CMA CGM says interested by CK Hutchison's port terminals
CK Hutchison agreed in March to sell the majority of its $22.8 billion global ports business to the consortium also including Italian billionaire Gianluigi Aponte's family-run shipping company MSC, but the exclusive talks expired on Sunday.
Gaining a stake in CK Hutchison's 43 terminals in 23 countries included in the preliminary deal would offer CMA CGM greater control over the supply chain, especially if it can get hold of one of the ports along the Panama Canal.
"It's very important for the industry, and it's important for us as a major player in this sector," CMA CGM Chief Financial Officer Ramon Fernandez told reporters during the presentation of the company's second quarter results.
"We are present in 65 terminals around the world so we are following this operation very closely and are naturally interested in participating," he added.
CMA CGM already has 65 port terminals around the world.
CK Hutchison said on Monday it was in talks with the consortium to add a Chinese "major strategic investor" to the bid and sources told Reuters Chinese shipping giant COSCO was looking to join.
CMA CGM, the world's third-largest container shipping line, reported virtually stable sales in the second quarter at $13.2 billion, while net profit fell to $521 million from $661 million a year earlier.
The group remained cautious about its outlook for the second half of the year, citing geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainties.
Global container trade grew by over 4% in the first five months of 2025, driven mainly by a rise in China's exports. While China's exports to the U.S. dropped 8%, those to Southeast Asia rose 18%, to the Middle East 15%, and to the EU 11%.
The new EU–US deal will require operators to adapt, but it only concerns about 2% of global container trade so the direct impact will be limited compared to the much larger shifts between China and the U.S., Fernandez said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
17 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Ursula von der Leyen's deal exposes the delusions of EU boosters
Photo byThe French prime minister François Bayrou said it was a 'dark day' for Europe. Under the trade deal that Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Scotland on 26 July, the US would impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports, but the European Union would not increase tariffs on American imports in return. According to Bayrou, 'an alliance of free peoples' had 'resolved to submission'. It was definitely a climbdown for the EU. Ever since Trump was re-elected last year and threatened new tariffs on imports to the US, the European Commission had threatened counter-measures – just as it did during the first Trump administration, when it responded to US tariffs on European aluminium and steel with its own tariffs on American products like bourbon. In the end, though, the EU simply accepted the new US tariffs this time – and on top of that, promised to increase purchases of American liquified natural gas and weapons. To be clear, what was agreed in Scotland is a political or 'framework' deal and a lot of the important details have yet to be worked out. In particular, it is not yet clear whether pharmaceuticals – a hugely important sector for the EU and especially Germany – will be included or how much steel will be exempt from tariffs. Moreover, the promises that von der Leyen made to increase investment in the US have already turned out to be empty – there is no way the EU can buy $750bn of American oil and gas in the next few years and it cannot direct companies to invest in the United States. Nevertheless, in the few days since the deal was announced, it has widely been seen as a humiliating European capitulation to Trump. Many critics of deal – especially EU boosters who fantasise about the idea of 'strategic autonomy' or a 'geopolitical Europe' – seem to imagine that the EU could have followed an alternative approach and stood up to Trump. In reality, though, there was little alternative to what Bayrou called 'submission'. Critics of the deal think EU member states undermined von der Leyen and forced her to negotiate from a position of weakness. It is true that some member states, especially Germany and Italy, ultimately backed off from threats of retaliatory measures because they feared that a full-on transatlantic trade war would ultimately hit important sectors of their economies harder than they are now being hit by the new US tariffs. But the idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it had but did not use – and that if it had used it, it could have struck a much better deal – is wishful thinking. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU has long thought of itself as an economic superpower and prided itself on its ability to negotiate trade deals – that, of course, was one of main arguments why the UK should remain within in the EU. This deal has somewhat undermined that self-image. After all, in May, the UK was able to negotiate a slightly better deal with the Trump administration, with a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. But what really makes the EU weak relative to the US is its vulnerability in security terms. The idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it did not use only makes sense if you think that economics and security are completely separate realms and that security issues are irrelevant to trade negotiations and cannot be linked. But deep down, despite all the tough talk and the threats of retaliation to Trump's tariffs, European politicians knew that taking such a confrontational approach could have consequences for US support for Ukraine – or even for Nato and the US security guarantee to Europe itself. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It's striking that this trade deal was being negotiated just as Trump seemed to be becoming increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Ukraine. Earlier in July, Trump had reinstated supplies of US weapons to Ukraine – albeit paid for by Europeans – and threatened new economic sanctions against Russia if Putin did not make progress in negotiations within 50 days. (The day after the EU-US trade deal was announced, Trump said he was now giving Putin even less time.) As tentative as European leaders know Trump's shift on Ukraine is, they do not want to jeopardise it. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who apparently spent hundreds of hours in frustrating negotiations with Trump administration officials, hinted at this in a briefing the morning after the announcement of the deal. He said he could not go into the details of everything that was discussed with Trump in Scotland, but 'it was not just about trade'. In the end, what has made the EU so dependent on the US, and made the EU's 'submission' inevitable, is the war in Ukraine – or, to be more precise, the way that, for the last two and half years since the Russian invasion in 2022, European leaders have insisted that their own security depends on a Ukrainian victory. Related
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says Mexico trade deal extended for 90 days
WASHINGTON, July 31 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he had agreed with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to extend an existing trade deal with Mexico for 90 days and continue talks over that period with the goal of signing a new deal. "Mexico will continue to pay a 25% Fentanyl Tariff, 25% Tariff on Cars, and 50% Tariff on Steel, Aluminum, and Copper. Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many," Trump said in a Truth Social post.
Reuters
44 minutes ago
- Reuters
US appeals court overturns first NFT insider trading conviction
NEW YORK, July 31 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday overturned the fraud conviction of a former product manager at OpenSea, the world's largest marketplace for non-fungible tokens, in what prosecutors called the first insider trading case involving digital assets. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan agreed with Nathaniel Chastain that erroneous jury instructions could have led to his being convicted merely for acting unethically, and without undermining a property interest belonging to OpenSea. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are unique digital assets, reflecting ownership of files such as artwork, other images, videos and text, and recorded on a blockchain. Chastain had been appealing his May 2023 wire fraud and money laundering conviction and three-month prison sentence. Prosecutors said he stole OpenSea's confidential information about which NFTs would be featured on its home page, secretly bought those NFTs, and sold them for a profit after they were featured and the price went up. Chastain made about $57,000 from buying and selling 15 NFTs, court papers show. Charges were unveiled in June 2022, after the NFT market had grown to about $40 billion annually. Circuit Judge Steven Menashi said the trial judge erred by instructing jurors that a conviction did not require proof Chastain stole information that had commercial value to OpenSea, and a fraud scheme may involve conduct that was merely dishonest. "If the wire fraud statute criminalized conduct that merely departed from traditional notions of fundamental honesty and fair play, almost any deceptive act could be criminal," Menashi added. Alexandra Shapiro and David Miller, two of Chastain's lawyers, in separate statements said they were pleased. "This case was a miscarriage of justice," they said.
