PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   US Equity firm trying to buy the UK Nuclear Submarine supplier (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/642160-us-equity-firm-trying-buy-uk-nuclear-submarine-supplier.html)

NutLoose 16th Aug 2021 14:05

US Equity firm trying to buy the UK Nuclear Submarine supplier
 
And the secrets no doubt within, so much for protecting our core military assets and if it's blocked i think it would be a good thing.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/othe...6bn/ar-AANmNgW

Mr N Nimrod 16th Aug 2021 14:20


Originally Posted by NutLoose (Post 11096095)
And the secrets no doubt within, so much for protecting our core military assets and if it's blocked i think it would be a good thing.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/othe...6bn/ar-AANmNgW

this is not news, it has been going for months

NutLoose 16th Aug 2021 14:23

Yes, but they have just agreed terms

DuckDodgers 16th Aug 2021 15:42

This, like the acquisition of Cobham itself, will be waived through by this government. But first there will be a thin veneer of due diligence by Kwasi Kwarteng before it is complete. I hope I am wrong, but history is telling.

Asturias56 16th Aug 2021 16:21

"And the secrets no doubt within"

What "secrets" do you think we have that the USN don't know? We rent the missiles from them, we worked together on a new joint missile section for the next generation SSBN's, the RN are in and out of USN bases all the time..............

NutLoose 16th Aug 2021 16:38


Originally Posted by Asturias56 (Post 11096179)
"And the secrets no doubt within"

What "secrets" do you think we have that the USN don't know? We rent the missiles from them, we worked together on a new joint missile section for the next generation SSBN's, the RN are in and out of USN bases all the time..............


Senior former military leaders have warned that Ultra’s sensitive technology needs to be protected from foreign ownership.
Those ones, and I didn’t specify who from, of course the US and U.K. have an active relationship, it’s other third parties.

rattman 16th Aug 2021 20:44


Originally Posted by DuckDodgers (Post 11096154)
This, like the acquisition of Cobham itself, will be waived through by this government. But first there will be a thin veneer of due diligence by Kwasi Kwarteng before it is complete. I hope I am wrong, but history is telling.


Also didn't the UK exchange the tech of its pump jets for the new generation of US reactor tech

Chewing the crud 17th Aug 2021 07:39

As Ultra also make other Defense Equipment, does ownership by a US firm make its products subject to ITAR and all the associated restrictions?

Easy Street 17th Aug 2021 07:52


Originally Posted by Chewing the crud (Post 11096488)
As Ultra also make other Defense Equipment, does ownership by a US firm make its products subject to ITAR and all the associated restrictions?

Not necessarily. UK-developed intellectual property can be ring-fenced within a UK subsidiary of a US conglomerate such that ITAR doesn't apply and a UK export licence would need to be granted for any sales (including to the US). This will be part of the small print which the Government will need to be satisfied with before it approves the deal. Much of Ultra's IP will have been developed with MOD funding and that gives the MOD a say in how the rights are managed. Providing, of course, the relevant contracts were drawn up correctly...

2Planks 17th Aug 2021 08:49

I hope the Sidewinder lunch is protected!

Asturias56 17th Aug 2021 09:16

The biggest problem with this deal is that you can't trust anything they say - and they're in for the quick buck rather than a long term strategy, They'll break it up and sell the bits.

Now not sure if it makes any difference that they're US asset strippers cp UK ones

Easy Street 17th Aug 2021 10:00


Originally Posted by Asturias56 (Post 11096558)
The biggest problem with this deal is that you can't trust anything they say - and they're in for the quick buck rather than a long term strategy, They'll break it up and sell the bits.

As long as critical IP and development/manufacturing capabilities remain onshore (which is within HMG's gift to dictate) then I'm not sure HMG cares how the ownership structure evolves.

Asturias56 17th Aug 2021 15:34

I think HMG feel they were given a real run-around over Cobham - - "understandings" don't do it - you need a cast iron contract with teeth

tartare 18th Aug 2021 03:04

Private Equity - bah.
In for five, out for five... i.e in for five years, and out at five times the EBITDA multiple they paid.
Hoover up the cashflow, strip it to the bone of anything that doesn't immediately contribute to underlying profit and either carve it up, or flog the lot.
They like to see themselves as the apex predators of the commercial world that pick off the weak and under-evolved.

minigundiplomat 18th Aug 2021 10:46


Originally Posted by Asturias56 (Post 11096558)
The biggest problem with this deal is that you can't trust anything they say - and they're in for the quick buck rather than a long term strategy, They'll break it up and sell the bits.

Now not sure if it makes any difference that they're US asset strippers cp UK ones

I suspect you’d be ok with it if the asset stripping was being done by eurotrash companies?

ORAC 18th Aug 2021 20:30

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ra-electronics

Kwasi Kwarteng intervenes in takeover bid of UK defence firm Ultra Electronics

Asturias56 19th Aug 2021 10:31

"I suspect you’d be ok with it if the asset stripping was being done by eurotrash companies?

No these guys have previous form - their last promises lasted 18 months.................

Easy Street 19th Aug 2021 11:40


Originally Posted by Asturias56 (Post 11097849)
No these guys have previous form - their last promises lasted 18 months.................

They may have said publicly that they wouldn't break up Cobham, but that's different to making a legally-binding agreement to that effect with HMG (which as I said earlier is interested in IP rights and on-shore capabilities, not ownership structures). Have they broken any of those terms?

Asturias56 20th Aug 2021 08:04

I'm not sure what sort of "legally binding agreement" the Govt wants - it has to have some serious penalties in it I guess - they clearly just accepted their word on Cobham......... and having got away with it there they're back for more

Easy Street 20th Aug 2021 09:01


Originally Posted by Asturias56 (Post 11098330)
I'm not sure what sort of "legally binding agreement" the Govt wants - it has to have some serious penalties in it I guess - they clearly just accepted their word on Cobham......... and having got away with it there they're back for more

Come on, you know you're dodging my question. Which of Cobham's IP rights and/or development & manufacturing capabilities have left the UK as a result of its breakup? Were any of those meant to stay in the UK under the terms agreed with HMG? In the absence of any examples, your assertion that the buyers have "got away with" something is empty rhetoric.

As to the sort of deal HMG wants, they want one enforceable in court. One like Jack's, not Harry's. Wise Jack.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.