CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd. has formally warned A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S that it will take legal action should Maersk’s terminal division assume control of operations at two strategic ports near the Panama Canal without CK Hutchison’s agreement. The ports at issue are Balboa and Cristobal, both central to transits through the canal region.
The warning comes after Panamanian authorities invalidated the concession that previously allowed CK Hutchison to operate the two facilities. Panama has proposed that APM Terminals - Maersk’s terminal unit - step in to manage the ports during a planned transition period.
In a statement issued Thursday, the Hong Kong-based conglomerate made clear that it believes any unilateral takeover by APM Terminals would cause harm. The company said: "CK Hutchison has notified Maersk that any assumption by APM Terminals of operations of the two terminals without the agreement of CK Hutchison will cause damages" to the group and "will result in recourse against APMT."
CK Hutchison has also taken steps to raise the matter with Panama directly. The company informed Panamanian authorities of a dispute intended to protect its rights under an investment protection treaty, and it has invited consultations as part of that process. Separately, the company announced last week that it is pursuing "extensive damages" through arbitration in response to Panama’s decision to invalidate the contract.
The root of the disagreement dates back to a ruling in late January, when Panama’s highest court found that the contract awarded to CK Hutchison - associated with Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing - to operate Balboa and Cristobal was unconstitutional. That judgment set in motion the current sequence of actions by Panama and the responses from CK Hutchison.
What happens next
CK Hutchison’s notifications to both Maersk and Panama indicate that the dispute will proceed through formal channels - including arbitration under the investment protection treaty invoked by CK Hutchison - unless the parties reach agreement through consultations. The company’s statement signals readiness to seek damages if operations are transferred without its consent.
The situation remains fluid, with legal and diplomatic steps likely to determine whether APM Terminals will operate the ports during any transition or whether CK Hutchison’s claims will block such an assumption of control.