Oyster in liquidation

[Polux]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

Certainly mistakes were made by Oyster. But the link provided is clearly a hit piece so I would take everything with a grain of salt.
....
The hit piece also makes a vague allegation that money was pulled out illegally. If that's the case you won't be able to tell in these financial statements. You'll need a forensic account to make that determination...

Why do you call it a hit piece? Out of the speculation that the money was pulled out illegally and that the bankruptcy is a way for Oyster to escape indemnization (over two and a half million euro) all the rest is pretty factual and have already had been disclosed.

The summary of events is actually quite good and it is an impressive piece of work. It deserves a good reading:
HOW IT WENT DOWN: The Oyster Story

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Polux

Why do you call it a hit piece? Out of the speculation that the money was pulled out illegally and that the bankruptcy is a way for Oyster to escape indemnization all the rest is pretty factual and have already had been disclosed.



The summary of events is actually quite good and it is an impressive piece of work. It deserves a good reading:

HOW IT WENT DOWN: The Oyster Story

I'm calling it a hit piece because it is very clearly a one-sided version of the events. This wasn't written by a journalist, it was certainly funded by an aggrieved party (I assume the owner of the sunken boat) with an agenda to smear the company. I'm certain the story told by Oyster management would be quite different. I'm surprised this isn't obvious.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

I'm calling it a hit piece because it is very clearly a one-sided version of the events. This wasn't written by a journalist, it was certainly funded by an aggrieved party (I assume the owner of the sunken boat) with an agenda to smear the company. I'm certain the story told by Oyster management would be quite different. I'm surprised this isn't obvious.

Fact is that almost all those allegations were already been made long ago (we followed all that here on the forum)and Oyster never made a disclaimer to anything and documents are presented on that site to backing what they say on that site.

Yes it is not an independent version and it may be even be just one side of the story but a hit piece? A hit piece implies and intention that you say they have, an agenda to destroy the company.

But it can be seen other way, an aggravated owner pissed with what he thinks it is a fraudulent bankruptcy for avoiding him an indemnization and without being able to to nothing more, making the case public.

Of course, I don't know if it was a fraudulent bankruptcy with capital being taken from the company, even if there are some odd coincidences and on that article it is not said that it was a fraudulent bankruptcy but only that they suspect it was the case.

It is one sided, but a hit piece? Somebody making public his side of the story is a hit piece against the other side?

Oyster can make public its side and in fact it had done so with some public statements that don't contradict what is said on the article and it can make public a denial regarding any of the statements that were made on it, most of them made already long ago, but it never have done so.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Polux

Fact is that almost all those allegations were already been made long ago (we followed all that here on the forum)and Oyster never made a disclaimer to anything and documents are presented on that site to backing what they say on that site.

Yes it is not an independent version and it may be even be just one side of the story but a hit piece? A hit piece implies and intention that you say they have, an agenda to destroy the company.

But it can be seen other way, an aggravated owner pissed with what he thinks it is a fraudulent bankruptcy for avoiding him an indemnization and without being able to to nothing more, making the case public.

Of course, I don't know if it was a fraudulent bankruptcy with capital being taken from the company, even if there are some odd coincidences and on that article it is not said that it was a fraudulent bankruptcy but only that they suspect it was the case.

It is one sided, but a hit piece? Somebody making public his side of the story is a hit piece against the other side?

Oyster can make public its side and in fact it had done so with some public statements that don't contradict what is said on the article and it can make public a denial regarding any of the statements that were made on it, most of them made already long ago, but it never have done so.

If you want to argue about the definition of "hit piece" then that's fine.

This is still a one sided story, the "facts" may not be in dispute, but the commentary and allegations certainly are (which is like half the site). As I said, take it with a grain of salt.

Yes, the company is broke and is now in bankruptcy to protect itself from its creditors - (I.e to indemnify itself from creditors, that's why we have bankruptcy laws). Sucks for the company, owners, customers, creditors, and pretty much everyone involved. There is however no indication of anything immoral or fraudulent.

The insinuation of "unanswered questions" and allegations of impropriety should be enough to make this a hit piece (not to mention the URL). When a reputable journal posts a story (on their site) I'll put more stock in it.

If I'd have to guess (and this is purely conjecture). The owner of the sunken boat is a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf". He may have been complaining about every little thing and was a major pain in the a** to the company so that when he raised the serious issues of the keel they no longer took him seriously.

Normal people don't spend money to create a site like "Oysterstory.info". What's the point? Warn others? Get the story out? The company is already in bankruptcy what more do you want?

If he has a legitimate beef about the bankruptcy take it to court. This is the U.K. , not Russia, he is bound to get a fair trial. Publishing this site does not help him with this cause, it's just meant to smear the people involved and possibly sets him up for libel case making allegations of fraud.
I'd guess this guy isn't emotionally stable...

Oyster likely hasn't commented because corporate PR departments don't get into public pissing contests with customers. They handle these issues in court as they should.

Again I'm not saying the company did nothing wrong. The management clearly royally f'ed up. But there is no indication of impropriety.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

If you want to argue about the definition of "hit piece" then that's fine.

This is still a one sided story, the "facts" may not be in dispute, but the commentary and allegations certainly are (which is like half the site). As I said, take it with a grain of salt.

Yes, the company is broke and is now in bankruptcy to protect itself from its creditors - (I.e to indemnify itself from creditors, that's why we have bankruptcy laws). Sucks for the company, owners, customers, creditors, and pretty much everyone involved. There is however no indication of anything immoral or fraudulent.

The insinuation of "unanswered questions" and allegations of impropriety should be enough to make this a hit piece (not to mention the URL). When a reputable journal posts a story (on their site) I'll put more stock in it.

If I'd have to guess (and this is purely conjecture). The owner of the sunken boat is a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf". He may have been complaining about every little thing and was a major pain in the a** to the company so that when he raised the serious issues of the keel they no longer took him seriously.

Normal people don't spend money to create a site like "Oysterstory.info". What's the point? Warn others? Get the story out? The company is already in bankruptcy what more do you want?

If he has a legitimate beef about the bankruptcy take it to court. This is the U.K. , not Russia, he is bound to get a fair trial. Publishing this site does not help him with this cause, it's just meant to smear the people involved and possibly sets him up for libel case making allegations of fraud.
I'd guess this guy isn't emotionally stable...

Oyster likely hasn't commented because corporate PR departments don't get into public pissing contests with customers. They handle these issues in court as they should.

Again I'm not saying the company did nothing wrong. The management clearly royally f'ed up. But there is no indication of impropriety.

"I'd guess this guy isn't emotionally stable..."

After what this guy had passed at the hands of Oyster that is a funny comment

They should have given him a new boat, a he proposed, as soon as they found out that the boat had a serious keel problem. If they would have acted correctly nothing of this would have happened.

Instead they did not even apologize when the boat lost the keel, insinuating that the boat had been grounded and refused mediation regarding an indemnization. How bad is that?

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Polux

Instead they did not even apologize and refused mediation regarding an indemnization. How bad is that?

Again that's his side of the story. I'd love to hear theirs...

[Orion Jim]

Clearly a design/engineering/build flaw and a builder who chose not to stand behind their product. The management team failed. I surmise the management team lined their pockets before declaring the business insolvent. A sad story and a lesson for all. Thankfully the yacht owner was insured and there was no loss of life.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Orion Jim

. I surmise the management team lined their pockets before declaring the business insolvent. .

I'll ask again... How do you "surmise" this beyond internet rumors?

Also you should note, if the management extracted money illegally the bankruptcy court is bound to find out when they look into the detailed financials to divvy up the rest of the assets to creditors. IF it were true there is a high likelihood of the management going to prison.

[double u]

"funded by an aggrieved party" - which very often is the correct version. it is also very clearly structured & does not at all sound coming from an idiot with an ax to grind. & id did fall of, the keel, didn't it?

[double u]

"...When a reputable journal posts a story..."
yeah, like the first appearances of Jennifer Appels story...

[double u]

"...He may have been complaining about every little thing and was a major pain in the a** to the company ..."
of course he'd be the very first Oyster customer to do so...they never had a nitpicking owner before..
surfsail:
what's the thing you have about the Oysters?

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by double u

"funded by an aggrieved party" - which very often is the correct version.

Remind me, where is the evidence for the allegation of taking money out of the company????

Originally Posted by double u

it is also very clearly structured & does not at all sound coming from an idiot with an ax to grind.

Apparently this is a matter of an opinion. When you use pictures of captain Picard and an ostrich I wouldn't think so, but maybe people have different views on editorial standards...

Also, I hope you don't think he wrote this himself. Clearly this is someone with financial means (and no that rarely equates to brains - especially in emerging economies)

As mentioned, when you have access to the financials and then ask, "but why did they shut down now with an 80mil order book?" you actually do sound like an idiot.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by double u

..
surfsail:
what's the thing you have about the Oysters?

Nothing, no connection to the company. I don't have an oyster, nor do I want one.

I just don't see any evidence for the allegations (e.g. taking money from the co. Illegally). made by oysterinfo.net beyond unsubstantiated internet rumors (including by most people on here). If you have some actual evidence, please share. If you make allegations of fraud, you should have some evidence, no?

I also don't subscribe to conspiracy theories that can be explained by sheer incompetence.

[double u]

some conclusions can be drawn with a greater likelyhood of being correct than others. As you approach your home you see a burgler running away, then you find your money is gone: you actually didn't see him take it nor saw it on him (let's say he doesn't get caught). now no proof, just a great likelyhood...
these guys are faced with a massive warranty claim, court proceedings, the works, which they walk away from by declaring bancruptcy...
but of course you are right with the old adage: never attribute to malice what can adaequatly be explained by stupidity

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by double u

these guys are faced with a massive warranty claim, court proceedings, the works, which they walk away from by declaring bancruptcy...

When you say they "walk away from" I don't think you fully understand bankruptcy.

The owners/equity holders aren't walking away with anything. Bankruptcy will wipe them out. They lose all their shares.

Bankruptcy is there to protect the creditors (employees, customers, warranty claims, and in this case likely banks). The courts will decide how to divvy up the remaining assets to the creditors fairly, but the owners will be left with nothing. That's bankruptcy 101.

So how exactly does your burglary analogy apply here? Where is even a shred of actual or circumstantial evidence of fraud?


P.s. I'm ignoring the limited liability of the shareholders. Their personal assets are protected (just like for you when you buy stocks in your retirement account). Yes, in theory they could have illegally moved assets from the company to themselves - but a U.K. Bankruptcy court will figure that out and can claw it back and file criminal charges. But again there is zero evidence of this happening.