The adjustment process of Pallas Air’s 2.7 million euro debts raises questions about investor protection, customers, and oversight
On September 3, 2026, Pallas Air announced that the board of its wholly-owned subsidiary Lifa Air Limited has initiated a process to reassess debts of approximately 22.9 million Hong Kong dollars, or 2.7 million euros, recorded in favor of former CEO Vesa Mäkipää. According to the company, the intellectual property rights forming the basis of the debts belonged to Lifa Air Limited. The final impact will be resolved through legal assessment and auditing.
If the basis for the debt proves to be incorrect, it is of course right that it be corrected. But the timing raises questions.
In Pallas Air’s half-year report published on August 31, liquid assets were only about 287,000 euros, net debt was 8.6 million euros, and the equity ratio was -229.5%. In addition, Genano Group Oy’s loan of 1.8 million euros had matured, and the company stated that there was material uncertainty regarding business continuity.
Therefore, it is reasonable to ask:
If the intellectual property rights underlying the debts already belonged to Lifa Air Limited, why are their legal and accounting bases being reassessed only now?
When were the rights acquired, from whom, and under what agreement? On what basis was the 2.7 million euro debt created? And what connection does it have to the 2.7 million euro capital loan arrangement announced in 2024?
Retail investors and customers
Investors make their decisions based on information published by the company. Customers, in turn, make agreements and financial commitments based on the premise that the company’s contracts, financing arrangements, and service obligations are in order.
How can retail investors and customers be protected in practice if the bases of significant historical debts, intellectual property rights, or other transactions have to be investigated years later?
Genano
I reported my suspicions regarding Genano Oy’s leasing and financing arrangements to the police back in 2022. The matter is currently being handled by the Western Uusimaa Police Department under the number POL-2026-46608. I am making this case number public for reasons of transparency and verifiability.
In addition, there is one important, concrete fact:
When I informed the financing company about how Genano’s leasing and service arrangement was structured, the arrangement was subsequently changed.
Regarding Genano, the core question remains:
How much of the future years’ services were included in the financed amounts, how were they recorded in the accounting, how were future service obligations handled, and what happened to the funds received in advance from the financiers?
Pallas Air’s current announcement does not prove that there was any illegality in Genano’s operations. But in my opinion, it makes it even more reasonable to ask:
Has the entire historical totality of the Genano–Lifa Air arrangement ever been actually and thoroughly investigated?
And if not, why not?
This is no longer just a question about a single company
When the same entity involves significant historical debt items, questions related to the ownership of intellectual property rights, Genano’s historical financing and leasing arrangements, the extremely difficult financial situation of the current Pallas Air group, and the matter POL-2026-46608 currently handled by the police, it is also reasonable to ask the authorities what has actually been previously audited regarding similar historical transactions.
How can retail investors and customers be protected in practice if the legal or financial basis of significant historical transactions has to be reopened only years later?
And if such a review is necessary now, what does this say about what has actually been previously audited and supervised regarding similar historical transactions?
In my opinion, this is an issue that no longer concerns only Pallas Air or Genano, but the credibility of market surveillance, investor protection, and customer protection.
This will not be resolved by opinions, but by documents:
contracts → ownership rights → invoices → cash flows → accounting → obligations.