CK Hutchison threatens legal action as Maersk to operate Canal ports

CK Hutchison Holdings said it would pursue legal remedies if A.P. Moller‑Maersk or its terminal arm attempts to operate Panama’s Balboa and Cristóbal ports without the conglomerate’s consent, after Panama’s top court declared the concession unconstitutional in late January. The dispute has prompted Panama to arrange a temporary takeover by Maersk’s APM Terminals as authorities prepare to rebid the strategic assets at both entrances to the Panama Canal.

The Hong Kong group’s warning on Feb. 12 came after the Supreme Court ruling annulled the concession that a CK Hutchison subsidiary had held since 1997 and that the government extended for 25 years in 2021. CK Hutchison said it had already initiated arbitration and had given notice of a dispute “pursuant to an investment protection treaty,” and that it would take further steps to “protect its rights and interests” at the two ports.

In a company statement CK Hutchison warned that “any steps” the Danish group or its subsidiary takes to operate the two ports without CK Hutchison's agreement will likely “result in legal recourse.” The firm added it would continue to consider and explore “all available recourse including additional national and international legal proceedings,” and that continued operation of the two ports “depends solely on actions of the Panama Supreme Court and the Panamanian State.” CK Hutchison and its related PPC unit said they would “take all steps reasonably available” to protect terminal employees and avoid disruptions to port operations.

Panamanian authorities, through the Panama Maritime Authority, have tapped APM Terminals to run the terminals on a transitional basis while the state prepares a new concession tender. APM Terminals said it “was not a party to the legal process involving the ports and had only expressed its willingness to the Panamanian government to temporarily take over operations at the ports ‘to mitigate the risks that could affect essential services for regional and global trade.’” Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino had assured that the ports would continue to operate without interruption.

The ports of Balboa and Cristóbal sit at the Pacific and Atlantic entrances to the canal and handle a large share of container transshipment for the Americas, making operational continuity critical for global shipping schedules and regional supply chains. Industry groups warned that a protracted legal battle or a contested handover could raise costs and delays for shippers that depend on predictable canal access, though officials and Maersk framed the arrangement as temporary and operationally focused.

The case has also taken on geopolitical tones. The United States reportedly welcomed the court decision while Beijing reacted angrily; China’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office warned it would make Panama pay a “heavy price,” adding a diplomatic layer to what began as a contractual dispute. Analysts say the episode underscores how infrastructure disputes can become focal points for broader U.S.‑China competition over trade routes and influence.

Unresolved questions remain that will shape the timeline: whether the Supreme Court ruling has been formally published and come into force, the exact grounds for the constitutional finding, the details of the arbitration and investment treaty notice, and whether any formal contract has been signed with APM Terminals. For now, Panama plans to run a new bidding process for the concessions while CK Hutchison pursues domestic and international legal avenues that could delay a final transfer and complicate operations at two of the Canal’s most important gateways.