You must be registered for see links
LONDON - For weeks now there has been controversy over the announcement that the Shaw-Fujikawa Group would be placing a bid on medical technologies company Optican. On May 24 Shaw-Fujikawa issued a statement confirming rumors that they were in the process of attempting to purchase the healthcare provider. Since then complaints have been lodged by several groups attempting to incite the Department for Trade and Industry to block the move using a mix of anti-trust and strategic asset laws.
The Shaw-Fujikawa Group was formed in 1974 by British born Tobias Fleming Shaw and Wallace Fujikawa, the son of Oikawan immigrants. Originally a utilities and transportation company it has since grown into a conglomerate covering many fields. Over the past few decades it has been involved in several high profile corporate takeovers. A similar uproar occurred in 2001 when Shaw-Fujikawa purchased Traxus Heavy Industries which was then the largest industrial firm in Britain and one its primary weapons manufacturers. In the past weeks complaints have been filed alleging that the takeover of Optican constituted an illegal action under anti-trust laws.
An official Shaw-Fujikawa spokesperson dismissed the allegations as unfounded and said that they had been contrived by rival business interests simply as a means to inhibit the company's growth. Others put forward the idea that the move constituted a violation of laws which were passed to prevent the takeover of "vital strategic industries".
You must be registered for see links
Trade and Industry Department Officials rendered a verdict today in a report citing the two primary concerns of protesters. They came to the conclusion that idea that Optican's purchase would violate anti-trust laws was unfounded. "There is no reason to suggest that this action will result in an anti-competitive atmosphere and does not itself constitute and an act of anti-competition or monopoly." On the allegation that the move was prevented under Britain's strategic interest laws the department gave a similar response. "Optican is not composed of utilities or infrastructure that are vital to the security of His Majesty's Government or this nation. Furthermore, such laws exist to prevent foreign takeover not domestic takeover."
Many experts had already predicted that such a decision would have been reached. Despite their existence Britain's anti-trust laws are internationally regarded as extremely weak. It was also widely accepted that the argument for the strategic value of Optican was unfounded and likely put forward with full knowledge that it was likely to fail.