Posted on 03/14/2006 2:47:20 AM PST by SUSSA
The Dubai-owned company that promised to surrender its U.S. port operations has no immediate plans to sell its U.S. subsidiary's interests at Miami's seaport, a senior executive wrote Monday in a private e-mail to business associates.
(snip)
"As for the 'pending situation,' I myself am not aware of anything about it that would alter the ownership of POMTOC, so unless one or both of our esteemed partners have separately advised you that they plan to sell their interests, you should assume for your own purposes of managing the company that ownership of POMTOC is not going to change," Scavone wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Nope, P&Q owns the terminals and has no plans to sell. P%Q is a subsidiary of DP and DP has no plans to sell P&Q. Congress has told DP they could not lease port terminals. DP said OK no leases have exchanged hands. P&Q owns the leases. We own P&Q as a subliterary but they are not DP. P&Q already owns and is already approved to lease port terminals. Congress cannot stop the deal. It has already occurred.
Nothing like fiddling with appearances to hide acts of treason.
P & Q?? You mean P & O?? My point is POMTCO isn't P&O...P&O stands for "Peninsular and Oriental" or somesuch nonesene...POMTCO is "Port of Miami Trading Company..." something that, at least as I READ the article, is a wholly seperate organization.
...a senior executive wrote Monday in a private e-mail to business associates.
Who leaked the private e-mail? Is this lawful?
###
I would think it is as long as it isn't a government e-mail. It was e-mails that provided much of the evidence in the Enron case, and I think it was an e-mail that was the final nail in Martha Stewart's case. If the company doesn't like it, they can fire whoever turned it over.
Well, amazement over, scales off the eyes, welcome to reality. FReepers are perhaps a cut above average in intelligence, but they are as apt to form and hold an uninformed opinion as society at large. In short, they're "nothing special."
Well, that may be true, FReepers have average intellegience, but they seem to comment on things they know nothing about. Ten minutes on research on the Ports of Miami will tell you who is the security problem (the local LE) and a trip to Port Everglades will make you laugh your A off (there is NO security) all you need to get in is the name of an arriving ship and a fake id (ten-bucks in Miami). There is NO security check what-so-ever on the way out. None zip nada!!!! Nada!!
I am an American (says so on my Birth Certificate). I'm red-blooded, let me show you (ow) see, it's red. I opposed interference in the P&O sale to DP World.
I wish the eyes of the country were opened, but instead the wool was pulled over them by a company with an ax to grind (Eller) and an opportunistic democratic party looking for any pretense to attack the current administration.
The sale of P&O company (a foreign stockholder-owned business) to DP World (a foreign emir-owned business) gave the U.S. money changers no bits of gold.
Successfully stopping the deal may have put money into the handes of liberal politicians in bed with Eller and Maher companies, who couldn't compete with this deal in the free market. Eller manipulated the political and judicial process, along with the media, to acheive by fear an intimidation what they couldn't achieve otherwise.
I've got a bigger post coming. It was not owned by DP World before.
I have a bigger post coming. The company is P&O, not P&Q. The issue is NOT that P&O remains a subsidiary, I'll explain in the bigger post.
The article doesn't say what this post suggests. I have a bigger post coming to explain.
You are right the deal already happened, congress could never stop the deal. I have a bigger post coming, it's P&O not P&Q and it's not P&O that's important for this particular port.
No, PORT OF MIAMI TERMINAL OPERATING COMPANY leases a terminal to P&Q and thats the terminal they are talking about. About a 100 companies lease terminals from PORT OF MIAMI TERMINAL OPERATING COMPANY. DP does not lease POMTCO. P&Q leases a terminal from POMTCO
This is the bigger post.
POMTCO is a U.S. company. It is "owned" by three companies as a joint venture: P&O (now purchased by DP World) Eller, and Florida Stevadoring.
The position of DP World is that they did not purchase POMTCO, and therefore POMTCO is not in a position to be sold because of the deal.
The letter was meant to reassure the people of POMTCO that U.S. law would not even ALLOW DP World to break the contract and sell the company (which as I said is owned by THREE companies).
In many cases, the terminal contracts were owned by P&O, which is not DP World. Those U.S. subsidiaries are what DP World has said it would sell.
But POMTCO was a different entity, NOT part of the P&O family of companies, so doesn't fall into the same category.
His comment was that a stock transfer of a company does not allow the new stockholders to restructure previous agreements, such as the partnership agreement with Eller and FS regarding the POMTCO company.
If congress wants, I guess they could pass a law requiring DP World to sell out it's stake in this partnership. How congress would make such a law work would be problematic.
You can't just have them sell their interest, because whoever buys would have to be acceptable to the other two partners. And you can't pass a law that seizes the ownership, or forces it to be sold at a loss, without compensation (as it would be a seizure).
And if you do decide to use congress to do this, it would technically be an emminent domain case -- with the congress seizing the assets of one private owner to transfer the property to another private owner because the government finds the new private owner BETTER for the government than the old one.
In other contexts most freepers are vehemently against the government seizing private property, even with just compensation, simply to transfer that ownership to another private entity.
But in this case, since the private owners are people we don't like, many freepers are happy to allow the government to do so, even though the constitution seems to put restrictions on such action.
The opponents have been cheated a bit. They thought congress was stopping the deal, but congress hasn't done anything, except cancel several good concessions that had been offered. They pretended to do something, but the sale went through. P&O is no more, it is all DP World. There is no law, agreement, or contract requiring DP World to sell anything, or do anything, beyond that which they signed to get the original approval.
I believe that, so long as congress doesn't keep meddling, DP World will honor its promise and sell off the U.S. subsidiaries that it directly owns that now hold terminal leases.
This announcement simply points out that when a port is operated by a U.S. company that is operated in a partnership deal rather than as a wholly-owned subsidiary, DP World cannot simply break those partnerships, nor are they trying to at this time.
I'm sure they are happy that this also sticks a finger in Eller's eye, seeing as Eller was the one that was so upset about this specific terminal, and for all their work they haven't changed anything at that terminal yet. Eller wanted to force the sale of DP World's partnership to them, probably at a reduced price. But they can't do so legally, so they are trying to get the law changed.
That should have been "which is NOW DP World", not "which is not DP World".
sorry for the typo.
True, but DP didn't make P&Q a part of DP. They made P&Q a subsidiary of DP when congress tried to steal the deal. No leases have changed hands, DP owns P&Q. P&Q owns the terminal leases and neither have any plans to sell. No sale of the leases need to take place. P&Q already has a security check to operate terminal leases. DP has out smarted congress.
PING ME
Post 36.
P&O Ports in Miami
In Miami, P&O Ports is a 50% owner of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company (POMTOC), which operates the only multi-user container facility in the port, on 117 acres with 12 container cranes. Annual throughput volume is over 500,000 teus.
Stevedoring services are provided by Eller-ITO, a 50% joint venture company. Annual volume is 600,000 containers for steamship lines including Columbus, Crowley, P&O Nedlloyd, Contship, Lykes, CP Ships, COSCO, Yang Ming, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (K-Line) and Seaboard Marine.
In addition to container operations, P&O Ports, through its joint ventures, also services RoRo and general cargo vessels. Stevedoring, baggage handling and terminal services are provided for more than 700,000 passengers on Royal Caribbean Cruise Line and Norwegian Cruise Line.
Port Overview
The port offers direct access from the Gulf stream shipping lanes via Government Cut, a 500 ft. (152.4 mt) wide, 42 ft. mean low tide (12.8 mt) draft shipping channel. The container berths are on the southeast end of the island seaport, a mere nautical mile from the sea buoy. A 1000 ft. diameter turning basin lies immediately to the east of the container facility, and another 2000 ft. turning basin to the west is presently being dredged to 42 ft. The short distance to the Gulf stream shipping lanes, convenient turning basins and year-round absence of fog, guarantee quick and direct access between the Port and trade routes.
With the recent addition of two new 65-long-ton super post-Panamax container cranes, the Port of Miami solidified its position as being the largest and most modern container terminal in the Southeastern United States. These cranes join the three Panamax and seven post-Panamax, bringing a total of twelve gantry cranes operating at Miami's dynamic container port. All of the cranes are owned and maintained by the Port, and leased to the stevedoring companies. Cranes are available for operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The cranes are aligned on a single 6,000 ft. berth capable of handling seven container vessels simultaneously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.