EXHIBIT 63
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2025 09:03 PMINDEX NO. 654131/2022
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1024 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`3 Index No. 65413/2022
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`4 AIRCASTLE LIMITED, et al, :
` :
`5 Plaintiffs, :
` :
`6 - against - :
` :
`7 CHUBB EUROPEAN GROUP S.E., et al, :
` :
`8 Defendants. :
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`9
`10 June 24, 2024
` 10:05 a.m.
`11 425 Lexington Ave.
` New York, NY
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION UPON ORAL
`21 EXAMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER BEERS, ESQ., held at
`22 the above-mentioned time and place, before Randi
`23 Friedman, a Registered Professional Reporter,
`24 within and for the State of New York.
`25 Job No. CS6716711
`Page 1
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-567-8658 973-410-4098
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2025 09:03 PMINDEX NO. 654131/2022
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1024 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 APPEARANCES:
`3 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
` Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Applicants
`4
` One Market Street, Spear Tower
`5 San Francisco, California 94105
`6 BY: JEFFREY S. RASKIN, ESQ.
`7
`8 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP
` Attorneys for Defendants, Chubb
`9 European, Swiss Re and AXA
`10 425 Lexington Avenue
` New York, New York 10017
`11
` BY: BRYCE L. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
`12 WILLIAM MORAN, ESQ.
`13
`14 SKARZYNSKI MARICK & BLACK, LLP
` Attorneys for Defendant, Lloyd's
`15 Syndicate 1183
`16 One Battery Park Plaza, 32nd Floor
` New York, New York 10004
`17
` BY: STEVEN F. NAPOLITANO, ESQ.
`18
`19
` CONDON & FORSYTH, LLP
`20 Attorneys for Defendants, Certain All
` Risk Insurers
`21
` 7 Times Square, 18th Floor
`22 New York, New York 10036
`23
`24
`25 (Appearances continued.)
`Page 3
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 (Appearances continued.)
`3 LOCKE LORD, LLP
` Attorneys for Defendants, Certain War
`4 Risks and Mixed Risks Insurers
`5 111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
`6
` BY: CHRISTOPHER R. BARTH, ESQ.
`7
`8
` SEIDEN LAW GROUP, LLP
`9 Attorneys for Defendants, TML and HCI
`10 322 Eighth Avenue, Suite 1704
` New York, New York 10001
`11
` BY: OLIVIA HUANG, ESQ.
`12
`13 * * *
`14 VIA ZOOM:
` Leah Zukerman
`15 Loren Ben David
` Sarah Salek
`16 Sergio Oehninger
` Melissa Vallejo
`17
` * * *
`18
`19
`20
`21 ALSO PRESENT:
`22 Robert Rudis - Videographer
`23
`24
`25
`Page 4
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2
`3 STIPULATIONS
`4 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between
`5 the attorneys for the respective parties hereto,
`6 that:
`7 All rights provided by the C.P.L.R.,
`8 and Part 221 of the Uniform Rules for the Conduct
`9 of Depositions, including the right to object to
`10 any question, except as to the form, or to move
`11 to strike any testimony at this examination is
`12 reserved; and in addition, the failure to object
`13 to any question or to move to strike any
`14 testimony at this examination shall not be a bar
`15 or a waiver to make such motion at, and is
`16 reserved to, the time of this action.
`17 This deposition may be sworn to by the
`18 witness being examined before a Notary Public
`19 other than the Notary Public before whom this
`20 examination was begun, but the failure to do so
`21 or to return the original of this deposition to
`22 counsel, shall not be deemed a waiver or the
`23 rights provided by Rule 3116, C.P.L.R., and shall
`24 be controlled thereby.
`25 The filing of the original of this
`Page 5
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 deposition is waived.
`3 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, a copy of
`4 this examination shall be furnished to the
`5 attorney for the witness being examined without
`6 charge.
`7 * * *
`8 MR. VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning.
`9 We are going on the record at 10:05 a.m. on
`10 June 24th, 2024.
`11 Please note the microphones are
`12 sensitive and may pick up whispering and
`13 private conversations. Please mute your
`14 mobile phones at this time. Audio and video
`15 recording will continue to take place unless
`16 all parties agree to go off the record.
`17 This is Media Unit 1 of the
`18 video-recorded deposition of Christopher
`19 Beers, taken for counsel -- by counsel -- on
`20 behalf of counsel for plaintiff in the
`21 matter of Aircastle Limited, et al. versus
`22 Chubb European Group, S.E., et al., filed in
`23 the County of New York, Index No.
`24 654131/2022. The location of the deposition
`25 is Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, 425
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-567-8658 973-410-4098
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2025 09:03 PMINDEX NO. 654131/2022
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1024 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 134
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 this letter was sent to the U.S. government by
`3 the law firm of Holland & Knight on behalf of
`4 Aircastle; correct?
`5 A That's correct.
`6 Q The second-to-the-last paragraph says,
`7 "AirBridge has advised Aircastle that it is
`8 willing to return both aircraft to Aircastle
`9 outside of Russia subject to obtaining required
`10 authorizations," and then it goes on.
`11 Do you see that?
`12 A Yeah.
`13 Q Was that always ABC's position
`14 vis-a-vis Aircastle and the aircraft it was
`15 holding?
`16 A That's what they had told us.
`17 Q Did any of the other Russian airlines
`18 tell you anything different with respect to the
`19 aircraft they were holding?
`20 MR. RASKIN: Object to form.
`21 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that.
`22 I think they were willing to discuss return.
`23 With ABC, we felt that we had a better line
`24 of -- a line of sight and opportunity to
`25 maybe get a return of those aircraft. We
`Page 135
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 had -- one of the aircraft was not in
`3 Russia, so we thought we might be able to
`4 actually repossess it on a non-consensual
`5 basis, which is what we did. And this is
`6 fairly early on after the war. AirBridge
`7 had indicated a willingness -- whether it
`8 was genuine, don't know -- a willingness to
`9 return our aircraft. And they said we need
`10 a BIS license -- BIS approval in order to do
`11 that, and so we got -- we sought to get the
`12 BIS approval.
`13 BY MR. FRIEDMAN:
`14 Q Did any of the Russian lessees express
`15 anything other than a willingness to return
`16 aircraft subject to obtaining the requisite
`17 authorizations?
`18 MR. RASKIN: Object to form.
`19 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Could you
`20 just restate that question?
`21 BY MR. FRIEDMAN:
`22 Q Did any of the Russian lessees express
`23 anything other than a willingness to return the
`24 aircraft subject to obtaining the requisite
`25 authorizations?
`Page 136
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 A From BIS or from Russia?
`3 Q Wherever they need to be.
`4 A I wouldn't characterize it as a
`5 willingness. It was a willingness to engage,
`6 like exploring a potential return.
`7 Q Is that different than what ABC was --
`8 A What ABC were expressing was that they
`9 had not -- they had a willingness to -- they
`10 seemed to be more willing to return the aircraft
`11 than the other Russian airlines. Again, whether
`12 that was genuine. We just wanted to make sure we
`13 did everything we could. So we had licenses and
`14 steps in place, so we could repossess those
`15 aircraft if we were able to.
`16 MR. RASKIN: Before you go to the
`17 next one, can we take a break?
`18 MR. FRIEDMAN: Oh, absolutely.
`19 MR. VIDEOGRAPHER: Taking a break?
`20 Off the record at 14:09, marking
`21 the end of Media Unit No. 3.
`22 (Whereupon there was a brief
`23 recess.)
`24 MR. VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record
`25 at 14:23, marking the beginning of Media
`Page 137
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 Unit No. 4.
`3 (Beers Exhibits 15 and 16 were
`4 marked.)
`5 BY MR. FRIEDMAN:
`6 Q I've given you two exhibits, the first
`7 marked Beers 15. Begins with an email with Bates
`8 No. 0020895.
`9 A Yes.
`10 Q It's from Rebecca Mann to Mark Gibson.
`11 The second, Exhibit 16, is a
`12 March 31st, 2022 email from Spencer Taylor to
`13 Emma Walker, the Bates No. Aon UK Aircastle 7655.
`14 A Okay.
`15 Q So with respect to Exhibit 15, if you
`16 flip, you'll see that this is a transmission from
`17 Aon to Mark Gibson and Emma Walker at Chubb, and
`18 one of the attachments is titled 2020-21 Renewal
`19 Fleet.xlxs.
`20 A Okay.
`21 Q I want to know whether you understand
`22 this to be the schedule of insured assets for
`23 Policy No. 1 ending February 28th, 2022.
`24 A So what page is -- it looks like
`25 there's a copy of a policy and then there's the
`35 (Pages 134 - 137)
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-567-8658 973-410-4098
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2025 09:03 PMINDEX NO. 654131/2022
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1024 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 230
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 a loss" versus an actual loss are two different
`3 things?
`4 A Yeah, slightly.
`5 Q Did Aircastle view its -- its subject
`6 aircraft as a loss on February 23rd? Of 2022.
`7 Sorry, just to clarify.
`8 A They could have been.
`9 Q And what would the basis of a loss
`10 have been on February 23rd of 2022?
`11 A I think it will be facts that existed
`12 as to impart what experts are testifying to.
`13 What the government and airlines were intending
`14 to do before any tanks crossed the border.
`15 That's why it was like we're taking the position
`16 that by February 28th, we were of the position,
`17 the view that the aircraft could have been lost,
`18 and which is why we had started trying to make
`19 attempts to repossess aircraft even before we had
`20 formally terminated leases.
`21 Q At any point during the expired policy
`22 year, had any of Aircastle's lessees indicated
`23 that they would not -- that they did not intend
`24 to return the aircraft into Aircastle's
`25 possession at the end of whatever those lease
`Page 231
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 terms were?
`3 A At the end of the lease terms? I
`4 don't recall them ever saying that.
`5 Q Prior to the events of the Russian
`6 invasion of Ukraine, had Aircastle had any
`7 internal discussions about any concerns that its
`8 lessees would not return aircraft that were owned
`9 by Aircastle and leased to those lessees? And
`10 we'll cabin this question to the lessees that are
`11 subject -- of the subject aircraft.
`12 A I don't specifically recall any
`13 conversations.
`14 Q So what changed in February of 2022,
`15 then, to change Aircastle's view of those
`16 aircraft?
`17 A By the end of February, by the 28th we
`18 had an invasion of the country. We had sanctions
`19 that were announced that expressly prohibited the
`20 continuing supply and leasing of aircraft.
`21 Q And would you agree that those
`22 sanctions were sanctions that were handed down by
`23 various governmental -- or governments?
`24 A Yes.
`25 Q Those sanctions were not a product of
`Page 232
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 an action by the lessees; is that correct?
`3 A Correct.
`4 Q I want to turn your attention,
`5 Mr. Beers, to -- I believe it's Exhibit 7, which
`6 is the covering email of April 21st and the --
`7 I'll refer to it as the claim letter of
`8 April 20th of 2022.
`9 A Okay.
`10 Q Just for purposes of our discussion.
`11 A Is that the cautionary notices and the
`12 notice of claim?
`13 Q I believe it should be, and it's
`14 just -- for the record, it's a document with the
`15 Bates stamp Aircastle NY 12012 through 12046.
`16 Just let me know once you have that document.
`17 A And the other one was Exhibit 8?
`18 Q Let's do -- if you have 7, and then I
`19 believe the precautionary claim I had as
`20 Exhibit 9. I apologize if that's an error.
`21 Aircastle 12057 through 12060.
`22 A I have 9 now. Yeah, got them both.
`23 Q All right. And I apologize, if
`24 anybody can confirm if the 12057 is Exhibit 8 or
`25 9, just so I can make a proper record?
`Page 233
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 A 12057 is Exhibit 9.
`3 Q Okay. So we have 7 and 9 in front of
`4 us; right?
`5 A Yes.
`6 Q Let's look at Exhibit 7 first. And if
`7 you can go to the second page of the letter,
`8 which is Bates stamp ending 12014.
`9 A Yes.
`10 Q And if you see in the title section
`11 Further Information on the Event, which then has
`12 a Footnote No. 1. Do you see that?
`13 A I do.
`14 Q And for the footnote it states, "The
`15 situation in relation to the sanctions against
`16 Russia, Russian entities and Russian individuals
`17 imposed by the UK, EU and U.S. is evolving.
`18 Similarly, the legislation passed by Russia in
`19 response to the UK, EU and U.S. persons,
`20 companies and assets of those companies is
`21 changing regularly. The following sets out a
`22 summary of the position up to and including 29
`23 March, 2022. It may be the case that there have
`24 been further developments since this date and
`25 following the submission of this claim update."
`59 (Pages 230 - 233)
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-567-8658 973-410-4098
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2025 09:03 PMINDEX NO. 654131/2022
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1024 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 246
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 that operated outside of Russia.
`3 Q Okay.
`4 A Mirchandani was just another approach
`5 to say is there another way we can, you know,
`6 mitigate our recover losses.
`7 Q So in April of 2022, there were
`8 ongoing discussions between Aircastle and
`9 AirBridge Capital about the return of the subject
`10 aircraft that was leased to AirBridge Capital?
`11 MR. RASKIN: Object to form.
`12 THE WITNESS: That wasn't
`13 AirBridge Cap. AirBridgeCargo, you mean?
`14 BY MR. OSTENDORP:
`15 Q Thank you for clarifying.
`16 A So, yeah. Maybe we need to reverse
`17 this. I thought you were referring to
`18 Mirchandani's corporate entity, that we were
`19 looking to sell the aircraft to separately.
`20 Q Let's clear that question up for the
`21 record. Let me ask it a better way.
`22 Was it Aircastle's -- was Aircastle in
`23 continuing negotiations with AirBridgeCargo for
`24 the return of the subject aircraft, at least to
`25 AirBridgeCargo in April of 2022, when this letter
`Page 247
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 was issued?
`3 A Yes.
`4 Q Okay. Since this letter was issued,
`5 did Aircastle become aware of any facts that
`6 reflected that AirBridgeCargo was not willing to
`7 return the aircraft, setting aside the Russian
`8 decrees and actions?
`9 A Nothing specific.
`10 Q Okay. I want to move you to Section
`11 7.2 -- sorry, 7.10, subsection (h), on the page
`12 ending Bates stamp 12022.
`13 A Okay.
`14 Q And I will inform you this section is
`15 in regards to Aurora, which is one of the
`16 operators. And Section (h) -- Subsection (h)
`17 reads, "The lessee has advised us that they have
`18 been explicitly told by the Russian government to
`19 continue all operations and they cannot make any
`20 decisions until the relevant Russian law/decree
`21 is executed."
`22 Did I read that correctly?
`23 A You did.
`24 Q Did Aircastle have any reason in April
`25 of 2022 to believe this information was not
`Page 248
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 accurate?
`3 A No. It's accurate. This is what the
`4 lessee advised us.
`5 Q And subsequent to this letter, has
`6 Aircastle become aware of any facts that
`7 indicated that Aurora was not willing to return
`8 the aircraft, putting aside the Russian decrees
`9 and actions?
`10 A We don't have any facts as such.
`11 Q Okay. All right. Let's go to
`12 subsection 7.8. Sorry, if you're looking at --
`13 let's see. I'm just going to give the Bates
`14 stamp number. It looks like there's no
`15 subsection. 12023. This section is in regards
`16 to the S7 aircraft.
`17 A Yes.
`18 Q This is above Section 7.11. I'm
`19 referring to Subsection (d), which is towards the
`20 top of the page. Do you see that?
`21 A Uh-huh.
`22 Q It states, "On 12 March 2022, lessor
`23 began referring to the draft Russian decree that
`24 restricts the export of any aircraft throughout
`25 2022 and advise that they cannot return the
`Page 249
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 aircraft. Since then we have been awaiting the
`3 Russian government's feedback and have asked the
`4 lessee to apply for government approval to
`5 redeliver the aircraft."
`6 Did I read that correctly?
`7 A You did.
`8 Q And at the time this letter was
`9 issued, did Aircastle have any reason to believe
`10 this information was not accurate?
`11 A This is the information that -- wait.
`12 That "lessor" should be "lessee."
`13 Q I will accept your interpretation of
`14 that as -- that would seem logical. Is that what
`15 you understand this information to mean as a
`16 corporate rep for Aircastle?
`17 A Yes.
`18 Q Okay. So my question would be was
`19 there any reason that Aircastle did not find this
`20 information to be accurate at the time?
`21 MR. RASKIN: Object to form.
`22 THE WITNESS: At the time it
`23 should have said "lessee." That was a typo.
`24 BY MR. OSTENDORP:
`25 Q So other than that, would this
`63 (Pages 246 - 249)
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-567-8658 973-410-4098
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2025 09:03 PMINDEX NO. 654131/2022
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1024 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 250
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 information -- did Aircastle find this
`3 information to be accurate at the time?
`4 A Yeah. That would have been consistent
`5 with what the lessees were telling us.
`6 Q Since this letter was issued, has
`7 Aircastle become aware of any facts that indicate
`8 that S7 was not willing to return the subject
`9 aircraft, at least, putting aside the Russian
`10 decrees and actions?
`11 MR. RASKIN: Object to form.
`12 THE WITNESS: Nothing specific.
`13 BY MR. OSTENDORP:
`14 Q All right. Finally, let me move you
`15 to the page ending in Bates stamp 12024. This is
`16 subsection 7.11, subsection (e). And it pertains
`17 to the operator Ural. Do you see that?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q And it reads, "Since then the lessee
`20 have advised that they cannot proceed or make a
`21 decision until the draft Russian decree (pay in
`22 RUB" -- I'm assuming it means rubles -- "/return
`23 aircraft if approved by lessor) is executed. At
`24 present, all three aircraft, all leased to Ural,
`25 continue to operate domestically in Russia and
`Page 251
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 within the CIS region."
`3 Did I read that correctly?
`4 A You did.
`5 Q Did Aircastle have any reason to
`6 believe that information was not accurate at the
`7 time?
`8 A No.
`9 Q And since April of 2022, has Aircastle
`10 become aware of any information or of any facts
`11 that Ural was not willing to return the aircraft,
`12 putting aside the Russian decrees and actions?
`13 A Not any specific facts.
`14 Q Okay. You can put this document down.
`15 I believe you already picked up Exhibit 14.
`16 A Yes, I have it right here.
`17 Q Withdrawn. Before I -- not withdrawn.
`18 I don't have a question yet.
`19 Back to Exhibit 7 quickly that we just
`20 went through.
`21 In the information that we went
`22 through in Exhibit 7, is there any reference to a
`23 theft of the aircraft?
`24 A I don't recall we used the word
`25 "theft."
`Page 252
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 Q Is there any reference to the aircraft
`3 being stolen?
`4 A No.
`5 Q Is there any reference to a conversion
`6 of the aircraft?
`7 A No, not specifically.
`8 Q If those types of situations were the
`9 basis for Aircastle's claim, would they have been
`10 included in the letter that is in as Exhibit 7?
`11 A No. We said that there's a loss under
`12 the policy.
`13 Q Okay. That doesn't quite answer my
`14 question. My question is if those served as a
`15 basis for the claim, would Aircastle have
`16 specified them in the letter that's Exhibit 7?
`17 MR. RASKIN: Object to form.
`18 THE WITNESS: No.
`19 BY MR. OSTENDORP:
`20 Q So if Aircastle believed that the
`21 aircraft were stolen, it would not have included
`22 that in its claim letter for these subject
`23 aircraft? Is that your testimony?
`24 MR. RASKIN: Object to form.
`25 THE WITNESS: We did not need to
`Page 253
`1 C. Beers, Esq.
`2 specifically reference words like "theft,
`3 conversion."
`4 BY MR. OSTENDORP:
`5 Q You would agree that there is a vast
`6 amount of detail regarding Russian decrees and
`7 other government sanctions within the letter;
`8 would you?
`9 A I would.
`10 Q So it was important for aircraft to
`11 include that level of detail, but it's your
`12 testimony that would not have specified if it had
`13 facts to support that the aircraft were stolen or
`14 subject to theft?
`15 MR. RASKIN: Object to form.
`16 THE WITNESS: But these -- what we
`17 put in the claim letter were facts that we
`18 were aware of, which happened to be Russian
`19 decrees. What we did not need to put into
`20 the letter as to whether that fell within
`21 our all risk or whether it was a war
`22 exclusion covered by the war endorsement.
`23 BY MR. OSTENDORP:
`24 Q Okay, fair enough.
`25 So a better way to put it is the
`64 (Pages 250 - 253)
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-567-8658 973-410-4098
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2025 09:03 PMINDEX NO. 654131/2022
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1024 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`