For a business whose name is deeply embedded in the modern French wine trade, Castel is facing an unusually public struggle over who ultimately exercises authority at the top of the group.
The latest development has come not from Bordeaux, where the company has its historic roots, but from Singapore. Proceedings there are examining the governance of International Beverage Brands Holding, or IBBM, a company at the heart of Castel’s ownership structure.
On 25 September, the High Court of Singapore issued an interim injunction requiring an application to be submitted to the Monetary Authority of Singapore for approval of three proposed new directors to IBBM’s board. The order does not settle the wider dispute, but it has immediately become another point of contention between members of the Castel family and the group’s current management.
A more consequential decision is expected on 2 October. That ruling is due to address the removal, on 9 February, of two IBBM directors, including Castel chief executive Gregory Clerc.
Why the Castel Group governance crisis matters
The argument may revolve around holding companies, board appointments and corporate law, yet its significance extends far beyond the paperwork.
Castel employs around 40,000 people worldwide and remains a major force in French wine. Figures for 2025 cited in connection with the group put its wine volumes at approximately 2.7 million hectolitres and turnover at €1.1 billion. Its interests also stretch well beyond wine, notably into beer and soft drinks in Africa through Castel Afrique and into agrifood through Somdia.
The central disagreement is therefore not simply about seats on a board. It concerns the relationship between the family members who ultimately benefit from the business and the executives and directors responsible for running its corporate structure.
Romy Castel, daughter of founder Pierre Castel, is among the family members challenging the present governance arrangements. Her side regards the latest Singapore order as progress towards reconstructing an IBBM board with directors it considers independent of the current management.
The group’s existing leadership presents the situation very differently.
One court order, two interpretations
The companies through which Castel’s structure is organised, including Singapore-based Cassiopée and Luxembourg-based DF Holding, have previously argued that developments in the Singapore litigation should not be confused with the day-to-day management of the wider group.
Their position is that questions surrounding IBBM’s board are distinct from Castel’s operational management and strategic direction. On that reading, Gregory Clerc’s position as an IBBM director is separate from his role as chief executive of the Castel group.
That distinction is strongly disputed by the family camp opposing the current management.
Its argument rests on the place occupied by IBBM within Castel’s chain of ownership. If IBBM sits at the top of the relevant corporate structure, control of its board could have consequences for the companies beneath it and, ultimately, for the distribution of authority across the group.
This difference in interpretation has become one of the defining features of the Castel Group governance crisis. The same procedural developments are being presented by one side as limited questions of corporate administration and by the other as decisions capable of reshaping control of the business.
For observers of the French wine sector, that distinction is important. Corporate structures can appear remote from vineyards, brands and distribution networks, but in a privately controlled multinational group they determine where formal decision-making power resides.
New directors at the centre of the dispute
The interim order concerns three proposed additions to IBBM’s board, all with substantial experience in Asian finance and investment.
Supporters of the appointments see them as a route towards a more independent and fully functioning board. Romy Castel has presented the Singapore decision in that light, describing the broader objective as restoring governance that properly serves the company and those connected with it.
The opposing interpretation is more cautious. Castel’s current leadership has treated earlier Singapore developments as procedural steps rather than judgments determining control of the group.
That difference matters because an interim injunction is not the same as a final ruling on the underlying governance dispute. The legal significance of each decision will depend on the questions actually before the court and on subsequent judgments.
The October ruling could clarify the battle over IBBM
Attention now turns to 2 October and the expected decision concerning the February removal of two IBBM directors, including Clerc.
The ruling may provide greater clarity about the validity of those removals and the composition of IBBM’s leadership. It will not necessarily bring the wider conflict to an end.
Other legal disputes remain open, including proceedings involving Clerc and Romy Castel, while disagreements over how united the Castel family itself is have also surfaced publicly.
The result is a governance dispute operating on several levels at once: corporate, legal and familial.
For the wine world, Castel’s scale makes the affair difficult to dismiss as an internal family matter. The group occupies an important position in French wine production and distribution, and the eventual settlement of its leadership structure will be watched well beyond the boardroom.
Castel Group governance crisis enters a decisive phase
For now, the Singapore proceedings have produced movement rather than resolution.
The 25 September injunction gives Romy Castel and her allies grounds to argue that their efforts to alter IBBM’s board are advancing. Current management, meanwhile, continues to maintain a distinction between the governance litigation and the operational leadership of Castel itself.
Those positions remain far apart.
The next court decision may settle some of the immediate questions surrounding IBBM, but the larger issue is more fundamental: where authority ultimately sits within one of the most significant privately controlled groups in French wine.
Until that question is resolved, the Castel Group governance crisis is likely to remain as much a story about ownership and corporate architecture as it is about personalities.