“There is already a rumour going round the market that Fisons is ready to issue an awful lot of deeply-discounted paper to pay for Medeva I think that would be viewed in a very bad light.”. Money in the bank will be helpful for that, but I don’t think what happened today will make a transaction significantly less likely, it will just make the issues surrounding it more awkward.”Fisons had been hoping to have tied up disposals to give it net cash of close to pounds 500m by now, he suggested, but as a result of the delay it would be in “a slightly less comfortable position”. Paul Diggle at Societe Generale Strauss Turnbull said: “People still expect a deal to be done and that there will have to be a cash alternative. She added that such competition investigations were routine events in the US.Analysts said the news was more of a nuisance than a disaster for the Medeva deal. The operations involved represented only 10 per cent of the sales of the division, which last year amounted to pounds 260m out of a total for the whole Fisons group of pounds 1.27bn. Fisons refused to comment yesterday on the impact of the latest news on the negotiations, but it sought to play down the significance of the FTC ruling.A representative said “a very small proportion” of the instruments business was involved in the discussions with the authorities over competition. MAGNUS GRIMOND

Fisons’ merger with rival drugs group Medeva looked set to be held up by news yesterday that US competition authorities were delaying the pounds 202m sale of the scientific instruments division.
Fisons, based in Ipswich, said the Federal Trade Commission and other US competition authorities had “expressed concern” that the sale to Thermo Instruments Systems Inc could affect competition in the markets for some of the instruments involved.As a result, the date for completion of the sale had been extended by mutual agreement from the previously announced date of yesterday to 15 August.Analysts believe that the proceeds from the deal would help smooth the path to a takeover of Medeva, with which talks have been under way since early April, in a deal mooted at between pounds 800m and pounds 1bn.

He added that the company intended to take up the judge’s invitation to appeal in the Appeal Court.Blohm and Voss confirmed that the judge had ruled in its favour but refused to reveal the details of the confidential judgment.”There has been a judgment in our favour,” said Dr Michael Baumhauer, the shipyard’s general counsel.However, a source within the company said it was determined to rebuild its long-standing relationship with Cunard as soon as the matter was resolved.”In the meantime, we seem to be treated like whipping boys,” he said.Cunard faces outstanding litigation in the US from passengers who are claiming $50m in a federal court for alleged inconvenience and possible exposure to asbestos.. However, a High Court judge sitting in chambers ruled that the British ship-line should meet payments of its contract immediately.”The decision has no bearing on the merit of our main claim against the shipyard,” said Tom Smith, spokesman for Cunard. Cunard argued that the problems were caused by the Hamburg-based shipyard failing to complete the pounds 22.72m contract for structural work on time, and sued.Pending the outcome of the legal action, Cunard withheld pounds 4.18m of its payment to the shipyard. Those who made the crossing complained of “Niagaras” of dirty water in the lavatories, corridors blocked by “unsecured materials” and a fenced-off swimming pool.The highly publicised fiasco resulted in the resignation in May of John Olsen, chairman and chief executive of Cunard.It also led to bitter recriminations between the shipping line and the shipyard, Blohm and Voss. JAMES BETHELL

Cunard, the shipping line owned by Trafalgar House, has lost a legal battle against the German shipyard that participated in the ill-fated refitting of the QE2.
A High Court judge has ordered the company to pay the shipyard pounds 4.18m it withheld,claiming the shipyard failed to finish the re-fit on time.It is the latest embarrassing chapter in a saga that has seen the company provide pounds 7.5m for the cost of compensating passengers after their transatlantic Christmas voyage was made a misery by poor standards on the liner.It was a bungled attempt to catch up on more successful rivals such as P&O that led to the public relations nightmare when hundreds of passengers were joined on a sailing from Southampton to New York by 2,000 workers struggling to complete a pounds 30m refit of the flagship cruise liner.Many passengers missed out on the cruise altogether, although most of those who did travel wished they had not.

The Treasury is believed to be partly influenced by the possibility that, in the event of a Labour government, it could be involved in the setting up a “super-regulator” along US lines.. My view is that I would expect Phillip Thorpe to speak to any party in a manner that he wished, subject to explaining his actions to the board.”The critical showdown between two of the financial services’ top regulatory figures comes amid mounting concern over the future of regulation of the financial services industry. My concern, as it always has been, is that if we are not open about what we are doing, it will not be possible for the public to retain confidence in the system.”Mr Thorpe also rejected suggestions that the board would not have wished him to expand on the subject to the select committee.”I cannot imagine the Imro board suggesting that I should not answer a question truthfully, honestly and openly.”Robin Hutton, a director of fund manager Singer & Friedlander and an Imro board member, said: “I would be rather surprised if there were a real disagreement between Phillip Thorpe and Charles Nunneley. It is also believed that he felt he would be sacked for doing so.Board members will also have to decide whether to believe Mr Nunneley’s claims that he was not influenced by a critical letter and a phone call from Andrew Large, chairman of the SIB.Mr Nunneley has categorically denied that he attempted to gag his chief executive on Mr Large’s say-so, or that he threatened him with the sack.Mr Thorpe yesterday refused to divulge the contents of the letter or say if it contained passages that might be construed as suggesting public criticisms of SIB’s role were not welcome.He said: “I imagine that the board will be looking at the written submission we made to the select committee, looking at what transpired at the committee and considering all the events.”We will also be discussing how to make the system work. NIC CICUTTI

Directors of the fund managers’ watchdog, Imro, have been summoned to an emergency board meeting next week to discuss allegations that their chairman gagged his chief executive before a meeting of MPs.
The meeting comes amid signs that the Treasury is prepared to back Phillip Thorpe, Imro’s chief executive, in his criticisms of the Securities and Investments Board, the City’s senior financial regulator.Treasury sources said they would not be “absolutely distressed” if the SIB was to be heavily criticised for its ineffective regulation of the financial services industry.Although the SIB had managed to deal with the personal pension scandal and other crises that had hit the industry in recent years, it was “not exactly ahead of the game”, sources said.News of the board meeting, due to take place on Tuesday or Wednesday, follows a report in yesterday’s Independent about deep divisions within Imro.The meeting will discuss whether Charles Nunneley, the Imro chairman, muzzled Phillip Thorpe at a hearing by the Commons Treasury and Civil Service select committee earlier this week.Mr Thorpe has said that he was prevented from giving committee members full answers to their questions. Mr Lee said he had requested an inspection four days earlier after cracks started appearing in the building, which had received a clean bill of health from government inspectors in March..