4-10-2023 C-cat 48 #1 C-catamarans advert
16-10-2023 on-site assessment and shipyard visit
An on-site assessment was conducted on October 16, 2023, which included a test sail and a tour of the Comar factory. The overall impression was positive, and an agreement was reached to proceed with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). During the visit, a detailed inventory list was compiled, identifying items requiring completion before the upcoming survey. Some key outstanding items were noted:
- Navigation & Electronics: The vessel’s navigation system utilizes a ship computer running TimeZero software, integrating the Furuno radar, NKE autopilot, and NMEA2000 interface. An external Multi-Function Display (MFD) operates via a tablet connected to TimeZero. However, these critical electronic and navigation systems were unavailable for verification due to ongoing updates. The parties agreed that these systems would be tested during the survey.
- Steering System: The steering system, particularly the external helms, exhibited stiffness and erratic behaviour. The shipyard attributed this to possible air in the system and assured rectification before the survey.
- Tender: The tender was not available for inspection during the initial visit.
- Vessel Speed: The vessel’s speed was lower than expected. The shipyard attributed this to fouled hulls and committed to resolving the issue before the survey.
.
23/24-10-2023 Discussing the deal flow
4/11/23 – offer negotiated and signed by the buyer and shipyard
scan version
Text version
7/11/23 – receipt of 42,000 EUR by C-catamarans
17/11/23 – appointment of surveyor
request to coordinate from C-catamarans
17/11/23 – comar set the date of haul-up and terms
The survey took place on 29-11-2023 (slightly postponed due to weather conditions). the survey results were forwarded to the shipyard on 10-12-2023
11-12-2023 Issue list following the survey
List of items to be done to be attached to the sale agreement:
The buyer provided the survey results as well as the expert inspection
issues found vs. the moU
- Anator is hull #1 hence being the prototype of the C-cat 48. As with every prototype, issues are found after launch. The shipyard was requested to disclose all such issues in writing
- All vessel components, such as lamination, carpentry, standing rigging electrical generation, wiring, switching and storage, water hydraulic and fuel, piping, anchoring systems, furniture, and steering systems (“Vessel Systems”), must be fully operational and in prime condition.
Seller shall verify that at the date of handover running rigging, engines and propulsion, navigation, communications, computing, electrical, generation, and storage, leisure electronic systems, winches and windlass, safety and appliances are fully operational and in prime condition. - the builder was aware of some wear and tear and committed to restoring or renewing such issues. The builder will refurbish and clean all internal and external components, including painting, Sika joints, stainless steel, and any other items specified by the builder. If the builder is aware of components or methods deemed unsuitable, such items must be rectified following their current best practices.
- The builder never provided his lists
14-12-2023 issues found and to be fixed vs. the moU
- 1.1. Create a fire port in both aft cabins.
- 1.2. Replace both cranking batteries.
- 1.3. Apply a label to locate the gas shut-off valve.
- 1.4. Provide a suitable number of fire extinguishers according to ISO rules and Owner’s Manual specifications.
- 1.5. Service life raft.
- 1.6. Provide a suitable number of life jackets. (as was defined in the Inventory list attached
- 1.7. Restore antifouling coating before next season.
- 1.8. Restore the sealant around the daggerboard recess.
- 1.9. Service both marine shaft seals.
- 1.10. Adjust rudder vertical play.
- 1.11. Adjust the rudder chain slack.
- 1.12. Check the steering system’s mechanical and hydraulic to ease its movement and prevent air.
- 1.13. Repair the area beneath the main deck where the lamination was not completed.
- 1.14. Check Transom locker lids for watertightness. Add drain to STB aft locker.
- 1.15. Replace the dinghy halyard.
- 1.16. Locally repair the main sail.
- 1.17. Service both engines required periodical maintenance service (2 years). Inspect and if needed replace the cooling system verifying both exhaust elbows’ internal condition.
- 1.18. Clean oxidisation in the way of engine raw water pumps.
- 1.19. Service both engines by authorized service. Assist in extending warranty (if possible)
- 1.20. Remove oxidisation from engine mounts.
- 1.21. Apply insulation beneath both bed plywood panels.
- 1.22. Fix the gel coat on bilges in the air conditioning system and propeller shafts area.
- 1.23. Provide a PC and software for connecting the radar and multifunction displays.
- 1.24. Check the air conditioning system to avoid airlocks and arrange the raw water system.
- 1.25. Remove oxidisation from air conditioning raw water fittings and strainers.
- 1.26. Tune the propellers’ pitch and diameter to achieve the correct engine-rated speed.
- 1.27. Secure Glomex TV antenna
- 1.28. Provide the missing quick-release top swivel to Ubi Major FR200 furler.
13-12-2023 BUyer feedback to builder stepping back from MOU
- Life raft – the agreement is that the boat is fully functional including safety systems – they need to service
- Life vests – although the Buyer agrees to 6 instead of 8. The vests, harnesses, and stay-jacks should be presented since they were not available on board during the survey.
- Fire extinguishers – if Seller can show that these extinguishers are conforming to the standards and are valid then Buyer agrees
- The engines: Seller either presents records that the maintenance ( 250 Hr/ 2 years) was performed in time or do it
15 to 30-12-2023 BUyer and seller negotiations regarding MOU discrepancies
Following the survey, the shipyard attempted to minimize the scope of the inventory and required work. The main points are outlined below:
- Navigation Licenses: The seller claimed that the navigation licenses are owned by the “owner” and are non-transferable. Although a thorough review of the system was not conducted to fully assess the cost, the buyer expressed willingness to pay for a license provided that these systems were tested before finalizing the sale.
- Anti-Fouling Paint: The shipyard was hesitant to apply anti-fouling paint, arguing that the boat is “used” rather than “as new” or “renewed,” contrary to the undertakings specified in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) section 3.e.
- Safety Equipment Certification: The shipyard was unwilling to renew the safety equipment certification, which is in contradiction to the commitments made in the MOU.
- Sale Agreement Draft: The shipyard would not provide its draft version of the sale agreement. On 24-12-2023 the Buyer requested all the formal documents so his lawyers could prepare a draft sale agreement. Buyer Lawyers suggested the internationally recognized MYBA agreement but this was rejected. on 3-1-2023 after Comar finished their holidays, Buyer’s lawyer agreed to compile an agreement.
- Holiday Season: The shipyard entered the holiday season, which may have affected responsiveness and availability.
12-01-2024 sales agreement
- 14-1-24 Buyer sends 1st draft to seller
- 16-1-24 Buyer returns commented version
Key Disagreements During the Agreement Phase
- in contradiction to the MOU where the Seller was the C-catamaran, the seller introduced an unknown Italian company as the seller.
- in contradiction to the MOU where “We propose a cash settlement, the mechanism of which is to be mutually agreed upon. It is our understanding that the vessel will be sold free of liens, and mortgages, and with all leases cleared. Additionally, the indicated price assumes that EU VAT has been paid“. The seller declared that the yacht is under a leasing agreement.
- While leasing should not have been a problem, the seller requested payment before paying the lease.
- The buyer offered the following mechanisms. (the seller insisted on Italian law and jurisdiction hence he had to set the proper mechanism and facilitate the transaction.
- Comar/C-catamarans shall be a side to the agreement and guarantee the payment of its works and guarantee – REFUSED
- The leasing company shall be paid directly by the buyer and shall transfer the title directly to the buyer or his appointed trustee – The seller promised to review. Still, the Buyer never received a concrete understandable answer.
- there will be an appointed nominee, such as a Notary, Lawyer who will hold the funds in trust and arrange the title’s release. The seller claimed that he inquired with his lawyers, who could not understand.
- Comar still rejected works which were agreed upon replenishing and painting
Feb-2024: the delays
As of the end of January and till the beginning of March, the seller indicated that inquiries were being made regarding possible solutions. However, no concrete resolutions have been provided to date. The sales manager at Comar has either avoided communication or cited various excuses for the delays, including business trips, client meetings, and preparations for the upcoming trade show in Le Grand Motte scheduled for April 24.
March-June 2024: Cancellation and Withholding of Funds
on 27-2-2023 it was clear that the seller either did not do or did not intend to do any steps to complete the transaction. in response to the buyer’s inquiry:
Daniele, I hear from the lawyer that you are not responding nor providing means to solve secured payment and conclude this sale. The buyer paid you advance money, hired experts and there seem to be no constructive input form your side. Let me know if you intend to proceed with the agreement or not. ” the seller chose to place liable accusations:
Good morning xxx.
We waited a month to get answers from you after the appraisal, we had a contract with all your requests and we facilitated you in every way, giving you everything you want.
Now, I think you can wait a week while the owner is on holiday to get an answer.“
Hence on 28-2-2023 the buyer demanded that the seller state his definite position:
“From the buyer’s perspective, it is the seller’s responsibility to ensure that the boat is delivered free of any debts, rather than imposing the burden on the buyer to provide all necessary agreements and documentation. The buyer acknowledges the extended timeline for obtaining the survey and compiling the comprehensive list, a delay justified by the holiday season, which naturally limited communication. However, it remains critical to emphasize that responsibilities such as negotiating with the leasing company, securing communications, and establishing an escrow mechanism should fall to the seller, especially given the insistence on adhering to Italian law over the widely recognized and utilized MYBA standards.
The boat was initially represented as being sold directly by the factory as a new unit. Based on this representation, along with the factory’s signed agreement and its reputation, the buyer made a deposit to Comar / C-Catamarans, despite the absence of a secured transaction mechanism. It would have been prudent for the seller and C-Catamarans to implement a transparent process from the outset, ensuring the boat’s freedom from any mortgages or liens. The letter from the leasing company was ambiguous, lacked essential information, and was cryptic, making it ineffective for the buyer’s purposes and placing the onus of resolution on the seller. It is unreasonable to expect a buyer to commit a significant financial investment without any form of guarantee to an entity that is relatively unknown, for a vessel that is, in fact, not owned by that entity. Additionally, denying on informal communications, such as WhatsApp messages, and subsequent signed agreements, does not engender trust in this transaction.
To prevent further waste of time and resources, please clarify if you are willing to proceed and fulfill the seller’s obligations.“
On 11-3-2023 the buyer reiterated his inquiry:
“Good morning, do you want to complete the sale? or not? we should know … do you want us to appoint an Italian lawyer who will push this forward? but we need your cooperation, without it we cannot proceed“
11-3-2024 DEAL TERMINATION
On 11-3-2023 the seller informed of the deal termination and promised to return the deposit within 3 days. following that the sales manager claimed that this was not his decision and he would like to try and convince to reinstate the deal but apparently this was just trying to delay.
Good morning,
the sale fell through, the owner expressed his negativity regarding the continuous and pressing requests on your part, your delays in carrying out the appraisal, the enormous delay in receiving a response from the appraisal received, which led us to lose others interested customers and in the subsequent continuous request for guarantees and procedures.
We will refund the amount paid within 3 days from today, as expected. I’m sorry not my decisionon 12-3-2023
I’m trying to talk to the seller, tomorrow will be here
Give me tomorrow
Sure ….on 16-3-2023
Hi XXXX, situation under control
I will back to you Monday
The seller is a strange person
Very difficult to manageon 26-3-2023
Hi, yes we will proceed, but I am currently in France preparing the multihull boat show, we will be back in operation after April 10th
What do you mean we proceed? How? What arrangement you made with seller ?
–He is talking to the lawyer and asking a notary to make that document
13-4-2024 repeated demad for funds and shipyard response
11-5-24 Legal demand
state of things
All communications with the shipyard became irrelevant. The shipyard’s commitment to return the deposit within three days resulted in excuses from the sales manager, who claimed to be attempting to finalize the sale but without providing any real steps or documentation. These excuses were then turned into allegations that the buyer was causing delays, despite the buyer having paid, appointed a surveyor, and fulfilled all obligations. Meanwhile, the shipyard attempted to withdraw from its commitments, reduce the items in the inventory, and request additional funds without providing guarantees, timelines, or clear tangible outcomes.
After extending the process for over three months, it became apparent that the shipyard was either unable to obtain the title by its means or pay the full VAT. Consequently, the agreements were cancelled, and the shipyard retained the buyer’s money without providing a valid reason or explanation.