Austal, the Australian shipbuilder, finds itself at a crossroads as it contemplates an unsolicited bid from South Korean conglomerate Hanwha worth A$1.02 billion ($662 million). While confirming the receipt of the bid following media reports, Austal expressed reservations regarding the approval process, particularly concerning its critical role as a partner to the Australian and US navies.
The company’s apprehension stems from its recent commitment to a Strategic Shipbuilding Agreement with the Australian Department of Defence, emphasizing the importance of keeping naval shipbuilding within the country. This memorandum of understanding (MOU) underscores Austal’s pivotal position as a national asset in Australia’s defense infrastructure.
In response to Hanwha’s bid, the South Korean entity asserted that Austal’s sale should be restricted to companies within the AUKUS alliance countries (US-UK-Australia). Hanwha justified its eligibility based on South Korea’s close military cooperation ties with both the US and Australia, citing numerous joint exercises as evidence of its strategic alignment.
Despite the initial rejection of Hanwha’s bid by Austal’s board, the company remains open to further engagement if Hanwha can provide stronger assurances regarding regulatory approvals. David Kim, executive vice president at Hanwha, expressed confidence in gaining approval, countering concerns by highlighting Hanwha’s successful track record of investment in Australia’s defense industrial base.
Kim pointed to Hanwha’s prior approvals from the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) for investments in Australia, underscoring its commitment to the country’s defense sector. However, regulatory filings revealed that ongoing discussions between Hanwha and Austal’s management were currently stalled, despite Hanwha’s efforts to engage further.
Source: Global Data
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand