I'll admit I haven't given this issue a lot of thought yet. While I can see the side of those that argue against this purchase from a security standpoint, I was having a difficult time undestanding on what grounds Congress could getinvolved (I may be missing something, but don't see how they fit in, except if they pass a law that no foreign companies can operate US ports).
This angle makes more sense to me - it appears it could be a breach of contract. I suspect there is non-assignment language in their agreement that specifically spells out that the contract cannot be assigned without their express written approval and/or that it cannot be assigned to certain governments or companies under certain governments. Based on the last sentence below, there is also probably language in it wrt strict security regulations with which they don't feel they comply and thus they would be in breach of contract.
"The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Co. Inc., currently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week.
In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.
The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules."
There are many ways, and most of them short of a law of the nature you describe.
In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.
10 million bucks in a 6.8 billion dollar sale agreement - sparrow sneeze in a whirlwind.
At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3525633
a bipartisan group of seven House and Senate members demanded that an interagency task force on foreign investments, which approved the transaction, examine it more closely. ...Although the administration brushed off worry about that deal, congressional opposition to the Chinese takeover of Unocal Corp., the international oil firm, helped transfer ownership of Unocal to another U.S. oil giant. That controversy also inspired plans by powerful members of Congress to tighten the 1988 law that created CFIUS.
Talk of major changes in the law has subsided, but the Dubai Ports World deal could reignite the effort. If the administration is perceived as not vetting the deal carefully enough, congressional skeptics of foreign investment may feel obliged to take matters into their own hands, said Todd Malan, executive director of the Organization for International Investment, which represents the U.S. subsidiaries of many foreign companies. Mr. Malan was especially concerned because CFIUS did not conduct a 45-day investigation on top of the initial 30-day review that it usually gives to foreign purchases of U.S. businesses. ...
"We have a relationship with this company because they have been a participant in some of our cargo and port security measures," Mr. Baker said. "Remember, our interest in port security extends well beyond the United States. If we discover weapons of mass destruction inside a U.S. port, we've already lost. So we do a lot of screening abroad, and our general experience with this company has been positive."
The extra 45-day investigation wasn't necessary, Mr. Baker said, because the company approached CFIUS in late November ...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06050/657283.stm
Actual security at the ports will still remain in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security, regardless of who runs the port business.http://www.evilconservativeblog.com/2006/02/18/going-overboard-over-our-ports/
A New Jersey lawmaker said yesterday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.
The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules."It appears there is some bad blood between Continental Stevedoring & Terminals, and P&O, going back to a 7.2 million dollar case that Continental won, then lost on appeal in May, 2005. Dollars to donuts, the recently filed case for 10 million bucks is designed to vindicate the loss in May, 2005. The "security" angle is meant to sow FUD.
P & O PORTS FLORIDA, INC.,
Appellant,vs.
CONTINENTAL STEVEDORING & TERMINALS, INC.,
Appellee.** CASE NO. 3D03-2878
** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-10287
Opinion filed May 25, 2005.On April 9, 2003, P&O made an offer to buy Continental's interest in Eller-I.T.O for 7.2 million dollars. The offer included the condition that the parties would waive the non- compete provision of the agreement. Continental did not want to sell its share for only 7.2 million dollars, and it did not want to buy P&O's share without the protection of the non-compete provision.
Continental sought a judicial determination that P&O's offer was invalid by filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. ...
After the hearing, but before the Special Master issued his report, P&O attempted to revoke its offer by writing to Continental that its buy-sell offer was "hereby rescinded and withdrawn." Continental filed a motion to deem the revocation invalid, but the motion was never ruled upon. ...
The Special Master recommended that the trial court declare the offer to be valid; find that the non- compete agreement survives the sale; and that it enter an injunction against the parties prohibiting them from competing with each other at the Port of Miami for three years. The trial court entered a Final Judgment adopting the Special Master's recommendations over P&O's objections. P&O appealed.
http://www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts/court_opinions3/3d03-2878.html