Discussion in 'Northern Marine Yacht' started by jaycee, May 29, 2014.
Guys, to be fair that shot was taken with a very wide angle lens.
The investigation has now been taken over by the NTSB.
Seems the yacht was on the market for a mere 9.2 million USD as well.
Obviously buyer got turned off by the whole situation months ago and problems on it had built well before that point.
Now Bud LeMieux has issued a press release. He owned the company until selling it in 2006. He had been with Delta and then founded Northern Marine in 1995. He wants the press to stop using the name Northern Marine and use New World Yacht Builders. He claims "The only portion of Northern Marine that built that vessel was the ‘assets,’ being the tools and information, which were under a purchase contract by a separate entity that was leasing them to New World Yacht Builders.” Well I'm sure one of the parts of the lease was use of trade name. But it brings about another aspect that New World doesn't even own the assets of the facility, equipment and molds perhaps. If he's saying a different entity purchased those assets and leased them to New World. This means New World has even fewer assets than we assumed. It also means that this mystery entity (which I would guess Bud and Andy may have an interest in) owns them and theoretically could cancel the lease and start using those assets themselves. Perhaps in Bud's yard across the way where he has taken all the refit business.
Just when you thought this couldn't get uglier, it did. I was already aware of, but didn't speak publicly regarding it, a conflict between Bud and New World. Well, Bud has now made it public. This would give the implication though that the legal entity building the boat not only doesn't own land or buildings, but doesn't own the other assets there either. This puts the buyers and debtors in even a more hopeless situation.
Here is the link:
Northern Marine founder issues statement to Trade Only | Trade Only Today
An update on Go Anacortes:
Yacht capsizing investigation continues, will take months - goanacortes: News
Note this indicates Bud bought the "entity" again in 2010 but sold the assets again in 2012. His statement would indicate they're only leased to New World. Bud's statement today says they built 17 boats prior to him selling in 2006. His resume on linkedin indicates 26. 17 Sounds more in line.
Amazing. You post a link where someone makes a quoted statement and you miss it, and then elaborate on what is resounding in your mind? Come on. Are you saying that he lied on his linkedin?
Perhaps you should finish reading your link? Have you received your summons yet?
“I built and launched 17 full-displacement trawler yachts, of the 31 boats that I built from 1995 until I sold the business in August of 2006, on that very ramp, starting with the Spirit of Zopilote and ending with the Julianne (Show Boats Boat of the Year for its category)"
No, I missed that 31. Thanks for adding that. My mistake. So now we have 31 and 26 and the recent document indicating just over 35 total history. Who knows.
My big point was that reading his comments he indicates New World does not own the assets. But also that he bought them in 2010 and sold it in 2012. Main issue is Bud's sudden objection to the name Northern Marine being used and that Northern Marine appears to have fewer assets that we might have thought. His involvement and relationship to Andy and New World is complicated. It also does open the door to Bud taking the assets and the name and starting Northern Marine up again himself or renting them out to someone else.
It is a complex web with New World but also entities NM Inc., Northern Marine, Inc., NM One LLC, Northern Marine LLC, Northern Marine Co., Northern Marine Acquisition LLC. As to the name of the entity that owns the assets including perhaps even the name, "Northern Marine" I don't know who or which it is. Just that at this point it appears Bud is saying New World does not.
This is meaningful in several ways if true. First it means those trying to collect from New World have less than thought to go after. Second it means a reincarnation of Northern Marine may not depend on someone buying assets or rights from New World but under the control of this other entity if their agreement with New World is breached in some way.
I find it interesting that New World has been very free to use the name Northern Marine and now at this juncture Bud is notifying the press that they are not Northern Marine and should not be referred to as such.
Sounds to me Bud is trying to achieve several things with his comments:
1. Save the Northern Marine Branding and assets. This will allow him to later lease the name and assets to another company.
2. Save the resell value of existing northern marine yachts. This will also help the value of the brand and help him ease the concern from existing NM owners.
3. Distance himself from potential lawsuits directed at NM and associated entities.
I do find it odd that he talked Andy into starting up new world yachts and then leased him the NM brand and tooling - now kinda throwing him to the wolves to save himself and his assets. I think their relationship maybe over at this point.
It is also strange that the northern marine website shows the latest launches by new world yachts as northern marine yachts (does not mention new world) and that their Facebook page displayed the latest yacht (baden) as a northern marine. It appears he was using good publicity to help his brand, but now does not want to use the same publicity. Can't have it both ways I guess.
I think this situation sucks as the original series of northern marine yachts were well built and performed well. This latest failure will sour the brand, the existing yachts value and reputation. But the worst part is the skilled workforce is out of work. I hope they can find new employment quickly.
Yes, lot's of posturing. But I am hopeful this will not impact the previously built yachts reputation or value. We've had many builders in the past produce some bad product right at the end yet their boats are among the most desired 20 years later even. I do wish the workforce luck in an area with a lot of skilled boat builders looking for jobs. And those with boats in construction, the buyer of Baden and other vendors and creditors appear highly likely to suffer significant losses.
Andy MacDonald has now spoken to Trade Only Today.
Builder says overturned 90-foot yacht passed stability review | Trade Only Today
The article confirms the Northern / New World relationship. "New World Yachts, which bought the rights to do business as then-bankrupt Northern Marine in 2012, according to both buyer and seller."
Also he makes a strong statement regarding the accident:
“One thing I feel pretty strongly about is the term capsize,” McDonald told Trade Only Today. “The boat did not capsize. It was not floating. It tipped over. It was involved in an accident.”
“Our naval architect has 30 years of experience; it was a launching accident,” McDonald said. “It had nothing to do with flotation of the vessel or the design. It’s not uncommon to have complications at launch. It’s just unfortunate when it results in a sinking.”
Not uncommon to have complications at launch. Well, I haven't seen a lot end up on their sides and sunk. And he wants to argue the term capsize. Well, I looked up the definition many places and it simply says "overturn" or "to turn so the bottom is on top" Nothing about it having to be floating prior.
Amazing to me. It's like the right hand blaming the left. For whatever reason it ended up as it did, it's their fault and responsibility. Working hard now to defend his build of the boat. Is that to get customers? They had no new orders before this. Speak of what happens to the employees or the buyers of the boats in construction if you want to speak.
“The boat did not capsize. It was not floating. It tipped over. It was involved in an accident.”
Let me get this right; It did not capsize, It tipped over?
I guess there must be a technical description and legal term for this EVENT. I may need some more legal advice on separating these terms (past certain angle of the keel?).
(Well, the BOW did not fall off...)
If she is not level and can not self propell as (supposed) design;;;; Somebody screwed up....
Some personal positioning is getting place I'm sure.
The video shows her bobbing in the water on her side. At that location, there is plenty of water, so the idea that she rolled over on the hard is preposterous.
We moor next door.
I think that is an understatement.
Thank you. Another good set of eyes.
I was feared I was in the Twilight zone for a while (the only guy who sees things)....
I anticipate hearing them claim it was an "Act of God" anytime now.
Ssshhh, I can hear the thunder (b s machine) already.
Is it me or is there a problem with the logic among the two highlighted statements?
It sank, but did not capsize?
Well you could sink upright. Of course it didn't.
He obviously doesn't have a public relations adviser. Either chose that on his own or had a lawyer advising him if he spoke to make that distinction.
And the reference to the Architect/Engineer saying it was stable. That's someone who works for him saying they didn't screw up. "Not my mistake, man." Does make you wonder then why it had to be kept in a sling and moved in one, then hoisted by crane on to land.
Now one other note for today. It's now been stated that Bud regained the company in 2010, resold the assets in 2012. Then those assets leased to New World and Andy. But wanting this boat called a New World Yacht not Northern. But wonder about the timing of all the 2012 moves. I would think that the boats currently under construction and not finished including this one were all started in 2012 or earlier. Wonder by what entity then, what Bud's involvement was? His ability to distance from it completely might not be as good as it first appears.
One of the recent suits I'm familiar with against a boat builder, the biggest problem was figuring out who should or could be sued. There was something in the area of 6 to 7 entities involved and yet the name used on the Bill of Sale was different than all of them and technically didn't exist. So plaintiffs had to just sue them all. Then defendant scrambled trying to prove each of the ones that wasn't involved. The effort in such a situation is to get the defendant narrowed to either a party with no assets or an offshore entity.
Well, that appears to already be in play here. They're presenting New World Yacht Builders as an entity with no land or property, with little or no equipment, with no ownership even of the name. The term is "Judgement Proof". All they would then have would be the boats under construction. Now the plaintiffs are likely to attempt to see if that veil can be pierced and any other assets or companies gone after. If the only entity held responsible is New World then there is nothing preventing the same people or others starting again at the same location, with the same equipment, building the same boats, under the same name. After all, they've already done that routine in the past. Very familiar ground they're walking.
I thought it floated on its side. Doesn't that mean it capsized but didn't sink? What kind of drugs are those people on? I wonder how long before they claim it was an optical illusion, the boat floated correctly, just the camera angle... Or that they are pioneering side-planing hull technology.
Was this boat designed in Anacortes?
I always though of a capsize as when the hull, if it could speak, would cry out "I've fallen but I can't get up."