On April 27, the clear statement of the State Administration for Market Regulation issued an outright ban on the parties involved in the Chang and transaction. The news that the overseas port transaction worth $22.8 billion planned by the Chang Group was to be split into two parts to continue had suddenly escalated into a "shadow war" concerning global shipping security under the strong intervention of China's regulatory authorities. On March 4, the announcement by the Chang Group to sell 43 port assets to the BlackRock consortium had drawn extensive international attention. These ports are located in 23 countries and cover 10.4% of the world's container throughput. Of particular importance are the ports of Balboa and Cristobal at both ends of the Panama Canal - these two ports handle 6% of global maritime trade volume, with Chinese merchant ship cargo accounting for as high as 21%.

However, this seemingly ordinary commercial transaction hides many secrets. To avoid antitrust review, the Chang Group split the transaction into "Asset Package A (American Ports)" and "Asset Package B (Eurasian Ports)", attempting to keep each transaction below the reporting threshold. However, China's regulatory authorities quickly saw through this strategy: the two asset packages have synergistic effects in the shipping network; if combined, the BlackRock consortium could potentially gain substantial control over Pacific-Atlantic shipping pricing power.

They could even impose special passage fees on Chinese ships through "special toll clauses", directly threatening the safety of $2.3 trillion in maritime trade. On April 27, the resounding statement from the spokesperson for the State Administration for Market Regulation was clear: "The parties involved in the transaction shall not take any measures to evade review, and shall not implement concentration before approval is obtained, otherwise legal liabilities will be incurred." This response was not only a warning to the Chang Group but also a clear signal to global capital - China's antitrust mechanism has exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over offshore-registered enterprises' cross-border transactions for the first time. China's tough stance stems from dual considerations of law and strategy. According to Article 2 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, even if the transaction does not involve ports within China, as long as it has an exclusionary or restrictive impact on competition in the Chinese market, China can exercise jurisdiction.

The strategic risks of this transaction far exceed the commercial sphere: If the BlackRock consortium indirectly controls key ports through complex equity structures, the United States may intervene in shipping under the pretext of "national security" and even replicate Trump's "tariff war" bullying strategy. The changing situation in the Chang Group transaction has triggered a chain reaction. At the capital level, BlackRock's high-premium valuation takeover attempt aimed to accelerate the transaction through financial advantages, but the intervention of China's regulators has delayed approval for its 23 investment projects in China.

Multinational capital is reassessing the "compliance costs" in China. Italy's MSC Group (the largest shipping company in the world) faces a strategic choice: continue to cooperate with BlackRock or turn to other buyers? Geopolitically, Panama's attitude is intriguing. After the exposure of the transaction, the Office of the Comptroller General of Panama suddenly considered reclaiming port operating rights on the grounds of "non-compliance," and this timing coincided with a visit by the U.S. Secretary of Defense to Panama. Undoubtedly, Panama is trying to "benefit from both sides" in the Sino-American rivalry, but China's review actions may disrupt this balance.

If the transaction is completed, the global port operations will form a new giant "MSC (shipping) + BlackRock (capital)," squeezing the survival space of small and medium-sized operators. As the world's largest goods trading country, China has conveyed a clear signal through the antitrust review: any transaction threatening supply chain security will face "zero tolerance." The dramatic twists and turns of the Chang Group transaction reflect deep-seated contradictions in the era of globalization: the nature of capital pursuing maximum profit is colliding fiercely with the need of nations to maintain strategic security.

China's antitrust review is not only a guardian of fair competition in the market but also a reshaping of global economic governance rules. As the Hong Kong China Futures Association said: "Business knows no borders, but capital has nationality." In this war without smoke, China uses the law as a weapon to draw an inviolable "red line" for global capital.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7498022915611427379/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your opinions by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.