Maersk-owned global port and terminal operator APM Terminals and Aqaba Development Cooperation signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for a 15-year extension of their partnership in the Aqaba Container Terminal (ACT) in Jordan.
According to the deal signed last week, the two partners will invest US$242 million in the box terminal to maintain its strong position in the Levant region and accelerate net zero plans of ACT.
At a forum following the signing, Keith Svendsen, CEO of APM Terminals, introduced the key aspects of the company’s future vision for the Aqaba port, which include decarbonisation plans, the modernisation and expansion of ACT, the development of a training center for individuals working in the maritime and logistics sectors, and ongoing support for Jordan's goal of becoming an export hub for green energy.
“To reinforce our long-term commitment to Aqaba and to Jordan’s 2030 Economic Modernization Vision, we have developed a meticulous plan for enhancing Aqaba’s competitiveness both regionally and globally including a net zero emission target for 2040 - the only port in the region with such,” he said.
According to a recent announcement, on-site solar will completely eliminate the terminal’s carbon footprint and the zero-carbon terminal will become the heart of Aqaba’s future logistics eco system.
In addition, relocating customs closer to the port is expected to optimise clearance processes and directly connect to Aqaba Logistics Village where increasing trade opportunities will reach the wider economy.
"Bringing together agents and shippers will also ensure faster goods distribution," pointed out APM Terminals.
APM Terminals also aims to develop a Centre of Excellence for the logistics and maritime industry, which will improve the skills of the sector’s current and future professionals.
Outside the United States, global demand for Chinese products is hitting new highs. Despite being a major target of U.S. tariffs, China has strengthened its trade relationships across Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe in 2025. While China cements its role as a global export leader, the U.S. is increasingly shifting its focus toward self-reliance.
The “China +1” strategy, once seen as a temporary plan to diversify production outside of China, has now evolved into a long-term restructuring of global supply chains. Increasingly
Vietnamese food and spice producers are making steady progress in international markets by focusing on “real quality.” By combining authentic local flavors with strict international certifications, they are strengthening their competitiveness and building trust among global buyers.
Recently, Glotrans Vietnam once again affirmed its capability in the field of Project Cargo transportation by successfully completing a special shipment from Shanghai, China to Cat Lai Port, Ho Chi Minh City.
In the joyful spirit of celebrating Vietnamese Women’s Day on October 20th, Glotrans Vietnam organized a warm and intimate ceremony to express appreciation to all female staff across the system. The event was a heartfelt thank-you to the wonderful women – the “flowers” who contribute to the success and unity of the Glotrans family.
Recently, Glotrans Vietnam organized a warm and joyful birthday celebration for employees born in October across all branches and offices nationwide.
Company T (Plaintiff – the Insured) entered into an insurance contract with Company B (Defendant – the Insurer). After the insured event occurred, the Insurer alleged that the Insured had violated its obligation to prevent and mitigate losses. The Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged that such an obligation exists but concluded that the Insured did not breach it.
Under the insurance contract, the premium was to be paid in three installments, and in all three, the insured party was late in payment. When a dispute arose, the insurer (Defendant) argued that the insurance contract had terminated before the insured event occurred due to the late premium payment and therefore refused to make an insurance payout. However, the Arbitral Tribunal held a contrary view.
Company Q (Plaintiff – the Insured) and Company B (Defendant – the Insurer) entered into an insurance contract. After an insured event occurred, the parties could not agree on the value of the loss and therefore conducted an assessment. The unilateral assessment conducted by the Insurer was not accepted, while the independent assessment was only partially recognized.
