"The port contract was already foreign-run, so the headline is false on its face. And this suit is against the British company and is purely a matter of contract law."
what? Why would the suit be against the British firm, didn't the story claim that Dubai purchased it? Or did I misunderstand it?
10 posted on 02/18/2006 7:08:22 PM PST by TheCrusader
("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
The firm was a partner of the British firm that currently operates the ports. The story is very skimpy on the facts, but it has to be a suit against the British firm for selling out to the Dubai firm in violation of their contract with the British firm.
Whether the sale violated that contract I don't know, but this is clearly a contract case and nothing more.
13 posted on 02/18/2006 7:19:09 PM PST by Dog Gone