CK Hutchison revises ports deal plan amid Beijing scrutiny
The move comes after the Hong Kong-based conglomerate concluded exclusive talks with a consortium led by U.S. investment giant BlackRock and Italy's MSC, the shipping group controlled by billionaire Gianluigi Aponte.
The initial agreement, reached in March, covered 43 port assets across 23 countries, including two key terminals located along the Panama Canal, a region of strategic interest to both China and the United States.
With the exclusivity window closed, CK Hutchison said changes in both the consortium's structure and the transaction itself are now likely to be required to secure the necessary regulatory approvals. The company emphasized it would not proceed without clearance from all relevant authorities and said it is open to taking additional time to ensure compliance.
In a filing to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on July 28, the company confirmed it is in discussions with the existing consortium to bring in a "major strategic" Chinese investor. A source familiar with the matter told Reuters that China COSCO Shipping Corp, one of the country's largest port operators, is in talks to join the group.
While BlackRock declined to comment, neither MSC nor COSCO responded to requests for comment. CK Hutchison also refused to provide further details beyond its official exchange filing.
The development comes amid increased geopolitical friction, particularly following remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump, who previously called for U.S. control of the Panama Canal and praised the port sale as a symbolic "reclaiming" of the region. His administration had also raised concerns over Chinese control of port assets near the canal.
China's State Administration for Market Regulation has announced it will review the deal under antitrust laws to ensure market fairness and protect the public interest. While the regulator did not provide additional comments, state-run Chinese media criticized the proposed transaction, warning that it undermines national interests.
In its latest statement, CK Hutchison said that any new investor joining the consortium must be a significant participant in the group.
Analysts remain cautious about how the situation will evolve. David Blennerhassett, strategist at Ballingal Investment Advisors, noted that the majority Chinese control of the consortium would likely face resistance. However, a minority stake may ease geopolitical tensions while maintaining deal viability.
JPMorgan analysts echoed that view, stating in a client note that adding COSCO could address some of Beijing's concerns and improve the chances of approval. They also flagged that some port assets—especially those in Panama—may be excluded from the final agreement, which could affect both the structure and pricing of the revised deal.
CK Hutchison's shares rose 1.6 percent on July 28, outperforming the broader Hang Seng Index, which gained 0.9 percent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
9 minutes ago
- National Post
The Howard Stern Show, a radio fixture since the 1980s, is said to be ending soon
The Howard Stern Show, which has been on the air now for more than 40 years, first on terrestrial radio and since 2005 on SiriusXM satellite radio, is said to be on the verge of ending. Article content Reports in Britain's tabloid The Sun and elsewhere say that the host's latest five-year contract expires in the fall, but that it won't be renewed. Article content 'Stern's contract is up in the fall and while Sirius is planning to make him an offer, they don't intend for him to take it,' an unnamed insider told the paper. 'Sirius and Stern are never going to meet on the money he is going to want. It's no longer worth the investment.' Article content Article content The insider added that Sirius may strike a deal for Stern's library of content. 'But as far as him coming back to doing the show, there's no way they can keep paying his salary.' Article content Article content 'If Sirius isn't going to give Stern a good offer, I don't think it would have anything to do with his ratings,' the source said. 'It's more likely everything to do with the political climate.' Article content The source added: 'After you saw what happened with Stephen Colbert, it's like they just can't afford to keep him going.' Article content The comparison is an apt one. Colbert, host of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, was told last month that the show would end in May 2026. It was a move that many — not least Donald Trump himself — suggested was influenced by Colbert's criticism of the now U.S. president over the years. Article content Similarly, Stern has in recent years become openly critical of Trump. In 2020 he called on Trump to resign from his first term as president for his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. When Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. mocked him, he sarcastically referred to the the younger Trump as a 'wit' and a 'genius.' Article content Article content And in 2023, Trump posted on social media that 'The real Howard Stern is a weak, pathetic, and disloyal guy, who lost his friends and MUCH of his audience.' He added: 'I did his show many times in the good old days, and then he went Woke, and nobody cares about him any longer.' Article content Article content Stern's radio persona has evolved over the decades. Originally known as a 'shock jock' broadcaster — his move to SiriusXM was in part a way to get away from the censorship regulations of terrestrial radio — he gradually became a more serious and politically savvy interviewer. Article content Guests on his show have included U.S. President Joe Biden, who gave his first on-air interview while in office to Stern in April 2024, and U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris, who spoke to him last October, just weeks before the nation went to the polls. Article content Stern, 71, got his start on radio in the late 1970s, with The Howard Stern Show beginning in 1981 on WWDC, a radio station near Washington, D.C. It moved to WNBC in New York the following year, and in 1985 landed at WXRK, where it stayed until its move to SiriusXM in 2005.
Globe and Mail
9 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
The Democrats won't be in the dumps for long
It's not news that Canada needs. Our party in the United States, the Democratic Party, which we've always favoured over the less progressive Republicans, appears to be in dire straits. Typical of its troubles is a Wall Street Journal poll saying the party has reached a 35-year-low in public esteem, with 63 per cent of voters holding a negative view. The Democrats are despondent and divided from their election defeat. Their credibility has taken a hit on account of their apparent cover-up of Joe Biden's cognitive decline. They are being steamrollered in Congress by the Republicans. They lack a coherent message, a strong leader. It is all happening when, more than ever, a strong Democratic Party is needed to restrain the authoritarian impulses of Donald Trump, who is going so far as to have Barack Obama investigated. But the party's condition isn't as dire as it is being made out to be. Much of what we're seeing is not unusual for a party in the months after losing a presidential election. Since first being based in Washington in 1978, I've seen the same pattern repeatedly. Initially it's all doom and gloom for the defeated party. Then the midterm elections come and that party invariably makes big gains and all the griping and crying and bad media stops. Andrew Coyne: The final obstacle to Trump's dictatorship may be the people he needs to borrow from Trump says Vance 'most likely' to lead as Republican nominee in 2028 It's only natural that in the wake of the Trump defeat, there is dissent and finger pointing and division among the Democrats. It's standard fare to be trailing well behind the honeymooning victors in the polls. It's hardly surprising to appear rudderless given that in the American system, there is no opposition party leader as such. And it's to be expected that with the Republicans in control of the House, the Senate and the White House, they are having their way. But despite their follies, the Democrats currently lead the Republicans in generic polls for Congressional control. The Trump victory has not translated in a boost in support for Republicans. In three polls released Wednesday, he was an average of negative-seven in favourability ratings. Only 38 per cent of Americans say the country is on the right track. What is being overlooked by those attacking the Democrats is their talent pool. The party is stacked with talent. There's California Governor Gavin Newsom, there's former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Representative Ro Khanna, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. That doesn't include firebrand representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who political analyst Nate Silver and others are already touting as the favourite to win the party's 2028 nomination. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's prominence, however, is one of the reasons the party is said to be doing so poorly. She's dragging the party to the far left. She is therefore deemed to be a gift to Republicans. That could well be the case. It could also be old-think, another example of an out-of-touch establishment mentality, discounting how American politics has changed and is changing. Polls by Gallup and AtlasIntel show AOC scoring a higher positive impression than Mr. Trump. An Emerson College poll shows her neck-and-neck with Vice-President J.D. Vance. AOC has passion and star power. She is inheriting Bernie Sanders's base of support. As a Latina, that base potentially extends to Hispanic America. At the age of just 35, her base extends to the youth of the country. She represents generational change in spades. Clobbering all comers in fundraising, she brought in almost US$10-million in the first quarter of this year. The party needs a fighter who connects with working people; AOC is that too. An anti-establishment rising star like her is hardly an example of a party in decline. On the Republican side, Mr. Trump has been scoring foreign policy wins, but they aren't vote-getters. The party just received rotten economic numbers, leading Mr. Trump to idiotically blame it on his statistics chief and, in banana-republic style, fire her. Most every economist is of the view that the Trump trade war will spark high inflation, handing the Democrats the affordability issue. His recently passed 'big beautiful bill' is getting a big ugly reception for cutting into social security and catering to the rich. The Epstein controversy is fracturing unity in the party's base. This is all going to help Democratic Party disarray go away. In keeping with precedent, we can expect the party to vigorously reassert itself by the midterms, just like it did in the midterms in 2018. We recall how down in the dumps the Democrats were after losing to Mr. Trump two years earlier. It didn't last.
Montreal Gazette
39 minutes ago
- Montreal Gazette
Opinion: Provinces must align on health care, not just trade
Op Eds We can borrow a line from Charles Dickens to describe our current state of politics in this country: 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.' The 'worst of times' describes the international trade turmoil caused by Donald Trump's fluctuating tariffs and erratic deal-making, with significant implications for our economy. What is less frequently discussed is 'the best of times' impact — the unity the U.S. president's actions has created among premiers and the federal government. Pan-Canadian trade barriers are falling, and interprovincial project ideas abound. This is good news for Canada, even as a possible trade deal with the United States presumably wends closer. As patient-partners in health research, and part of a non-profit organization that helps cancer patients receive essential treatments, we ask: If we can find equal footing among the provinces and territories on trade, why not on health care? Why can't we streamline access to medically necessary treatment for patients across the country who are badly in need of them? For many, this is a matter of life or death. At the moment, provincial and territorial governments make their own decisions about what drugs to reimburse for eligible people and under what conditions. There are many instances across the country where governments don't reimburse people for essential medications at all, leaving patients to find the money on their own. This includes cancer treatments. Sometimes this means people must go without necessary drugs or necessary food. This is the 'choice' our so-often-called 'patchwork quilt' of coverage sometimes provides. The federal government also has its own drug plans for groups under its jurisdiction — and recently, for contraceptives and diabetes medication through the 2024 Pharmacare Act (in provinces that have finalized their agreements with the federal government). Now that we have decided to become Team Canada on trade, there is no reason not to extend this to drug access. During his election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney talked about 'Canada Strong,' his plan to unite, secure, protect and build Canada, including comprehensive measures to build and protect our health care system. He talked about adding doctors, building hospitals and delivering better mental health services. He said we would build a stronger health care system. A stronger health care system includes ensuring that people in Canada have equal access to medically necessary services, and that the coverage is portable across the country. These are among the five key principles underpinning the Canada Health Act. Provinces are already on board for getting people medically necessary treatments. Last month, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who heads the Council of the Federation, comprising all provincial and territorial premiers, said one of their aims is to accelerate getting life saving medications to people who need them. So if every level of government supports the need for medically necessary services — and drug treatments should surely fit into that category — why are we not tearing down the barriers to our patchwork quilt of public drug reimbursement plans? Where you live in the country should not determine whether or not you receive essential medications. Access to health care in Canada — including life-saving medications — should be seamless across provincial and territorial borders. It is not only the right thing to do for patients, but it is also a boon to the economy — getting people healthy and contributing to our society in any way they can. So we ask Carney and the Council of the Federation: If we can find practical solutions to remove trade barriers that are bad for our economy, why can't we find a practical solution to the barrier of unequal access to medically necessary treatments across this country, too?
