Oyster Yachts gone into administration

It's sad to see another well known British name bite the dust.

I was quite surprised to see a brand spanking new Moody 50 something at the Seattle boat show. I though Moody had long since gone the way of the Do Do. Nice boat apparently the name is now owned by Hallberg Rassy and the boat built in Germany. I think it was about twice the price of the Jeneau 54
Who knows Oysters may still survive in some form.
 
Maybe it was a mistake to change from being a marketing and design operation with the construction risks being shared with Landamore and Windboats, the same method being used by J-Boats. Oyster’s current owners brought everything in-house, more profit but bigger risks.
Plus the losses from Polina Star III must have hurt.
 
lpdsn said:
I wonder if there were issues hanging over them regarding the keel that fell off (Polina Star). You'd think that with a decent order book they would've tried administration otherwise.
Click to expand...

In the article linked to there was specific reference to this, and the money they might have lost over this - perhaps it is also future losses due to litigation.
I must say at the time I was very shocked by their secretive approach to this, even more shocked by the ludicrously thin scantlings of the keel box when the story was opened up by a Russian press journalist (the British press including YM and YW seemed to be scared to print anything) and finally by the way they tried at first to blame the owner and skipper for this catastrophic and near fatal failure. I am hardly in the market for a new Oyster, but i suddenly moved my views of Oyster to similar to (old) Southerly after their two Phoenix insolvency and reincarnations, dumping on their suppliers twice.

Still very sad for the workforce and the minimal British boat construction industry
 
Quiddle said:
An alternative view of the marque.
Click to expand...

True. As with Northshore/Southerly, Fairline and GT Yachts, the high prices reflect inefficiencies in manufacture more than quality in the finished product. A new build Aston-Martin DB4 at £1.5m is not in any sense a better car than a DB11 at a tenth of the price; it just costs an awful lot more to make.
 
Still cant quite get my head around how you can go into liquidation with tens of millions of pounds worth of orders for the following year, i guess something was seriously rotten at the core. Oh well another one bites the dust, whos next do we think, are there any left? Discovery seem to be doing alright.........
 
You do have to wonder whether it is partly to do with litigation. It would be effective way of dissipating the risk of any litigation (present or future) relating to a few poorly constructed yachts. My view is that Oysters are at about the right price point for the superb quality of their yachts, and there is a place in the market with enough people prepared to pay the required premium with very few builders operating at this level.
 
guardian said:
Still cant quite get my head around how you can go into liquidation with tens of millions of pounds worth of orders for the following year, i guess something was seriously rotten at the core. Oh well another one bites the dust, whos next do we think, are there any left? Discovery seem to be doing alright.........
Click to expand...

Have you never heard of a company called Carrilion? Doesn't matter what your order book looks like.
 
Interesting that Hallberg-Rassy have recently added another shift, and are now working 7 days a week. The market is obviously working for some people.
 
Liquidation is not administration - the parent company clearly feels there are still assets in the company worth saving. It is quite possible the assets are bought by a new organisation bearing more than a passing similarity to the current one and will continue trading much as before.
 
bedouin said:
Liquidation is not administration - the parent company clearly feels there are still assets in the company worth saving. It is quite possible the assets are bought by a new organisation bearing more than a passing similarity to the current one and will continue trading much as before.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, does it shield the new firm from any outstanding legal proceedings regarding boats built by the original yard?
 
westhinder said:
If that is the case, does it shield the new firm from any outstanding legal proceedings regarding boats built by the original yard?
Click to expand...
I am not an expert but I think it normally would. Legally the original company ceases to exist and if there weren't outstanding debts or on going proceedings at the time of liquidation then there should be no issues.
 
bedouin said:
I am not an expert but I think it normally would. Legally the original company ceases to exist and if there weren't outstanding debts or on going proceedings at the time of liquidation then there should be no issues.
Click to expand...

+1 There are, however, 'legitimate' legal structures which can de jure remove the assets of a company while leaving certain creditors high and dry, depending on their hierarchy.
 
Last edited:
bedouin said:
Liquidation is not administration - the parent company clearly feels there are still assets in the company worth saving. It is quite possible the assets are bought by a new organisation bearing more than a passing similarity to the current one and will continue trading much as before.
Click to expand...

Generally liquidation, which is the position reported here, is for more serious/terminal issues than administration - whereas in the latter case the business is continued, in some cut down form, pending an attempt to sell or restart as a going concern.
Liquidation as here everything stops and just a fire sale of any sellable assets.
Very much a worst case for employees, suppliers and customers.
Hopefully not structured in the same way as Southerly was
 
westhinder said:
If that is the case, does it shield the new firm from any outstanding legal proceedings regarding boats built by the original yard?
Click to expand...

It depends on the transaction. I purchased the assets of a company in administration but not the company, therefore had no liabilities except employees whose employment was continuous as far as their rights were concerned. If I had bought the company, then would also have purchased its liabilities.

P.S. There is usually the option to continue using the trading/brand name but this doesn't imply any liability - except that customers who placed deposits with the previous company obviously think they should be honoured if the name remains.
 
Last edited:
dunedin said:
Generally liquidation, which is the position reported here, is for more serious/terminal issues than administration - whereas in the latter case the business is continued, in some cut down form, pending an attempt to sell or restart as a going concern.
Liquidation as here everything stops and just a fire sale of any sellable assets.
Very much a worst case for employees, suppliers and customers.
Hopefully not structured in the same way as Southerly was
Click to expand...

Exactly so. But the statement from Oyster has not committed them to liquidation. Yet.
It is the company which is liquidated, not necesarily the 'business'. Various businesses might get sold as going concerns.
E.g. if a company has one profitable product line, the rights and tools to make that can be sold to the highest bidder, whatever makes the most money to pay creditors.

I don't know how Oyster is structured, so I don't know how it might get split up.
 
Doesn't look good, just been reading one of my financial websites and HTP investments are deep in the **** regarding their own sources of finance, seems problems have come about since this 1000 point drop on the Dow Jones, gotta love private equity eh............?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top