CK Hutchison wants Chinese firm to join bidding for its $22.8 billion ports business
The Hong Kong conglomerate in a statement said changes to the composition of the consortium and structure of the transaction will be necessary to secure regulatory approval, and that it will allow as much time as needed to achieve that.
A 145-day exclusivity period for talks between the parties expired on Sunday.
CK Hutchison's Hong Kong-listed shares were due to open higher just shy of 1% on Monday.
A deal would cover 43 ports in 23 countries including two ports near the Panama Canal which links the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
U.S. President Donald Trump initially hailed the sale as "reclaiming" the Panama Canal after his administration called for the removal of what it said was Chinese ownership of some ports.
U.S. investment firm BlackRock (BLK.N), opens new tab declined to comment. COSCO, Italian consortium member MSC and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
China views the potential sale as a threat to its interests, seeing the consortium as a proxy for growing American influence in a region it considers economically and geopolitically significant.
State-backed media, in criticism of the sale, said China has significant national interests in the matter and that selling the ports would be a betrayal of the country.
China's top market regulator said it was paying close attention to developments and stressed the deal would be subject to a Chinese antitrust review.
CK Hutchison in its statement said any new investor must be a "significant" member of the consortium.
"This is an interesting development. A PRC (China) investor with majority control of the consortium sounds like a non-starter in my view. An investor with a less than 50% stake you would think should keep everyone happy," said strategist David Blennerhassett of Ballingal Investment Advisors who publishes on SmartKarma.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Russian and Chinese navies carry out artillery and anti-submarine drills in Sea of Japan
MOSCOW, Aug 3 (Reuters) - The Russian and Chinese navies are carrying out artillery and anti-submarine drills in the Sea of Japan as part of scheduled joint exercises, the Russian Pacific Fleet was quoted as saying on Sunday. The drills are taking place two days after U.S. President Donald Trump said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in "the appropriate regions" in response to remarks by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. However, they were scheduled well before Trump's action. Interfax news agency quoted the Pacific Fleet as saying Russian and Chinese vessels were moving in a joint detachment including a large Russian anti-submarine ship and two Chinese destroyers. It said diesel-electric submarines from the two countries were also involved, as well as a Chinese submarine rescue ship. The manoeuvres are part of exercises titled "Maritime Interaction-2025" which are scheduled to end on Tuesday. Interfax said Russian and Chinese sailors would conduct artillery firing, practise anti-submarine and air defence missions, and improve joint search and rescue operations at sea. Russia and China, which signed a "no-limits" strategic partnership shortly before Russia went to war in Ukraine in 2022, conduct regular military exercises to rehearse coordination between their armed forces and send a deterrent signal to adversaries. Trump said his submarine order on Friday was made in response to what he called "highly provocative" remarks by Russia's Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed adversaries. Russia and the United States have by far the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world. It is extremely rare for either country to discuss the deployment and location of its nuclear submarines. Trump's comments came at a time of mounting tension with Moscow as he grows frustrated at the lack of progress towards ending the Ukraine war.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Sky-high energy prices destroying European industry, warns metal giant
Soaring energy prices will destroy what little heavy industry Britain and the EU have left, the boss of a metals giant has warned ahead of its London listing on Monday. Evangelos Mytilineos, the chief executive of Metlen, a Greek energy and metals company, has marked his company's new FTSE 100 listing with a dire warning about the disastrous impact of high energy costs. 'The UK and Europe have entered a period of high energy prices compared with our competitors,' he said. 'Countries like China, the US and others have maybe half or a third of the cost of power than we have, and this is the biggest problem for UK and European productivity going forward. 'A lot of [UK and European] companies are moving their plants to other parts of the world.' Mr Mytilineos cited German chemical giant BASF's 2024 decision to shut down 11 chemical plants in Germany and spend €10bn (£8.7bn) on a new mega-plant in southern China – partly linked to energy costs and green regulations. The Greek executive, who is also president of the European Metals Association, said the UK and Europe were fighting to retain the factories they had. 'A decade ago Europe had maybe 15 aluminium plants but now there are just four left so we are buying it from countries like China and Indonesia which make it by burning coal,' he said. That decline is partly down to the cost of renewables, the rollout of which is typically funded by subsidies that add levies to energy bills. Surging gas price followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine have also fuelled the problem. 'As long as Russian gas was around, we could be globally competitive,' Mr Mytilineos said. 'Now this is gone. This is geopolitics, and Europe is paying the price.' Addressing Ed Miliband and Sir Keir Starmer's race to decarbonise Britain's economy, Mr Mytilineos warned that green energy policies can come with a heavy price. 'If they want to take these decisions, they must also consider industry. You have to support your industries. Otherwise industries have to find new ways to survive. They have to move.' Metlen's core business is metal refining. It produces bauxite ore from its own mines in Greece where it also has a refinery and smelter. They annually produce 190,000 tonnes of aluminium and 860,000 tonnes of alumina, a vital ingredient in advanced ceramics. From the same ore it is now also extracting gallium, a strategically vital metal where China has long dominated global markets. Metlen is also increasingly involved in metal recycling, melting down scrap and targeting valuable metals like zinc and lead. The company has managed to avoid energy-induced shutdowns because its other key business is energy production: it owns around 14 wind farms, three solar farms and four hydroelectric plants, mostly in Greece, plus several gas fired power stations. It uses those generators to power its metal refining, giving it a near-unique level of immunity from the high energy prices that are wiping out energy-intensive industries across the UK and Europe. The comments come as Mr Mytilineos prepares to ring the London Stock Exchange opening bell at 8am on Monday as Metlen joins the market. The company, valued at close to £6bn, is set for inclusion in the FTSE 100 later this year when the index is re-evaluated. Metlen's move is a vote of confidence in London's beleaguered stock market, which has suffered from a dearth of new listings in the years following Brexit. Mr Mytilineos said: 'My shareholders ask me this – why London? We consider that despite London going through difficult times after Brexit, Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris have not managed to overtake the City as a financial hub. 'I think that having gone through this difficult period, the City will make a big comeback, and London Stock Exchange with it. So when choosing a European exchange with the biggest profile for our company, London was the obvious place.'
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Telegraph
The British public deserves to know what Miliband discussed with Beijing
When the Government signed a deal on net-zero co-operation with Canada, the text of the memorandum was published. So too were the texts of deals with Ireland, Norway, South Korea and Chile. Five months after the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband signed a similar memorandum with the Chinese government, however, we are still in the dark as to precisely what was agreed. Chinese media have asserted that the Energy Secretary agreed to co-operation on power grids, battery storage, offshore wind power and carbon capture, among other areas; it is understood that Chinese investment in the UK was not discussed by Mr Miliband. The role of the Chinese state in Britain's net-zero ambitions may well be an uncomfortable issue for the Labour Government to discuss. While the Defence Secretary is insisting that Britain is 'ready to fight' over the future of Taiwan and the Foreign Secretary is explicitly referring to China as a 'sophisticated and persistent threat' that requires hundreds of millions of pounds in additional funding for the intelligence services, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been courting Chinese investment, and Mr Miliband's drive to meet his net-zero targets is heavily dependent on Chinese industry. Both the switch to electric vehicles and the decarbonisation of the energy grid will make heavy use of Chinese products. One study commissioned by the German defence ministry recently warned that this position at the heart of Western energy systems could result in Beijing enjoying the power to trigger remote shut-downs as 'an instrument of economic warfare'. Such concerns are less hypothetical than we might wish. Earlier this year, undocumented communication devices were located in Chinese-made power inverters exported to the United States, triggering fears that Beijing could use compromised equipment to 'physically destroy the grid'. This would be fully in line with the current approach of the People's Liberation Army to warfare as a clash between systems, and the extensive Volt Typhoon operation carried out by Chinese state-sponsored actors. Even given the understandable desire to avoid a sudden break with China, the delicacy of the balance between trade and reliance is such that the British public deserves to know what Mr Miliband has discussed with Beijing.
