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?
"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."
Hmmmm...lets see,....British run port,...or UAE backed company run port...hmmmm...lets see,...UAE backed Taliban Government,....British helped take down Taliban Govt....hmmm... My vote would be to keep it British. So much for "false on its face", and "purely contractual." The main thing is to ensure that the story is journalistically correct, and contractual law is upheld. What a loon. With that line of thought, heck lets give Hamas the janitorial contract at Congress.
got a winner !
"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."
Not true according to the article.
"....may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules."
Reads like CS T offered much more than a simple contract violation to the judge as a reason to stop the sale.