Castel Group Governance Crisis: The Battle for Control Moves to Singapore
A court ruling in Singapore may clarify who controls Castel, while the group’s chief executive insists his mandate remains intact.
The Castel Group governance crisis has developed into an unusually public struggle over authority inside one of France’s most important wine businesses. At its centre is a disagreement between chief executive Gregory Clerc and members of the founding Castel family—not simply over who should occupy a board seat, but over where effective control of the wider group ultimately resides.
A forthcoming decision from the High Court of Singapore is expected to bring greater legal clarity to part of the dispute. Yet the opposing camps already disagree about what that ruling could mean in practice. Clerc’s supporters maintain that his position as chief executive is separate from the contested directorships. Family shareholders argue that decisions made at the group’s highest level must eventually shape the leadership of the businesses below it.
For a company long associated with discretion, the conflict marks a striking change. Internal disagreements that might once have remained behind closed doors are now being conducted through shareholder meetings, legal proceedings and competing public statements.
A Rare Public Conflict Inside the Castel Group
The latest episode concerns Investment Beverage Business Management, known as IBBM, an entity involved in the management of the Castel family’s investments.
At an extraordinary general meeting, shareholders again approved the removal of Gregory Clerc and Pierre Baer as directors of IBBM. The decision followed an earlier vote in February 2026 that is already being examined by the Singapore court.
According to the Castel family’s account, the new meeting confirmed a consistent shareholder majority in favour of changing the board. A replacement director was also appointed. However, the family said it had chosen to suspend the practical effect of the resolutions until the court delivers its substantive judgment, anticipated in autumn 2026.
That suspension is significant. It allows the shareholders to restate their position without immediately introducing further uncertainty into a group whose activities extend far beyond French wine. Castel also has major interests in beer, soft drinks and food production across Africa, and employs tens of thousands of people across its various operations.
DF Holding and Cassiopée, two companies aligned with Clerc, view the repeated shareholder meetings very differently. They argue that holding further votes while the February decisions remain under judicial review adds unnecessary pressure to an already sensitive process. Both boards have publicly reaffirmed their confidence in Clerc’s leadership.
Why the Corporate Structure Matters
The disagreement cannot be understood solely as a contest between a chief executive and a founding family. It also turns on two competing interpretations of Castel’s corporate architecture.
Clerc’s supporters emphasise the legal separation between the different companies within the group. Their position is that IBBM does not directly own Cassiopée and therefore cannot, by itself, appoint or dismiss the directors of companies in which it is not a shareholder.
On that reading, Clerc’s directorship at IBBM and his operational role as chief executive of the Castel Group are distinct mandates. Even if his position at IBBM were ultimately terminated, they argue, this would not automatically remove him from the executive leadership of the wider business.
The family’s interpretation focuses less on direct ownership and more on the chain of authority created by a multi-level holding structure. In its view, IBBM occupies a decisive place near the top of that structure. Control exercised there can influence decisions throughout the companies beneath it, even when the top entity does not appear directly on every subsidiary’s shareholder register.
This distinction—between formal ownership and effective control—is the central issue in the Castel Group governance crisis. The legal relationships between individual companies may be clear on paper, but the practical distribution of power across a complex family-controlled group is more difficult to separate.
What the Singapore Court May Decide
The High Court of Singapore is considering the validity and consequences of the earlier February 2026 decisions concerning the IBBM board. Its judgment should help determine whether those resolutions were properly adopted and what legal effect they carry.
It may not, however, settle every aspect of the broader leadership dispute.
Even a clear ruling on IBBM could leave further questions about how authority flows through DF Holding, Cassiopée and the group’s operating businesses. The court case is therefore both crucial and limited: it addresses an important point of governance, but it may not provide a complete answer to the larger question of who controls Castel’s strategic direction.
That uncertainty explains why both sides are already framing the scope of the expected judgment. Clerc’s allies describe the IBBM proceedings as separate from the day-to-day management of the group. The family presents them as part of a wider effort to reassert shareholder authority.
Why the Castel Group Governance Crisis Matters to French Wine
Castel is not an ordinary family wine company. Its scale gives the dispute broader relevance for the French wine sector.
Figures reported for 2025 place its French wine activity at approximately 2.7 million hectolitres, with turnover of around €1.1 billion. Its portfolio, distribution reach and purchasing power make the group an influential presence across several levels of the market.
A prolonged governance conflict does not necessarily mean immediate disruption for wineries, brands, employees or commercial partners. Large groups are often designed to continue operating while disputes are resolved at holding-company level. Clerc and the boards supporting him have stressed that business management and strategic development remain on course.
Nevertheless, leadership uncertainty can matter over time. Decisions involving investment, brand positioning, acquisitions, vineyard partnerships and international distribution all depend on a stable understanding of who has the authority to set priorities.
This is particularly relevant during a demanding period for the French wine industry. Producers and merchants are contending with changing consumption patterns, pressure on certain export markets and difficult conditions in parts of the domestic sector. Against that background, an extended struggle over governance risks drawing attention away from the commercial and structural challenges facing the wine business itself.
Gregory Clerc Signals His Intention to Remain
Gregory Clerc, a Swiss tax lawyer who has led the group since 2023, has shown no indication that he intends to step aside. Through statements issued by DF Holding and Cassiopée, he has presented himself as focused on the company’s development and on protecting its corporate interests.
His position is supported by the boards of those two entities, which have stated that they want him to continue directing the group. Their argument rests not only on confidence in his management, but also on the assertion that the dispute surrounding IBBM has no direct bearing on his chief executive mandate.
The Castel family contests that separation. Romy Castel, the daughter of founder Pierre Castel, has emerged as a leading figure in the shareholder effort to change the governance arrangements. Other family members, including Alain Castel, have also been drawn into the wider conflict.
The result is a struggle in which neither side accepts the other’s definition of the battlefield. One presents the matter as a contained legal dispute over individual corporate appointments. The other considers it a fundamental question of shareholder control.
An Uncertain Autumn for a French Wine Powerhouse
The next major development is expected to come from Singapore, but the judgment may represent a new stage rather than a final conclusion.
Should the court uphold the earlier shareholder decisions, the family’s position at IBBM would be strengthened. Yet further corporate steps might still be required before any consequences reached the executive leadership of the wider group. If the challenge succeeds, Clerc’s supporters would gain legal reinforcement, although the underlying disagreement with the family would remain unresolved.
What is already clear is that Castel has entered unfamiliar territory. A business built over decades with relatively little public exposure is now facing open disagreement over succession, governance and control.
For the French wine world, the significance lies less in the personal contest than in what it reveals about the future of a major family-owned group. As companies grow across countries, industries and generations, the mechanisms that once concentrated authority can become the source of profound disagreement.
The Castel Group governance crisis is therefore about more than a boardroom vote. It is a test of how legal ownership, family influence and executive power coexist inside one of the largest names in French wine.