page 61 of the Memorandum Decision:
It maintains that the Plan violates Chilean law because it does not call for
LATAM Parent to obtain an appraisal of the Allowed General Unsecured Class 5
Claims at fair market value, or for LATAM Parent’s shareholders, by a vote of at
least two-thirds of all shares, to approve both the issuance of the shares to
20-11254-jlg Doc 5900 Filed 07/07/22 Entered 07/07/22 15:13:22 Main Document
Pg 4 of 8

5
creditors in exchange for their claims, and the valuation of such claims. See
Columbus Hill Obj. ¶¶ 1, 16, 28-33; Ried Decl. at 17-18, 36-37.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
It maintains that the Plan violates Chilean law because it does not call for
LATAM Parent to obtain an appraisal of the Allowed General Unsecured Class 5
Claims at fair market value, or for LATAM Parent shareholders, by a vote of at
least two-thirds of all shares, to approve both the issuance of the shares to
creditors in exchange for their claims, and the valuation of such claims. See
Columbus Hill Obj. ¶¶ 1, 16, 28-33; Ried Decl. at 17-18, 36-37.
l. 	The following sentence in the middle of page 62 of the Memorandum Decision:
The Court first considers Columbus Hill’s assertion that the Plan violates the
LATAM Parent’s shareholders’ preemptive rights over stock and securities
convertible into stock pursuant to the Class B Notes.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
The Court first considers Columbus Hill’s assertion that the Plan violates the
LATAM Parent shareholders’ preemptive rights over stock and securities
convertible into stock pursuant to the Class B Notes.
m. The following sentence beginning at the bottom of page 64 and ending on the top
of page 65 of the Memorandum Decision:
It maintains that Chilean courts and regulators will look through the form of the
transactions and in focusing on their substance, will hold the Debtors to the
standards applicable to the issuance of new shares to LATAM Parent’s creditors
in exchange for, in part, non-cash consideration–i.e., unsecured claims against
LATAM Parent. See id. ¶¶ 31-33.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
It maintains that Chilean courts and regulators will look through the form of the
transactions and in focusing on their substance, will hold the Debtors to the
standards applicable to the issuance of new shares to LATAM Parent creditors in
exchange for, in part, non-cash consideration–i.e., unsecured claims against
LATAM Parent. See id. ¶¶ 31-33.
n. 	The following sentence at the bottom of page 66 of the Memorandum Decision:
It says that is so because existing LATAM Parent shareholders must pay the full-
face value of the Class A Notes and Class C Notes entirely in cash to exercise
their preemptive rights to acquire new LATAM Parent stock, but would receive
20-11254-jlg Doc 5900 Filed 07/07/22 Entered 07/07/22 15:13:22 Main Document
Pg 5 of 8

6
shares worth significantly less than the amount of cash paid, while the notes not
acquired by the LATAM Parent shareholders will be offered to Holders of
Allowed General Unsecured Class 5 Claimson substantially more favorable terms
(both in terms of the form of consideration and the value of the consideration
being provided by the creditors), all in violation of Chilean law. See Columbus
Hill Obj. ¶ 18.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
It says that is so because existing LATAM Parent shareholders must pay the full
face value of the Class A Notes and Class C Notes entirely in cash to exercise
their preemptive rights to acquire new LATAM Parent stock, but would receive
shares worth significantly less than the amount of cash paid, while the notes not
acquired by the LATAM Parent shareholders will be offered to Holders of
Allowed General Unsecured Class 5 Claims on substantially more favorable terms
(both in terms of the form of consideration and the value of the consideration
being provided by the creditors), all in violation of Chilean law. See Columbus
Hill Obj. ¶ 18.
o. 	The following sentence at the middle of page 68 of the Memorandum Decision:
It also provides that the Debtors will deliver any notes that remain available after
the expiration of the preemptive offering period to the Class 5 unsecured creditors
in full satisfaction and settlement of those claims. See id.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
It also provides that the Debtors will deliver any notes that remain available after
the expiration of the preemptive rights offering period to the Class 5 unsecured
creditors in full satisfaction and settlement of those claims. See id.
p. 	The following citation in footnote 70 of page 69 of the Memorandum Decision:
Third Contador Decl. ¶¶ 11-12.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
Id. ¶¶ 11-12.
q. 	The following sentence on the bottom of page 77 of the Memorandum Decision:
The A&P Ad Hoc Group asserts that the Plan provides the Commitment Creditors
with unprecedented value in comparison to other pari passu Holders of the
Allowed General Unsecured Class 5 Claims (the “Non-Commitment Creditors”),
and that the Plan’s economics disclose that the Backstop Fees are
disproportionately high compared to the risks the Commitment Creditors are
assuming in providing the Commitment Creditor Backstop Agreement.
20-11254-jlg Doc 5900 Filed 07/07/22 Entered 07/07/22 15:13:22 Main Document
Pg 6 of 8

7
shall be corrected to read as follows:
The A&P Ad Hoc Group asserts that the Plan provides the Commitment Creditors
with unprecedented value in comparison to other pari passu Holders of the
Allowed General Unsecured Class 5 Claims (the “Non-Commitment Creditors”),
and that the Plan’s economics disclose that the Backstop Fees are
disproportionately high compared to the risks the Commitment Creditors are
assuming in providing the backstop under the Commitment Creditors Backstop
Agreement.
r. 	The following citation on page 86 of the Memorandum Decision:
Id. ¶ 34 n.42 (quoting Jan 29, 2022 Alfonsín Dep. Tr. at 96:14–97:22.).
shall be corrected to read as follows:
Id. ¶ 34 n.42 (quoting Jan. 29, 2022 Alfonsín Dep. Tr. at 96:14-97:22).
s. 	The following citation in the middle of page 113 of the Memorandum Decision:
Id. at 13, 15.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
Id. at 13, 15; see also Reply to U.S. Trustee Suppl. Obj. ¶ 20.
t. 	The following citation beginning on the bottom of page 120 to the top of page 121
of the Memorandum Decision:
See In re Stations Holding Co., Inc., Case No. 02-10882 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 30,
2002) Order Granting Motion of the United States Trustee Pursuant to Sections
1125(b) and 1126(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy Code to Designate All Persons
Who Executed Post-Petition Lockup Agreements and to Direct that Their Ballots
Not be Counted, and/or for Sanctions or Other Relief [ECF No. 177], and In re
NII Holdings, Inc., Case No. 02-11505 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 25, 2002) Order dated
October 25, 2002) [ECF No. 367].
shall be corrected to read as follows:
See In re Stations Holding Co., Inc., Case No. 02-10882 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 30,
2002) Order Granting Motion of the United States Trustee Pursuant to Sections
1125(b) and 1126(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy Code to Designate All Persons
Who Executed Post-Petition Lockup Agreements and to Direct that Their Ballots
Not be Counted, and/or for Sanctions or Other Relief [ECF No. 177], and In re
NII Holdings, Inc., Case No. 02-11505 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 25, 2002), Order
dated October 25, 2002 [ECF No. 367].
20-11254-jlg Doc 5900 Filed 07/07/22 Entered 07/07/22 15:13:22 Main Document
Pg 7 of 8

8
u. 	The following sentence at the top of page 122 of the Memorandum Decision:
Moreover, it is undisputed that only forty-five of the ninety-five Allowed General
Unsecured Class 5 Claims originally subject to the Plan Support Provisions, voted
to accept the Plan.
shall be corrected to read as follows:
Moreover, it is undisputed that only forty-one of the ninety-five Allowed General
Unsecured Class 5 Claims originally subject to the Plan Support Provisions, voted
to accept the Plan.
2. 	Future references to the Memorandum Decision shall be to the Memorandum
Decision as corrected hereby, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Dated: New York, New York
July 7, 2022
/s/ James L. Garrity, Jr.
Hon. James L. Garrity, Jr.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
20-11254-jlg Doc 5900 Filed 07/07/22 Entered 07/07/22 15:13:22 Main Document
Pg 8 of 8