Have you seen anything that names the Dutch equity investors as party to the loss? I haven't. The Russian owner was paid for the vessel loss by his insurer and appeared to be looking for some kind of mental anguish compensation settlement. This may advance to court where there would be claims against the value of Oyster, but equity guys are pretty good at insulating themselves against liability beyond the value of their purchase. The Russian seems to be avoiding a lawsuit. We haven't heard of any subrogation claim by the owner's insurer against Oyster. Strange. Things could be going on behind the scenes. Maybe the equity guys collapsed Oyster to sell it and generate funds. One thing we do know, it takes more than money and a boatyard to build an Oyster.
No except, for the fact that they hold the UKP15m investment.
What I do not understand is why Oyster was so set on suing the contract builder for £7M when the owner was made whole for the hull loss. Or why they took a £5.2M write-off on the books. The claim against the contract builder was awarded at £400k, which seems reasonable to fix the other three hulls.
Interesting bit from the London Times last week.
Investors pulled the plug on a luxury boatbuilder after growing impatient with delays in a £7.2 million insurance claim against a subcontractor over a sunken yacht, its chief executive confirmed yesterday.
Oyster Yachts, which was founded in 1973 and employed 400 people in Southampton, Ipswich, Wroxham, Majorca and Rhode Island in the United States, said last week that it was talking to administrators after HTP Investments, its Dutch backer, withdrew funds. All staff had to be made redundant.
Problems began to emerge in 2015, when the Polina Star III, one of Oyster’s luxury yachts, sank off the coast of Spain in July, leaving a £5.8 million hole in the company’s balance sheet.
The yacht maker filed a £7.2 million claim against Bridgland Moulders, a subcontractor based in Norwich, which it accused of failing to carry out the moulding on the boat properly. The additional costs also covered repairs to three additional vessels — the Reina, Meagan and Albatross — made using the same moulding technique.
It is understood that insurers have paid £400,000, but £6.8 million remains outstanding. To the frustration of the Dutch investors, the settlement has been beset with delays.
At the beginning of the year, after more than two years of fruitless attempts to recover the costs, an arbitration date was pushed back again several months, David Tydeman, Oyster’s chief executive, said.
“The date slipped back to around May and that influenced the appetite of the investors,” he said. Although insolvency advisors have been called in, Mr Tydeman insisted that all hope had not been lost: “We are working to try and rescue the company and there are still some opportunities that we are looking into,” he said, without disclosing further details.
Last Monday, a letter to staff from the company made clear that, as it had been unable to secure “financial support to continue to trade”, there was a risk that it would be “unable to continue to provide work for all its employees at all locations” and that it was likely that it would have to make all its workers redundant.
Staff at the company’s Southampton and Wroxham sites told The Times that they were shocked by the news, particularly as last year ended with a healthy £80 million order book for 25 yachts. Some offered to work without pay to help to get the firm back on its feet.
Since 1973, Oyster has built bespoke vessels for wealthy international customers, with a mantra that boasts: “choice not compromise”. Previous briefs have included the installation of a 100-litre stainless steel rum tank, which could be filled straight from the deck, and the construction of a crow’s nest on a 56ft boat so that the customer could “stare down at the reefs in the clear water” during trips around Scandinavia.
Bridgland Moulders did not respond to requests for comment.
