Empyrean Protocol

Empyrean Intelligence Console

← Back to briefs

Chugga Chugg Pty Ltd v Privinvest Holding SAL [2025] EWHC 585 (Comm) (14 March 2025)

Source: Open mirrored case · Original bailii.org

Sanctions ✓ Geo ✓

Executive Summary

  • Dispute between Chugga Chugg Pty Ltd (Australian superyacht procurer) and Privinvest Holding SAL (Lebanese holding company) over a contract for a 79.99m luxury yacht built by Nobiskrug GmbH (German shipyard).
  • Contract signed Nov 2018, price €99.55m, delivery originally Aug 2022; delayed due to mismanagement and COVID-19 force majeure.
  • Nobiskrug entered insolvency in Germany April 2021; arbitration initiated but discontinued due to insolvency.
  • Chugga Chugg claims repudiation by Nobiskrug; Privinvest claims repudiation by Chugga Chugg.
  • English court ruling focuses on guarantee by Privinvest and contractual obligations amid insolvency and pandemic disruptions.

Sanctions Highlights

  • Sanctions implications arise due to involvement of German company Nobiskrug and Lebanese Privinvest, with potential EU and UK sanctions considerations.
  • Privinvest’s parent guarantee and financial dealings may be impacted by BIS (UK’s Export Control) regulations given export controls on shipbuilding technology.
  • Insolvency and financial restructuring of Nobiskrug raise compliance risks under sanctions regimes affecting German entities.
  • No direct sanctions enforcement action noted, but heightened scrutiny on cross-border payments and guarantees involving German and Lebanese entities.

Emerging Risks

  • Insolvency of Nobiskrug creates risk of non-performance and financial loss for foreign clients like Chugga Chugg.
  • COVID-19 related force majeure claims complicate contractual obligations and dispute resolution.
  • Arbitration disruption due to insolvency and administrator withdrawal increases litigation uncertainty.
  • Potential reputational risk for Privinvest and associated entities due to insolvency and contract disputes.
  • Cross-jurisdictional enforcement challenges between English law, German insolvency law, and Lebanese corporate governance.

Geopolitical Impact

  • Germany’s insolvency laws and shipbuilding industry stability affected by Nobiskrug’s collapse, impacting international maritime contracts.
  • UK courts assert jurisdiction over guarantee claims, reinforcing London’s role as a key forum for international commercial disputes.
  • Lebanon’s Privinvest group’s financial difficulties reflect broader regional economic instability.
  • UK and German regulatory frameworks intersect, highlighting complexities in transnational commercial litigation involving EU and UK post-Brexit legal regimes.

Economic Intelligence

  • Contract price €99.55m with €9.955m guarantee by Privinvest, reflecting significant financial exposure.
  • Nobiskrug’s insolvency and underpricing of contracts indicate systemic financial mismanagement in German shipbuilding sector.
  • Chugga Chugg’s claim for repayment exceeds €14m, including instalments and third-party liabilities.
  • Escrow arrangements and delayed payments show risk mitigation attempts but insufficient to prevent financial losses.
  • Insolvency proceedings and arbitration outcomes will influence creditor recoveries and future contract risk assessments in luxury yacht market.

Strategic Recommendations

  • Monitor UK and EU sanctions updates related to shipbuilding and Lebanese entities to ensure compliance.
  • Assess financial exposure and recovery prospects from Nobiskrug insolvency and Privinvest guarantee.
  • Consider alternative dispute resolution mechanisms given arbitration disruption and insolvency complications.
  • Engage with insolvency administrators and legal counsel in Germany to protect creditor interests.
  • Review contractual clauses on force majeure and guarantees for future maritime projects to mitigate pandemic-related risks.
  • Leverage UK court jurisdiction for enforcement of guarantees and counterclaims where possible.

---

**Source Notes:**

Sanctions Intelligence Digest, [https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/585.html](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/585.html)

Brief metadata