{"id":58235,"date":"2026-04-09T15:20:07","date_gmt":"2026-04-09T15:20:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/58235\/"},"modified":"2026-04-09T15:20:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-09T15:20:07","slug":"ck-hutchison-accuses-maersk-of-scheme-in-panama-port-takeover","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/58235\/","title":{"rendered":"CK Hutchison Accuses Maersk of \u2018Scheme\u2019 in Panama Port Takeover"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tPanama Ports<\/a> Company (PPC) has filed arbitration claims against Maersk<\/a> for undermining its long-term contract with the Panamanian government to operate the Balboa port.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Panamanian government expelled PPC from the terminal after the country\u2019s supreme court ruled Hong Kong-based parent company CK Hutchison\u2019s operations of two Panama Canal<\/a>-adjacent ports<\/a> to be unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe decision voided Hutchison\u2019s contract<\/a> to run the port, with the government later handing the reins to Balboa over to Maersk<\/a>. That ruling also forced Hutchison to surrender operations of the Crist\u00f3bal port, which was overtaken by Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC). The appointments of Maersk and MSC<\/a> are expected to last 18 months before a long-term operator takes over both ports.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a statement, PPC accused Maersk of aligning with the Republic of Panama in connection with what it called a \u201cstate campaign\u201d and a \u201cscheme\u201d against the company to replace it \u201cthrough a takeover.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe arbitration against Maersk will be held in London. PPC did not list the damages.<\/p>\n

\n\tMaersk said in a statement it did not believe it is liable for the claims and \u201cwill address them in the appropriate forum.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe port operator filed a separate arbitration claim<\/a> against Panama last month on allegations that the country illegally took control of the ports and seized assets. That suit is calling for over $2 billion in damages.<\/p>\n

\n\tThat complaint was filed to challenge the executive decree from President Jos\u00e9 Ra\u00fal Mulino, which designated the Panama Maritime Authority to occupy its facilities and confiscate property and equipment including cranes, vehicles and computer systems.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn recent weeks, China has been inspecting and detaining vessels<\/a> that are registered to Panama at its ports, raising eyebrows among U.S. officials who view the move as a retaliation for the transfer of Hutchison\u2019s port assets.<\/p>\n

\n\tOf the 27 vessels that China has detained from April 1 to Wednesday, 20 of them are Panama-flagged. That followed a March 93 of 125 vessels detained\u2014nearly 75 percent of ships\u2014were Panama-linked.<\/p>\n

\n\tChina\u2019s Hong Kong and Macao office had previously warned that Panama would pay a \u201cheavy price both politically and economically\u201d after the Supreme Court ruling took place, calling it \u201cunfounded, unreasonable and absurd.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tPanama\u2019s top diplomat agreed that the detentions were a form of punishment.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cPanama\u2026respects the legal \u200bsovereignty of all countries, and we simply ask for the same treatment for \u200bourselves,\u201d said Panama\u2019s foreign minister Javier \u2060Martinez-Ach, speaking at a conference in Paraguay Wednesday.<\/p>\n

\n\tCK Hutchison\u2019s expulsion from the ports followed the terminal operator\u2019s attempt to sell the Balboa and Crist\u00f3bal ports to a consortium of U.S. hedge fund BlackRock and MSC for $22.8 billion<\/a>. The sale announcement unfolded against the backdrop of President Donald Trump calling for the U.S. to \u201ctake back\u201d the Panama Canal<\/a>, which Washington formally transferred to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999.<\/p>\n

\n\tAt the time, the proposed transfer of the ports had been seen as a victory for the U.S. and its pursuit to curb potential Chinese influence in Latin America. But China was unhappy with the prospect of the ports falling partially in American hands, and filed an antitrust investigation into the deal.<\/p>\n

\n\tPressure began to ramp up domestically both before and through the sale process, with Panama conducting a three-month audit<\/a> to start last year.<\/p>\n

\n\tThat audit found that Hutchison had owed $300 million alone since the concession with the Panamanian government was extended in 2021. When going back to 1997, when Hutchison first took over the ports, a combination of payment defaults and accounting miscalculations cost the country $1.3 billion in lost revenue, Panama\u2019s comptroller alleged.<\/p>\n

\n\tWith Hutchison\u2019s 25-year contract extension at the Panama ports now void, the company is still seeking to engage<\/a> MSC and BlackRock on a deal that would not include the Balboa and Crist\u00f3bal terminals.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe conglomerate would be offloading operations at up to 41 non-Chinese ports, which includes terminals in prominent at European ports like Rotterdam, Barcelona and Felixstowe. Additionally, it would include terminals in Southeast Asian gateways including Port Klang in Malaysia, Laem Chabang in Thailand and Cai Mep in Vietnam.<\/p>\n

\n\tAccording to a report from the Financial Times, both parties expect the latest iteration of the transaction to close by the middle of 2027.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Panama Ports Company (PPC) has filed arbitration claims against Maersk for undermining its long-term contract with the Panamanian…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":58236,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[224],"tags":[3846,245,8522,12230],"class_list":["post-58235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-maersk","tag-lawsuit","tag-maersk","tag-panama-canal","tag-ports"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58235"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58235\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/58236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}