Fairline Boats purchased

[Deleted User YDKXO]

The completion of those boats weren't at anyone's expense. Had they not have been completed the redubdant staff and suppliers still wouldn't have been any better off.

True, Pete, but as I said before, as a supplier it is one thing losing your shirt on an unpaid invoice but it is quite another to see a new company financially benefiting from the goods you have supplied under that invoice

 

[wakeup]

All I need is another 29 people for the syndicate and I'll be away!

Ok I'm in, only 28 more to go.

 

[jfm]

...not so good for some of the staff who started the build and are now redundant and some of the suppliers who lost money

Deleted User, as you well know new fairline is a completely new enterprise owned and run by folks with completely clean hands so far as unpaid suppliers etc are concerned. The public docs show they bought the assets for a full price in a contested auction. There was no smelly prepackaged here nor a Phoenix scenario. I agree that finishing a boat isn't earth shattering news but saying it is not good for the unpaid suppliers feels to me irrational, and verging on unfair to the new investors (whom I applaud and wish well, but are you not with me on that?)

I once bought a house in Buckinghamshire (still own it) out of a builder insolvency. It was a contested auction and I offered the top price. Are you saying I should not have had a housewarming party out of sympathy for the unpaid suppliers? Or that I should have paid them?

Here's a complicating factor: public records show that some of old Fairline's suppliers who lost money have themselves done pre packs. Their proprietors suffered some pain, but passed some of the pain onto their suppliers and employees. Where do they stand in any sympathy queue?

 

[jfm]

Ok I'm in, only 28 more to go.

I'm in too. I'd prefer to own 2 weeks of a sq78 in baldricks than schlepp there. 4 year payback in fuel cost savings.
Only 27 to go
It would be the mother of all build threads :encouragement:

 

[petem]

It would certainly be the mother of all forum "Group Buys"!

 

[MapisM]

There was no smelly prepackaged here nor a Phoenix scenario. I agree that finishing a boat isn't earth shattering news but saying it is not good for the unpaid suppliers feels to me irrational, and verging on unfair to the new investors

Tricky subject this one, J.
While I agree - based on my somewhat limited understanding - that the latest deal looks kosher (in sharp contrast with the BC/WB deal), I think Deleted User point is valid regardless.
I mean, you are fully correct in your analysis of course, but it ain't just a rational matter.
I personally dealt with dozens (and I mean it!) of similar situations, and the perception of staff and suppliers involved is typically the one Deleted User described, no matter what.
You could try as hard as you wish to explain those folks your very valid point, but I'm afraid you would only waste your time.
There's a very appropriate IT expression for their approach, and according to word reference the most accurate EN version is "once bitten, twice shy".
Not sure it's 100% correct, but I think you see what I mean....

PS: I'd be tempted to confirm that I'm in for the group buy, hence with just 26 to go.
Then again, I thought you would insist in fitting some bent fins on the thing, rather than some proper top notch IT technology, so all considered I'll stay out of that!

 

[Omegaelite]

This thread has turned into a "how to run a successful or not successful business and were they bastards or not thread", between credit insurance, EBITDA, the positives and negatives of to pre-pack or not to prepack and the inner workings of Insolvency practistioners, I'm sure most avid boaters have now either lost the plot or theorised they are reading the script to wall street 3........

Can we not focus on the positive.....

Fairline has new owners. They have a slimmed staff, lower cost model, less factories (or will have by the end of April) and no debt. With a break even point probably 30% of what it used to be, they are well poised not only to stay in business but to thrive.
And I may yet be able to source spares for my Targa which is great news.

Does anybody have any additional "actual news" relating to the purchase of Fairline, its future strategy, new owners, new management, new boats, new employees??............Or is the WB, BC, IP debate going to continue to rage on......?

 

[petem]

Omegalite,

See post my #265 in this thread and the interview with Russell Currie the new MD in the latest MBY. Don't expect any news regarding totally new models for a few months as they want to get this most important part of the new company absolutely cright.

Pete

 

[Cheery]

I assume that some suppliers will want to be paid on a pro forma invoice to prevent the once bitten scenario mentioned above. If it is just a carpet supplier or door handle manufacturer, the newco can look elsewhere if they don't like the pro forma system. All well and good for ancillary items but what happens if a large supplier i.e. engines decide they want money in the bank first?

It is a bit of a cleft stick, securing jobs by selling something they haven't paid for or start totally from scratch and increase the cost of your new product. We know what happened when their products were uncompetitive. I am sure the staff that were kept on would want the current situation.

 

[wakeup]

True, Pete, but as I said before, as a supplier it is one thing losing your shirt on an unpaid invoice but it is quite another to see a new company financially benefiting from the goods you have supplied under that invoice

Mike, I think this is a heart vs head emotion that is natural.

I would feel pissed off if I saw my kit and components on display as part of a boat at LBS knowing that I hadn't been paid for them. It would be a bit like paying for a girl friend to have a boob job for he to then run off with your best mate. Technically the best mate doesn't owe you for the boob job, the girl friend morally does, but it ain't have galling knowing that he is getting the enjoyment that you have paid for. Technically he is no longer your best mate either.

But as JFM says, the new Fairline team have absolutely nothing to do with the BC/WB mess and have paid fair market price by being the highest bidder for the assets from the receiver.

We should all get behind them and YBW should do a better job of reporting real news from this manufacturer as poor by lines will undermine Fairline's recovery where as a good story on a new model could really help them recover their position.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

There was no smelly prepackaged here nor a Phoenix scenario

.
I never said there was. Don't get me wrong. I'm delighted for the remaining staff at Fairline, it's dealers and loyal customers. All I'm saying is that the Fairline newco completing a half built boat is not unadulterated good news all round, especially for those suppliers who weren't paid for some of the components on that boat and the staff that helped build it and now don't have a job

I once bought a house in Buckinghamshire (still own it) out of a builder insolvency. It was a contested auction and I offered the top price. Are you saying I should not have had a housewarming party out of sympathy for the unpaid suppliers? Or that I should have paid them?

I know one or two builders who would have surreptitiously removed the items from the house that they weren't paid for so I hope it was still standing after you bought it

Here's a complicating factor: public records show that some of old Fairline's suppliers who lost money have themselves done pre packs. Their proprietors suffered some pain, but passed some of the pain onto their suppliers and employees. Where do they stand in any sympathy queue?

In that case I have no sympathy for them and a sort of rough justice has been done

 

[benjenbav]

Omegalite,

See post my #265 in this thread and the interview with Russell Currie the new MD in the latest MBY. Don't expect any news regarding totally new models for a few months as they want to get this most important part of the new company absolutely cright.

Pete

Down to the last detail...

 

[MapisM]

This thread has turned into a "how to run a successful or not successful business and were they bastards or not thread"

I'm not sure if it's anything I wrote that you found so inappropriate, but since your post followed mine, sorry if this is the case.
Otoh, it's not like these things are completely o/t in a "Fairline Boats purchased" thread...
...less than the spares for your Targa anyway, methink.

 

[Markergi]

As a matter of interest, I see a lot of invoices with terms such as 'Goods remain the property of the supplier until paid for in full', is that legally enforceable? Did the suppliers to Fairline Boats not have that in their suppliers agreement or is it just a case that it's unenforceable and the administrator assumes all stock is the property of the company who possess it, regardless of whether or not it's been paid for? I've read horror stories where people claim to have lost cars, boats, caravans etc., which were being sold on a commission basis by a dealer who had the item on their forecourt at the point the company went in to liquidation, does that really happen or just hearsay? Apologies, a little off topic...

 

[Nick_H]

Suppliers can certainly claim "retention of title" on goods they have supplied that have not been used or paid for, although I think there's a time limit. It normally seems to work that suppliers can get back items that were simply held in stock, but cannot get any value for items that have already been incorporated into work in progress (other than as unsecured creditors). This is how it's always worked for my company anyway, but I don't know the legal basis for it.

 

[EME]

Suppliers can certainly claim "retention of title" on goods they have supplied that have not been used or paid for, although I think there's a time limit. It normally seems to work that suppliers can get back items that were simply held in stock, but cannot get any value for items that have already been incorporated into work in progress (other than as unsecured creditors). This is how it's always worked for my company anyway, but I don't know the legal basis for it.

We certainly have that clause in our standard Ts and Cs .. but I don't think recent / new buyers would appreciate our trying to recover 'our' goods -- a mute point really as it isn't going to happen.

Can only look forward to the future. Same people with different, fresh (decent) governance may be just the tonic.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Suppliers can certainly claim "retention of title" on goods they have supplied that have not been used or paid for, although I think there's a time limit. It normally seems to work that suppliers can get back items that were simply held in stock, but cannot get any value for items that have already been incorporated into work in progress (other than as unsecured creditors). This is how it's always worked for my company anyway, but I don't know the legal basis for it.

I must admit that like everybody else we put a retention of title clause on our invoices but the main problem is actually enforcing it. It is very unlikely that your customer is simply going to hand the goods back to you and the administrator will insist on incontrovertible proof that the goods he sees on your customer's premises are those covered by your unpaid invoices and that is usually very difficult. Of course, if do attempt to enter your customer's premises to reclaim the goods, in all likelihood you are at the very least committing a trespass offence or worse, a breaking and entering offence

Entirely FWIW, I don't mind admitting that we have managed to reclaim goods on a couple of occasions in the past when a customer has gone bust but I suspect that the steps we took to reclaim those goods may not have been entirely legal

 

[Markergi]

We've been caught several times but never for huge amounts. We normally have a good lever to get any phoenix or new owner to either pay up the last company's account or buy again so have never been in the position where someone else is making money from our loss. It does make you think though, if there's a retention clause, how does the administrator sell say, those promotional bags on the shelf which the oldco don't actually own. Also, as a for instance, does the administrator check that those top of the range underwater lights have been fitted to a part built hull before assuming ownership and the right to sell as part of the oldco's assets? What if said lights fail, will newco expect the unpaid supplier to send an engineer at his own cost, as they're still under warranty - assuming warranty starts at the point the goods are supplied or fitted rather than at the point the goods are paid for?

Of course for someone selling something like top quality lights, they'll probably have to take it on the chin and hope to sell newco many lights over the coming years rather than fall out over a couple of grand, doesn't seem right though.

 

[Cheery]

I have experienced this from both sides. A company I worked for used to have a fair few defaulters, usually a couple of grand maximum. One defaulter however, who did it to dodge a legal claim, was tens of thousands. He wanted to do the honourable thing (!) and pay our company and plonked a large bag of cash on the table. The chairman made a grab for it but his son, who is a trained barrister, said it was illegal. To get around it, he agreed to an increase in prices until the balance was paid. Margins in that particular end user area allowed to do this, boats do not.

The second example I had to go to a country overseas to barter for equipment which had been stored offsite before anyone else got a claim on it. I had a wad of cash and walked around a warehouse negotiating various prices for items. I spent that long doing so I missed my flight home and as I was only supposed to be there for the day and had no overnight kit. Booked a hotel and then went searching for necessary items. I don't know if this example was entirely legal either.

 

[jfm]

@markergi, warranty is a contract between the light manufacturer and someone other than the first customer, as defined in the contract, but newco might not qualify as that someone, nor might newco's ultimate retail buyer of the boat. Also the warranty contract might exclude warrantor's obligations if lights not paid for. It depends on how it is written. Separately, goodwill might come into it too, as you say in your 2nd para