Hapag Lloyd announced on 16 February 2026 that it had concluded an agreement under which it will acquire 100% of ZIM’s capital for more than USD 4 billion. Subject to approval from a general meeting of ZIM shareholders, the Israeli government and the different anti-trust authorities, the transaction should be completed in late 2026.
According to a communique from the German group, the combination of its activities with those of ZIM will enable it to consolidate its position as the world’s fifth biggest container shipping company. On the basis of 2025 figures, the combined operation would have an annual transport capacity of 17.2 million TEU and a fleet of more than 400 vessels.
The golden share in Zim held by the state of Israel will be transferred to a new Israeli container shipping company owned by Israel’s biggest capital investment company, FIMI Opportunity Funds (FIMI), which will thus become the owner of a container shipping business. The new company will start operating with 16 ships.
Apart from the operational benefits stressed by the two partners, the operation has a geostrategic dimension insofar as it will:
The combination of the two companies will enable them to “strengthen the network on all major trades,” Hapag-Lloyd said. More specifically, we see that the operation will bring most benefit in the transpacific market, where HLAG-ZIM will have a combined market share of 12%, compared to 7% for Hapag-Lloyd alone.
It is logical that Hapag-Lloyd should seek to reinforce its presence in the Pacific following its departure in February 2025 from The Alliance, which has since become the Premier Alliance. On the other hand, the merger will not change matters greatly from a capacity point of view. MSC, which has an agreement with ZIM in the Pacific, will have no difficulty maintaining its capacity in this market, given the size of its fleet and its impressive orderbook.
Even if there is no obvious gain in available market capacity, the operation should satisfy the ambitions of the US Federal Maritime Commission from the competition point of view, while, at the same time, not leaving the way open to a Chinese operator. It is by no means sure at this stage, moreover, that the Chinese competition authorities will accept this new state of affairs without compensatory measures.
The approximate USD 4 billion cost of the operation seems very high for a shipping company with much reduced financial results and a particularly low number of ships in ownership. Moreover, ZIM’s ships are mainly Chinese-built, which leaves them exposed to possible taxation when they enter US ports. The plan presented by the Trump administration in 2025 to tax Chinese-built ships has, for the time being, only been suspended until October.
It is true that the HLAG-ZIM merger is expected to generate synergies of USD 300-500 million per year. At a time when shipping company profitability is being eroded, moreover, the takeover of ZIM provides a good argument for restructuring the organisation of the two operations, over and above the traditional elimination of duplications. Nevertheless, that does not justify making such a huge financial effort for the takeover.
We can consider, therefore, that geopolitical considerations have weighed in the balance. Rescuing ZIM provides an opportunity for developing bilateral relations between Germany and Israel, even if the operation has generated keen concern in Israeli society over the loss of sovereignty it will involves, even with the involvement of FIMI. Given its American ramifications, moreover, it also presents an opportunity to improve German-US relations, which have been strained in recent years in the automobile sector.
It is interesting to note that, over the same time period, both Gemini alliance members, Maersk and Hapag Lloyd, are involved in operations which are strategic for the US - Hapag Lloyd via the ZIM operation and Maersk subsidiary APM Terminals via the “temporary” takeover of the running of the container terminals at the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, at either end of the Panama Canal. Clearly, shipping is at the heart of the major geostrategic issues and the United States, which is looking to restore its sovereignty in the maritime sector, has well understood this.