Last year, PassageMaker wrote an article about a vessel that Robert Conconi purchased and named the Aurora. While reading the piece, Mr. Conconi was not only surprised that the article was published, but given the poor experience he had with the company that built the vessel – Pacific Asian Enterprises (PAE) – Mr. Conconi was even more surprised that the publication chose to interview PAE and not him. Despite this, the article in PassageMaker reminded Mr. Conconi of all the hurt and anger he endured in the 4 years that he owned the boat.

Mr. Conconi no longer owns the Aurora, however, he spent 3 years repairing, at great expense, most all the problems that existed when she arrived at his home. Mr. Conconi’s only motivation and dispute with PAE was over the yacht’s state upon arrival and PAE’s failure to uphold the company’s obligation to complete her construction as contracted.

The fact that Aurora flowed and made a crossing does not indicate she was complete or systems were installed or functioning. Despite the documented evidence of the incomplete status of the vessel and invoices to install and commission, PAE insisted the vessel was complete and no longer accepted responsibility. To add insult to injury, they sued for work that was not performed and did not provide any credit for work done by Mr Conconi.

Throughout the trial between PAE and the Conconis, PAE’s leadership team consistently launched false attacks against the Conconi family and incorrectly suggested the issues that were being disputed in the case were insignificant and undeserving of closer examination. Furthermore, in an effort to deflect the findings of the case away from PAE’s failures surrounding the Aurora, PAE chose to insert incorrect information into the case and worked to demonize the Conconi family. Ultimately, the disappointing verdict in the case was a result of preplanned, personal attacks on the Conconis. Putting aside the results of the case, many people are left confused by PAE’s actions, particularly with respect to PAE’s decision to choose to not complete the Aurora as they were contractually obligated to do.

This trial simply demonstrated the extreme extent PAW would go to avoid honoring a contact and how they avoid accepting any responsibility for finish or quality of the vessel.

Mr. Conconi is a proud man. Since the article that was written in PassageMaker did not provide Mr. Conconi with the opportunity to express his opinion or experience, below you will find a small sample of the reports and photos outlining the poor condition that the Aurora arrived in upon delivery to the Conconi’s. Many additional documents are available in official court records, however, the reports and inspections listed below highlight the inadequate finish and state of completion of the vessel.

Mr. Conconi has enjoyed many of the vessels he has bought from Nordhavn – in fact, he has purchased 4 of them in the past. However, when he advanced sufficient funds to complete the manufacturer of his latest vessel with Nordhavn – the Aurora – and the vessel was not completed or finished, NordhavnFacts found it necessary to highlight this situation.

Mr. Conconi placed his trust in PAE (otherwise he would not have provided PAE with $16,000,000). However, PAE refused to complete the Aurora, leaving Mr. Conconi with major expenses as well as a partially completed boat and much that had to be redesigned and removed (without PAE’s help or contribution).

Mr. Conconi has been pleased with his other Nordhavn vessels that he has purchased – but not the process of purchasing his latest Nordhavn through PAE, as the company did not complete the Vessel as promised. The truth, in Mr. Conconi’s situation, was deflected at every situation by PAE and the company did not contribute or compensate for the work Mr. Conconi had to perform on his vessel. NordhavnFacts is showing and warning consumers of what could happen if a purchaser prepays significantly more than the cost to complete their vessel.

Nordhavn Facts believes that any individual that provides PAE funds for a future delivery of a vessel will be taking a risk that may simply repeat history.  Their deposit might be used for employee benefits, rent for premises and finishing someone else’s boat. Little or none of the funds will be used to build the new vessel.  The completion of the new vessel is dependent on PAE finding more purchases down the road.  This process if interrupted will result in many incomplete vessels where the cost to complete will be greater that the balance owed.

There are always two sides in a story.  Like anyone else, Mr. Conconi would like his side of the story to be heard and help prevent other customers from having similar experiences. Please read the facts and form your own conclusions.  Mr. Conconi had nothing to gain by misrepresenting the facts or going through a 3 year torture of completing the manufacture of his vessel. It is up to you, the reader, to form your own opinion.