Investors Nervous as Doubts Raised Over COSCO Takeover of OOCL


Investors Nervous as Doubts Raised Over COSCO Takeover of OOCL

The ultra-large container vessel OOCL Germany calls at Eurogate Container Terminal in Wilhelmshaven, Germany, in October 2017. Photo: EUROGATE

By Mike Wackett (The Loadstar) – COSCO’s $6.3bn takeover of Orient Overseas International (OOIL), parent of container line OOCL, is now in doubt, according to Alphaliner.

The consultant said “doubts remain” whether the acquisition could be completed by the 30 June completion deadline.

The deal, announced in July last year, would see COSCO acquire 90.1% of OOIL shares and compatriot container terminal operator Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG) take the balance.

Although COSCO has repeatedly said “the deal is on track”, two preconditions remain outstanding that could derail the transaction, says Alphaliner.

Bizarrely, considering COSCO is state-owned, China’s ministry of commerce has still to give official approval to the deal.

But of more concern is the pending greenlight from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). In the past year, it has vetoed a number of deals involving Chinese buyers on the basis of a “threat to national security”.

Related: COSCO Takeover of OOCL Face Degree of Uncertainty

Alphaliner said: “COSCO has not provided any official clarification on the status of its negotiations with the committee [CFIUS] so far. While COSCO reportedly proposed to divest or carve out the OOCL-owned Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT) to help ease US national security concerns, no details of any such plan have been made public…”

It added that the situation regarding the LBCT “could prove difficult to resolve”, as it remained unclear why the US authorities seemed to be regarding COSCO’s proposed ownership as a ‘national security risk’.

Alphaliner argues that this has not been an issue under OOCL ownership and, furthermore, COSCO already controls two container terminals at the LA/LB San Pedro Bay port complex.

The terms of the deal include a termination penalty of $253m payable by COSCO should the transaction not be completed by 30 June, but Alphaliner noted that there was a further clause that the fee would be waived if either of the two preconditions were not able to be fulfilled.

This would allow COSCO to “walk away from the deal without a penalty”, said Alphaliner, adding: “Any delay in securing the approvals may not necessarily doom the deal, as both COSCO and OOIL could mutually agree to extend the deadline.”

However, the absence of updates is causing concern both to shareholders of OOIL and customers of OOCL. Investors do not like uncertainty and OOIL’s shares, trading at about HK$74 (US$9.43), below the HK$78.67 offer price by COSCO and SIPG, could come under further pressure.

Moreover, OOCL staff are in a state of limbo, due to the absence of any official announcements and a general apprehension over the security of their positions. Indeed, since the announcement of the takeover last July The Loadstar has heard of several OOCL key commercial staff having been ‘poached’ by rival carriers.

Understandably, this is also creating uncertainty among OOCL’s customer base – a dangerous scenario in such a competitive marketplace.

The Loadstar is fast becoming known at the highest levels of logistics and supply chain management as one of the best sources of influential analysis and commentary.

Check them out at, or find them on Facebook and Twitter.

Leave a Reply

SSCP   CAS-002   9L0-066   350-050   642-999   220-801   74-678   642-732   400-051   ICGB   c2010-652   70-413   101-400   220-902   350-080   210-260   70-246   1Z0-144   3002   AWS-SYSOPS   70-347   PEGACPBA71V1   220-901   70-534   LX0-104   070-461   HP0-S42   1Z0-061   000-105   70-486   70-177   N10-006   500-260   640-692   70-980   CISM   VCP550   70-532   200-101   000-080   PR000041   2V0-621   70-411   352-001   70-480   70-461   ICBB   000-089   70-410   350-029   1Z0-060   2V0-620   210-065   70-463   70-483   CRISC   MB6-703   1z0-808   220-802   ITILFND   1Z0-804   LX0-103   MB2-704   210-060   101   200-310   640-911   200-120   EX300   300-209   1Z0-803   350-001   400-201   9L0-012   70-488   JN0-102   640-916   70-270   100-101   MB5-705   JK0-022   350-060   300-320   1z0-434   350-018   400-101   350-030   000-106   ADM-201   300-135   300-208   EX200   PMP   NSE4   1Z0-051   c2010-657   C_TFIN52_66   300-115   70-417   9A0-385   70-243   300-075   70-487   NS0-157   MB2-707   70-533   CAP   OG0-093   M70-101   300-070   102-400   JN0-360   SY0-401   000-017   300-206   CCA-500   70-412   2V0-621D   70-178   810-403   70-462   OG0-091   1V0-601   200-355   000-104   700-501   70-346   CISSP   300-101   1Y0-201   200-125  , 200-125  , 100-105  , 100-105  , CISM   NS0-157   350-018  , NS0-157   ICBB  , N10-006 test  , 350-050   70-534   70-178   220-802   102-400   000-106   70-411  , 400-101   100-101  , NS0-157   1Z0-803   200-125  , 210-060   400-201   350-050   C_TFIN52_66  , JN0-102  , 200-355   JN0-360   70-411   350-018  , 70-412   350-030   640-916   000-105   100-105  , 70-270  , 70-462   300-070  , 300-070   642-999   101-400   PR000041   200-101  , 350-030   300-070  , 70-270  , 400-051   200-120   70-178   9L0-012   70-487   LX0-103   100-105  ,