United Kingdom · Company filings
How BP combined with Amoco and ARCO while selling ARCO's Alaska business
BP and Amoco merged in December 1998. The enlarged company completed its ARCO acquisition in April 2000 after U.S. competition review. ARCO's Alaska business went to Phillips as part of the remedy.
Sources checked
- 31 December 1998BP and Amoco merge
Amoco becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of renamed BP Amoco Source 1
- 4 October 1999BP depositary shares split
Two for one, relevant to historic exchange ratios Source 2
- 13 April 2000FTC accepts proposed consent order
Clearance conditions include divestitures in Alaska and around Cushing Source 3
- April 2000ARCO combination takes effect
1.64 BP depositary shares per ARCO common share Source 2
- 25 April 2000ARCO Alaska assets transfer
Phillips acquires the divested business Source 4
The second acquisition and the Alaska divestiture completed in the same month.
The Amoco deal created the acquiring group
BP's listing particulars say BP issued ordinary shares in depositary form to Amoco shareholders and renamed the parent BP Amoco. It reported approximately 16,300 U.S. service stations and 12,000 elsewhere for the combined business immediately after the 1998 merger. Source 1
The exchange ratio has to be read on the same share basis
BP's shareholder FAQ expresses both ratios after its 1999 two-for-one depositary share split. It gives approximately 1.3233 depositary shares per Amoco common share and 1.64 per ARCO common share. The ratios count securities issued under two deals and do not by themselves establish their cash values. Source 2
U.S. regulators examined two different oil markets
The FTC identified competitive issues in Alaska and around the Cushing, Oklahoma oil transportation and storage hub. Its proposed order required the Alaska divestiture to Phillips and a separate group of pipeline and terminal divestitures in the central U.S. Source 3
The Alaska remedy transferred an operating business
The regulator recorded 25 April 2000 as the date the Alaska assets were divested. The agreements also covered intellectual property licensing and transition services for Phillips. The effect of the remedy therefore depended on how the assets could be operated after the sale. Source 4 Source 3