Very interesting. I wonder if part of the decision to liquidate involves unseen
communications from Oyster's insurer though. I know UK law differs from the US, but over here there are varying standards for negligence and error, versus "gross negligence" and actual criminal misconduct. If Oyster's insurer were to say "You were notified in a timely manner, you were grossly negligent to allow the vessel to remain at sea, and since you likely knew of a defect and intentionally tried to deny it...You have no coverage, you eat the loss."
That's more or less what any US insurer would be allowed to say.
From the linked description, rashly assuming it is entirely accurate, it would seem that folks at Oyster were beyond grossly negligent and I shouldn't be surprised to see UK criminal charges brought, since their behavior damned near killed the crew.
Counterbalancing that some very little, I have to say that I'm surprised that an experienced sailor would take a
boat across open seas--after he had extensive reasons to believe the
keel was not securely attached! The prudent navigator would have left it in the slings and commenced
legal action, not risking the loss of the yacht and all crew. I'm sure that will complicate the court actions as well.