Pre-trial review of the general contractor's final invoice and possible breaches of duty during the salvage, transport and release of the humpback whale Timmy/Hope.

The general contractor of Mr Fred Babbel, responsible for the whale rescue operation, submitted a final invoice on 18 May 2026 for a gross amount of €1,966,969.15. Taking into account the advance payments already made by Mrs Karin Walter-Mommert, a remaining amount of €1,561,191.05 was invoiced, due on 19 May 2026. The final invoice and all related services were subsequently subjected to a (legal) review. This led to the following correspondence with the general contractor and his representatives.

Regarding the contractual relations: The general contractor was responsible, among other things, for the integration and coordination of O.S. Energy GmbH – Marine Power Solutions with the vessel Fortuna B and its crew, JEB Bereederungs GmbH & Co. KG with the vessel Robin Hood and its crew, SET Schiffbau- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Tangermünde mbH, and BVT Chartering und Logistics GmbH. The latter provided the push barge Jürgen or the barge used, together with its crew, as well as further connection and specialist personnel, such as divers.

Index of persons in the report (protagonists): Fred Babbel (general contractor, not present in the tug flotilla), Jörn Haumüller (authorised signatory and project manager of BVT Chartering and Logistics; responsible for the barge; present in a leading function in the tug flotilla), Nicolai Back (Captain of the Fortuna B), Martin Bocklage (Captain of the Robin Hood), Jeffrey Foster (American whale expert), Anne Herrschaft (veterinarian).

Lawyer's correspondence dated 04.09.2026

Our client [1 Karin Walter-Mommert] will currently not make any further payments on your client's final invoice. Our client rejects the settlement proposal submitted.

After evaluating the material now available, there are significant defects in the overall performance owed by your client. Essential specifications of the salvage and transport concept were not implemented; the contractual purpose oriented towards animal welfare was thereby ultimately thwarted.

In the event of a lawsuit, our client will assert her defect rights, in particular a reduction in price pursuant to §634 No. 3, §638 BGB (German Civil Code), and will file a counterclaim for her further claims. According to the current assessment, in view of the severity and accumulation of the breaches of duty, a reduction to zero is a possibility. Rights to repayment and damages are reserved.

In detail, the following breaches of duty in particular should be highlighted:

1. Movement of the whale contrary to the salvage concept

The salvage concept envisaged floating the whale backwards into the barge on the net prepared for this purpose. The process was to take place slowly and to be capable of being stopped at any time in the event of irritation. Furthermore, the winches (anchor and hand winch) and the lines provided for in the salvage concept were not used during the floating-in process.

In fact, the whale was moved into the barge headfirst. Due to its dimensions, it was foreseeable that it was virtually impossible for the whale to turn/rotate independently, especially without further equipment. This significantly complicated a later controlled release by swimming out.

2. Non-use of net and tarpaulin

It seems highly significant to us that the net and tarpaulin provided for in the concept were not placed underneath as intended when the whale was moved.

The net and tarpaulin were a central part of the technical salvage concept and were intended precisely to enable controlled movement of the whale. Both the net and the tarpaulin were directly on site and were also invoiced by your client. Furthermore, our client was not informed about the non-use of the net and tarpaulin – and thus the deviation from the salvage concept.

3. Unauthorised and violent release

The course of the release is particularly serious.

As early as 1 May 2026, attempts were made to move the whale out of the barge by pulling its fluke. This process was aborted upon intervention by our client.

On the morning of 2 May 2026, the release was nevertheless started again – without prior coordination with our client and without involving the planned veterinary and professional team.

Our client and Mr Jeffrey Foster had previously explicitly requested that the veterinarians Anne Herrschaft and Kirsten Tönnies be brought to the barge immediately. Both veterinarians had also requested this themselves on site.

Your client's vicarious agents disregarded this request and instead made an unauthorised decision on the release. According to current findings, a rope was attached to the fluke area – again contrary to the salvage concept – and connected to the "Robin Hood". The whale was then violently moved out of the barge under considerable tensile force.

In addition, our client demonstrably demanded that this release be aborted. Your client's vicarious agents simply disregarded this as well.

4. Exclusion of veterinarians and specialist team

The participation of veterinarians and whale experts was the basis and prerequisite of the rescue concept.

On the morning of 2 May 2026, however, only Jeffrey Foster was brought to the barge. The veterinarians and other members of the specialist team were to be brought later. This did not happen.

The request to halt measures until the veterinary medical practitioners were brought in was also not complied with.

On the contrary: although Jeffrey Foster was brought in the direction of the barge on the morning of 2 May, he was forced to remain on the Robin Hood. The Captain of the Robin Hood also prohibited Mr Foster – contrary to the contractually owed duty of supervision – from making video recordings at the critical moment of pulling the whale out of the barge.

The release therefore took place precisely in the decisive phase with the exclusion of those professionals legitimised to permanently ensure animal welfare, whose participation (incidentally, also required by the Ministry) was intended to safeguard animal welfare.

Thus, the legitimised professionals provided for in the salvage concept were forced to watch helplessly as untrained, non-legitimised persons dragged the animal off the vessel.

5. Exclusion of our client from decisions

In parallel, our client, as the principal, was excluded from key decisions.

Already on the evening of 22 April 2026, a crucial meeting of Messrs Backhaus (Minister), Babbel (general contractor), Kempe (coordinator BVT/SET, barge) and Bohnsack (technical director of the rescue initiative) took place to discuss the "whale salvage" concept, from which our client was excluded as principal, even though she had inquired about the time and urgently requested to be connected.

On the evening of 1 May 2026, our client then unmistakably demanded that unauthorised release measures be refrained from. She was not aware of a meeting between Captains Nicolai Back and Martin Bocklage with Jörn Haumüller and Jeffrey Foster. The following morning, the key responsible persons were unreachable for her. The decision on the release was made and implemented without her consent.

In this respect, your client cannot hide behind the actions of subcontractors or ship crews. Your client was our client's contractual partner and responsible for the coordination of the overall measure. The conduct of the companies and persons engaged by your client therefore falls within your client's area of responsibility.

6. Prevention of documentation

Both the "whale salvage" concept and the "whale manual" provided for permanent monitoring of the whale. This monitoring was therefore part of the agreed rescue concept.

Continuous documentation of all processes, including by Mr Jens Schwarck, was also planned and known since the beginning of the rescue operation.

The duty to monitor was not fulfilled. The agreed documentation was even actively prevented.

The monitoring was supposed to take place for multiple reasons. Firstly, to provide evidence of proper contractual performance in terms of animal welfare, and secondly, due to an express requirement of the Ministry of Environment.

Your client now submits that a recording of this monitoring did not take place. At the same time, according to the material available to us, filming, image, and sound recordings were prohibited during the decisive phase.

Thus, a complete objective documentation is lacking precisely for the most critical section of the operation, while available documentation options were simultaneously actively restricted.

7. Release in the Skagerrak instead of continuing towards Stavanger

Finally, the further transport of the whale was ended unilaterally.

Our client had expressly requested that the journey continue towards Stavanger. In order to make this possible despite the limits of the existing insurance cover, she initially assumed personal liability for material damage to the barge up to EUR 2.9 million and subsequently increased this to up to EUR 4 million. Your client's vicarious agents had promised a continuation of the journey once insurance was in place. Your client must be held responsible for this promise made by the subcontractors. The same applies to any communication deficits in this regard between the subcontractor BVT and the shipping companies involved.

This assumption of liability served solely to enable the continuation of the journey.

Nevertheless, the whale was released in the Skagerrak on 2 May 2026. No coordination with our client took place. There is no evidence that a continuation of the journey was objectively impossible or imperatively ruled out for reasons of animal welfare.

The purpose of the contract was not merely to transport the whale out of the Bay of Poel. What was owed was a salvage and transport oriented towards animal welfare to a suitable release site in compliance with the concept developed for this purpose.

This contractual purpose was not achieved. The fact that the whale swam back towards the Baltic Sea reveals this serious error.

8. No recognition of the remaining remuneration

Insofar as you derive an acknowledgment of certain remuneration claims from earlier letters from our client, this is not correct.

9. Prerequisite for further settlement discussions

Further settlement discussions will only be considered once the relevant processes have been fully clarified. The attachments sent with your letter of 28 August 2026 are insufficient in this respect. The essential information is still missing.

For this, we expect the submission or disclosure of, in particular, the following documents:

• complete crew and passenger lists of the participating vessels and the barge (unredacted) for the period from 28 April to 2 May 2026, including the respective functions;

• all existing film, photo, and other image recordings of the barge, the whale, and the release attempts;

• all existing data and recordings of the camera monitoring on the "Fortuna B";

• complete logbooks (not just the previous extracts), bridge books, as well as AIS, GPS, and other position and route data of the tug flotilla;

• all deployment, handover, and incident protocols;

• your client's communication with the involved subcontractors and ship commands regarding the continuation of the journey, the release, and the participation of the specialist team;

• all documents regarding the decision to abort the journey and release the whale on 2 May 2026, in particular as to who made or approved this decision, when, and on what basis;

• a complete and comprehensible billing of the fuel costs of the "Fortuna B" in the amount of EUR 54,921.10; although the server reports and fuel receipts submitted with your letter of 28 August 2026 document fuel stocks, consumption quantities, and refuelings, they still do not clearly show how the amount of EUR 54,921.10 specifically billed to our client is composed. In particular, a comprehensible allocation of the billed consumption quantity to the respective cost prices is missing.

Insofar as documents are held by the subcontractors engaged by your client, we expect them to be procured.

We expect full submission within 21 calendar days of receipt of this letter.

Until then and beyond, based on the current state of affairs, our client is not prepared to make further payments.

Should your client file a lawsuit, our client will make the aforementioned defects and breaches of duty the subject of the proceedings and pursue her counterclaims by way of set-off and counterclaim.

— End of the lawyer's brief.

[1] Karin Walter-Mommert is advised and represented by a law firm specialising in corporate mandates based in Baden-Württemberg.

Publication of screenshots from WhatsApp correspondence

The following screenshots are taken from the correspondence between Mrs Karin Walter-Mommert and Mr Jörn Haumüller, project manager for the barge, on the evening of 1 May 2026 and the morning of 2 May 2026. On this morning, Mr Haumüller was unreachable for Mrs Walter-Mommert.

The reason why Mr Haumüller was unreachable at this time remains unexplained to this day.