Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Txsleuth
"Both Saxby Chambliss and Jane Harman feel that Congress SHOULD have been involved in this sale...and feel that NOW he needs to get with them for their permission".

A BRITISH company being sold to a DUTCH/UAE owned company has to get US Congressional approval? I can see the contracts (to run US port facilities) having to be looked into and changed, canceled, or modified, but I think International Law would preclude Congress from being involved in non-American owned Multinational entity sales.

LLS
509 posted on 02/19/2006 8:44:33 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies ]


To: LibLieSlayer

It was explained, that because this was a sale between two companies....that Congress did not feel that these companies should have to be grilled and investigated, etc, in order to do business...

I heard that the reason Congress made this decision was to help our trade with foreign countries...and that if we made these types of transactions into a hugh deal..it would stifle trade...

BUT, this was done long before 9/11....and so this business deal in particular has made people sit up and take notice.

However, for Schumer and Clinton to get on their high-horses and act like the Bush Administration did a "secret" back room deal...and doesn't care about port security is bogus....because it was CONGRESS that set up this system...and Bush was just playing by THEIR rules..


524 posted on 02/19/2006 8:52:21 AM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies ]

To: LibLieSlayer

I agree w you. It's up to the shareholders of the companies and whether or not the sale meets regulatory requirements.
It would be the same if an American co was going to take over a UK company - it would be up to the shareholders. I'm not sure if the contracts w the ports are done locally, in which case, it seems it would need to be approved by the local authorities or if they are national contracts. In either case, I would think that Homeland Security would need to be involved because of security, customs control, etc.

Dubai Ports to acquire P&O in $6.8 billion deal
The Daily Star Middle East | Daily Star Staff
Beirut


DUBAI/LONDON: Gulf-state backed Dubai Ports World declared victory in a $6.8 billion bidding war for UK ports group P&O after Singaporean rival port operator PSA International withdrew from the field on Friday. Dubai Ports said it was confident P&O shareholders would back its 3.9 billion pound ($6.8 billion) bid at a meeting next week, giving it control of P&O ports on six continents and creating the world's third-largest ports group.

"We are waiting for the shareholder vote. Yes, we are confident, we have always been confident," Dubai Ports Chairman Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem told Reuters.

The going price was nearly $1 billion above the purchaser's original offer of $5.9 billion in November.

PSA International said earlier it would withdraw from the race, sending P&O shares 3.9 percent lower to 516-3/4 pence by 1026 GMT, a mark slightly below the Dubai Ports offer of 520p.

P&O shares, which have jumped more than 70 percent since the company announced it was in takeover talks in October, were trading higher in recent weeks on anticipation of a higher PSA bid.

"PSA has decided not to increase its offer and will therefore no longer pursue the acquisition of P&O," PSA said in a statement on Friday.

The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a 165-year-old maritime icon formed at the height of Britain's sea power, reiterated its recommendation that shareholders accept the Dubai Ports offer. Shareholders vote on the offer on Monday.

"The combination of P&O and DP World has compelling strategic logic and will create significant opportunities for both businesses and their employees," P&O Chairman John Parker said in a statement.

Dubai and Singapore had wrestled for control of P&O's key container ports in Asia, Europe and the Americas, following a three-year boom in shipping on the back of growth in Chinese demand, expanding trade and a global economic recovery.

"For PSA to pay more than this price would not be compatible with commercial business sense and PSA's future success," PSA representatives said in a statement to the London Stock Exchange.

PSA is owned by Temasek, a state investment group.

Dubai Ports' bid has already been cleared by key regulators.

But Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last month said PSA would have to make a "hard-headed" business decision in the high-stakes battle with DP World, which is backed by Middle East oil money.

In a commentary in Singapore's Business Times last month, Wong Wei Kong said that PSA's play for P&O showed that Temasek Holdings was "playing for big stakes on the global stage."

Wong said the bid marked Temasek's first major foray outside Asia since 2002.

Analysts had said that if PSA won, the deal would have created the world's biggest container port operator by capacity, leap-frogging Hong Kong's Hutchison Ports.

But with Dubai winning, the combined entity with P&O could threaten to eclipse PSA's second-place position globally, analysts said.

In an analysis released before PSA's withdrawal, Macquarie Research said that a win by DP World would give Dubai a 9.3 percent share of global container throughput - just a notch above PSA's 9.2 percent.

But both firms would remain behind Hutchison, which commands a 13.3 percent global market share, researchers said. Credit rating firm Fitch Ratings said in a research note also released before PSA announced the pullout that a win by DP World would make the Dubai port operator "either the second or third largest player" in the world.

Fitch said P&O's global assets would complement either those of DP World or PSA.

P&O has an estimated six percent share of global container throughput - placing it a distant fourth behind Hutchison, PSA, and APM Terminals of Denmark - but the British firm has a strong footprint in Australia and India that its rivals lack.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_ID=22108
© 2006 The Daily Star

http://www.iht.com/getina/files/309534.html


565 posted on 02/19/2006 9:21:22 AM PST by Seattle Conservative (God bless and protect our troops and their CIC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson