[情報] 美國一公司告兩航商操控運價賺取暴利!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.請符合以下文章格式，違者4-1刪除
2.本分類提供以下幾種文章搬運
a. 每日交易數據相關：每日法人買買超、融資券、交易量...
b. 公司重要訊息相關：營收、股利、股東會懶人包、法說會內容整理...
c. 現有資訊整理相關：殖利率排名、金融股獲利分布、
3.請詳閱板規參考相關規定
----------------------------按ctrl+y可刪除以上內容。---------------------

1. 標題：US Company Sues 'Collusive' Ocean Carriers, Alleging Price
Manipulation
2. 來源：YAHOO
3. 網址：https://tinyurl.com/m546s2mt (請善用縮網址工具)
4. 內文：

用MCS Industries可以估狗到不少篇

英文強者可以翻譯看看

大概是說這家公司控告COSCO and MSC操控運價賺取了暴利
不履行合約(?)害公司損失了超過600000美金
各位水行俠航海王還有幾集可以逃?

A U.S. manufacturer is accusing two of the world's largest ocean carriers of
reneging on its container service contract for imports from Asia so that the
carriers can instead charge other shippers exorbitant transportation rates onthe spot market.

In a complaint filed on Wednesday with the Federal Maritime Commission,
Easton, Pennsylvania-based MCS Industries, a maker of household furnishings,
also accuses China's COSCO Shipping Lines, Switzerland's MSC Mediterranean
Shipping, and their competitors in the Asia-U.S. trans-Pacific trade of
violating the U.S. Shipping Act since the beginning of the pandemic while
increasing profits at the expense of their customers.

"MCS has experienced this misconduct by global ocean carriers firsthand, as
they have unreasonably refused to deal and negotiate with MCS," the company
stated in its complaint. "In a stark break from pre-pandemic practice,
several ocean carriers refused to negotiate or provide service contracts to
MCS, and those that did provide such service contracts, including Respondents[COSCO and MSC], refused to provide more than a fraction of the cargo
capacity that MCS requested and needs, despite the fact that the Respondents
overall have continued to operate at or near pre-pandemic capacity."

To make matters worse, MCS states, COSCO and MSC "then proceeded to engage ina common practice of refusing to perform even under those limited service
contracts, instead forcing MCS to buy space on the inflated spot market."

Average daily price (U.S. dollars) for 40-foot container, China-U.S. West
Coast trade, YTD as of July 31. Source: SONAR
To learn more about FreightWaves SONAR, click here

The practice has delivered to COSCO, MSC and other carriers "unprecedented
windfall profits," MCS asserts, noting that a container in 2019 that might
have cost approximately $2,700 to ship from China to the U.S. West Coast
costs $15,000 or more on the current spot market.

Market Power Audit Underway

MCS' complaint comes just weeks after the FMC announced plans to audit nine
of the largest container carriers operating in U.S. markets, including COSCO
and MSC, to find out if they are using their market power to overcharge
shippers on detention and demurrage fees. The audit program, according to theagency, will also "provide additional information beneficial to the regular
monitoring of the marketplace for ocean cargo services."

Last week FMC Commissioner Rebecca Dye issued a series of interim
recommendations for the agency and Congress to consider — which include
amending the Shipping Act — to address congestion and disruption along the
container supply chain. One recommendation would provide more protection for
shippers, their agents, and drayage truckers against ocean carriers that
threaten to refuse vessel space in retaliation for complaining to the FMC —
an allegation denied by the World Shipping Council, which represents the
carriers.

Lawmakers are already drafting legislation to address alleged abuses by oceancarriers, particularly as they affect U.S. exporters. A bipartisan bill
expected to be proposed by John Garamendi, D-Calif., and Dusty Johnson,
R-S.D., would prohibit ocean carriers from refusing to book exports.

Minimum Space Denied

In detailing its complaint, MCS explained it had entered into a written
service contract with COSCO, per U.S. Shipping Act regulations, that was
effective as of Jan. 1. According to MCS, the contract called for a minimum
number of twenty-foot equivalent units for shipment by COSCO from China, HongKong, and/or Indonesia to the U.S. at agreed prices.

Despite that minimum commitment, however, beginning in May, COSCO has been
refusing to provide MCS more than a fraction — 1.6% — of the allotted space
in the contract, which has forced MCS to book in the spot market with other
carriers at much higher prices or not ship at all.

"Upon information and belief, COSCO is violating the Shipping Act in a
similar fashion with respect to other shippers, as well as discriminating
against U.S. shippers such as MCS by favoring Chinese shippers with greater
space allotments than those provided to MCS," the company alleges. It accusedMSC of providing 35% of the space required under contract.

$600,000 In Damages And Counting

MCS claims the two carriers are benefiting at the expense of shippers by
organizing themselves under the three major alliances that MCS contends
collectively control over 90% of the trans-Pacific trade. "These collusive
ocean alliances give Respondents venue and opportunity to coordinate
discriminatory practices such as those alleged herein," MCS states.

That market power and five alleged violations of the Shipping Act have so farcost MCS over $600,000, the company maintains, which continues to accrue. Thecompany is asking FMC to find, after investigating its allegations, that the
carriers have been "unreasonably refusing to deal or negotiate with MCS."

The company is also seeking from the agency an order requiring the carriers
to put in place "lawful and reasonable practices to preclude Respondents fromrefusing to provide MCS with its allotted space at the prices agreed under
their respective service contracts with MCS for the remaining terms of those
service contracts."

COSCO and MSC were not immediately available to comment.

--