File picture for reference only.

 

The ongoing corporate battle over the future of the 7-Eleven convenience store empire has taken a new turn, with Thailand’s Charoen Pokphand (CP) Group reportedly entering talks to assist Japan’s Seven & i Holdings in fending off a takeover bid from Canadian retail giant Alimentation Couche-Tard.

 

Seven & i Holdings, which owns the global 7-Eleven brand, has been under pressure from Alimentation Couche-Tard, which has made a takeover bid worth approximately ¥7 trillion (USD 47 billion). In response, the founding family of Seven & i Holdings is seeking support from strategic investors to take the company private, ensuring continued control and preventing the acquisition by the Canadian firm.

 

According to reports from Japanese media outlet NHK, CP Group has emerged as a potential investor in this effort, with discussions focusing on securing several hundred billion yen in funding. Negotiations are ongoing to determine the exact level of CP Group’s financial commitment.

 

CP Group is the latest major player to enter discussions, following previous talks with Japanese trading house Itochu Corporation, as well as leading banks and investment funds. The ambitious plan aims to raise over ¥8 trillion (USD 54 billion), a figure that would surpass Alimentation Couche-Tard’s offer and secure the privatisation of Seven & i Holdings.

 

The founding family originally planned to finalise the deal by the end of the current fiscal year on February 28. However, delays in securing funding have led to an accelerated push to attract additional investors, including CP Group and other global financial institutions.

 

If successful, this move would strengthen ties between Seven & i Holdings and CP Group, a dominant force in Thailand’s retail and consumer goods industry. CP Group already operates thousands of 7-Eleven stores in Thailand, making it one of the largest franchisees of the brand outside Japan. Its potential involvement in the privatisation effort signals a deepening commitment to the long-term expansion of the convenience store chain in Asia.

 

Meanwhile, Alimentation Couche-Tard remains determined in its pursuit of Seven & i Holdings. The Canadian company, which operates over 14,000 convenience stores worldwide, has been looking to expand its footprint in the lucrative Asian market.

 

As negotiations continue, the fate of one of the world’s most recognisable convenience store brands hangs in the balance. With the clock ticking towards the end of February, Seven & i Holdings must finalise its financing strategy quickly to avoid a takeover by Couche-Tard.

 

Whether CP Group’s involvement will tip the scales remains to be seen, but its entry into the high-stakes corporate battle underscores Thailand’s growing influence in global retail.

 

-- 2025-02-02

 

 

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

 

File picture for reference only.

 

The ongoing corporate battle over the future of the 7-Eleven convenience store empire has taken a new turn, with Thailand’s Charoen Pokphand (CP) Group reportedly entering talks to assist Japan’s Seven & i Holdings in fending off a takeover bid from Canadian retail giant Alimentation Couche-Tard.

 

Seven & i Holdings, which owns the global 7-Eleven brand, has been under pressure from Alimentation Couche-Tard, which has made a takeover bid worth approximately ¥7 trillion (USD 47 billion). In response, the founding family of Seven & i Holdings is seeking support from strategic investors to take the company private, ensuring continued control and preventing the acquisition by the Canadian firm.

 

According to reports from Japanese media outlet NHK, CP Group has emerged as a potential investor in this effort, with discussions focusing on securing several hundred billion yen in funding. Negotiations are ongoing to determine the exact level of CP Group’s financial commitment.

 

CP Group is the latest major player to enter discussions, following previous talks with Japanese trading house Itochu Corporation, as well as leading banks and investment funds. The ambitious plan aims to raise over ¥8 trillion (USD 54 billion), a figure that would surpass Alimentation Couche-Tard’s offer and secure the privatisation of Seven & i Holdings.

 

The founding family originally planned to finalise the deal by the end of the current fiscal year on February 28. However, delays in securing funding have led to an accelerated push to attract additional investors, including CP Group and other global financial institutions.

 

If successful, this move would strengthen ties between Seven & i Holdings and CP Group, a dominant force in Thailand’s retail and consumer goods industry. CP Group already operates thousands of 7-Eleven stores in Thailand, making it one of the largest franchisees of the brand outside Japan. Its potential involvement in the privatisation effort signals a deepening commitment to the long-term expansion of the convenience store chain in Asia.

 

Meanwhile, Alimentation Couche-Tard remains determined in its pursuit of Seven & i Holdings. The Canadian company, which operates over 14,000 convenience stores worldwide, has been looking to expand its footprint in the lucrative Asian market.

 

As negotiations continue, the fate of one of the world’s most recognisable convenience store brands hangs in the balance. With the clock ticking towards the end of February, Seven & i Holdings must finalise its financing strategy quickly to avoid a takeover by Couche-Tard.

 

Whether CP Group’s involvement will tip the scales remains to be seen, but its entry into the high-stakes corporate battle underscores Thailand’s growing influence in global retail.

 

-- 2025-02-02

 

 

Jim Dandy, in this case CP, to the rescue.

Keep it in Thai hands I know first hand the employees are happy

1 hour ago, ozz1 said:

Keep it in Thai hands I know first hand the employees are happy

You mean 'an employee', as most 7-11 staff look quite unhappy to be honest. 

7 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Jim Dandy, in this case CP, to the rescue.

How sad.

 

CP. A monopoly group in Thailand seeking to buy another monopoly, and you think it is a good idea.

 

It is long past time that ALL monopoly groups in Thailand are broken up.

Is this a case of a smaller company trying to take over a bigger one? Possibly by lading it with debt to finance the buy?

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

How sad.

 

CP. A monopoly group in Thailand seeking to buy another monopoly, and you think it is a good idea.

Judging from the op it's not CP buying anything. 

48 minutes ago, billd766 said:

How sad.

 

CP. A monopoly group in Thailand seeking to buy another monopoly, and you think it is a good idea.

 

It is long past time that ALL monopoly groups in Thailand are broken up.

Where did I say it was a good idea?

41 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Judging from the op it's not CP buying anything. 

Maybe not the whole shebang, but most likely an equity stake

4 hours ago, ozz1 said:

Keep it in Thai hands I know first hand the employees are happy

7-11 is japanese owned.

As long as toasties arent affected its all goood.

1 hour ago, Ralf001 said:

7-11 is japanese owned.

 

But considered an American company HQed in Irving, Texas. I grew up with 7 Eleven. From the 1970s on it was always a lot more expensive than alternatives. But people went there for Slurpees in the summer. The Thai franchise, I think, is really well run and does far more than the American stores I was familiar with. Japanese ownership has been beneficial, too. I hope they keep control of  it.

7 hours ago, Yagoda said:

As long as toasties arent affected its all goood.

Good point.

7 hours ago, John Drake said:

 

But considered an American company HQed in Irving, Texas. I grew up with 7 Eleven. From the 1970s on it was always a lot more expensive than alternatives. But people went there for Slurpees in the summer. The Thai franchise, I think, is really well run and does far more than the American stores I was familiar with. Japanese ownership has been beneficial, too. I hope they keep control of  it.

 

CP have to sell what's dictated in the franchise agreement, but they can add additional products if those products are within the business model. e.g. simple example they can add further fast toasted products, not on their current product list, but they can't sell cars. 

Just now, scorecard said:

 

CP have to sell what's dictated in the franchise agreement, but they can add additional products if those products are within the business model. e.g. simple example they can add further fast toasted products, not on their current product list, but they can't sell cars. 

 

In reality the brand owner would readily support this because they get a % of the revenue and because it doesn't require further investment for equipment etc., in the stores.

9 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Where did I say it was a good idea?

How about here?

 

  17 hours ago, Hawaiian said:
Jim Dandy, in this case CP, to the rescue.

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

How about here?

 

  17 hours ago, Hawaiian said:
Jim Dandy, in this case CP, to the rescue.

Read the lyrics to the song.  I did not say it was a good idea, but only poking fun.

Up to you if you want to interpret it as approval.

17 hours ago, billd766 said:

How sad.

 

CP. A monopoly group in Thailand seeking to buy another monopoly, and you think it is a good idea.

 

It is long past time that ALL monopoly groups in Thailand are broken up.

CP group employ thousand of workers directly in their outlets and numerous thousands more due to the supply chain..

I for one have no issue with the CP group.

38 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

CP group employ thousand of workers directly in their outlets and numerous thousands more due to the supply chain..

I for one have no issue with the CP group.

I replied to billd766 that I did not say it's a good idea because I don't know enough about CP other than it's a  powerhouse employing a lot of Thais.

54 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

CP group employ thousand of workers directly in their outlets and numerous thousands more due to the supply chain..

I for one have no issue with the CP group.

 

CP group has 450,000 employees.

1 hour ago, Ralf001 said:

 

CP group has 450,000 employees.

Exactly, CP some may say are a monopoly.. but they are a major direct employer, and sub-employ thousands of suppliers who rely on them to purchase produce/goods.

6 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Read the lyrics to the song.  I did not say it was a good idea, but only poking fun.

Up to you if you want to interpret it as approval.

And what song did you mention? There are at least 3 versions of the song plus another going back to 1844.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dandy_(song)

 

"Jim Dandy" (sometimes known as "Jim Dandy to the Rescue") is a song written by Lincoln Chase, and was first recorded by American R&B singer LaVern Baker on December 21, 1955.[1] It reached the top of the R&B chart[2] and #17 on the pop charts in the United States.

 

The song is about a man (Jim Dandy) who rescues women from improbable or impossible predicaments.[2] It proved popular enough that Chase wrote a second song for Baker entitled "Jim Dandy Got Married."[2]

The American English term jim-dandy for an outstanding person or thing predates the song; first attested in 1844, it may itself come from the title of an old song, "Dandy Jim of Caroline".

 

Other recorded versions
Ann-Margret recorded a version on her 1962 album The Vivacious One.[11]
The song is the B-side to James Reyne's 1989 single, "One More River".[12]

 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/jim-dandy#:~:text=Definition of 'jim-dandy'&text=1.,excellent%3B very pleasing

 

jim-dandy
(ˈdʒɪmˈdændi)
US, Informal, Obsolete
noun
1.  an excellent or very pleasing person or thing
adjective
2.  excellent; very pleasing
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

And what song did you mention? There are at least 3 versions of the song plus another going back to 1844.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dandy_(song)

 

"Jim Dandy" (sometimes known as "Jim Dandy to the Rescue") is a song written by Lincoln Chase, and was first recorded by American R&B singer LaVern Baker on December 21, 1955.[1] It reached the top of the R&B chart[2] and #17 on the pop charts in the United States.

 

The song is about a man (Jim Dandy) who rescues women from improbable or impossible predicaments.[2] It proved popular enough that Chase wrote a second song for Baker entitled "Jim Dandy Got Married."[2]

The American English term jim-dandy for an outstanding person or thing predates the song; first attested in 1844, it may itself come from the title of an old song, "Dandy Jim of Caroline".

 

Other recorded versions
Ann-Margret recorded a version on her 1962 album The Vivacious One.[11]
The song is the B-side to James Reyne's 1989 single, "One More River".[12]

 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/jim-dandy#:~:text=Definition of 'jim-dandy'&text=1.,excellent%3B very pleasing

 

jim-dandy
(ˈdʒɪmˈdændi)
US, Informal, Obsolete
noun
1.  an excellent or very pleasing person or thing
adjective
2.  excellent; very pleasing
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

I was referring to Laverne Baker.  The song came first came out when I was in high school and was a favorite of  one of my classmates who sang it when we sat around drinking beer.  Brings back good memories.

2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Exactly, CP some may say are a monopoly.. but they are a major direct employer, and sub-employ thousands of suppliers who rely on them to purchase produce/goods.

Unbelievable that you can still defend such a multinational, in everything they keep the price high, there is no competition anymore.

55 minutes ago, Peterphuket said:

Unbelievable that you can still defend such a multinational, in everything they keep the price high, there is no competition anymore.

And if they were dissolved into hundreds of small privately owned shops do you think employees would have the same job security, or if suppliers would have the same consistency of buyers?

5 hours ago, hotchilli said:

CP group employ thousand of workers directly in their outlets and numerous thousands more due to the supply chain..

I for one have no issue with the CP group.

 

 Ultimately monopolies are not good for anybody.

 

For the customer it reduces / cancels competition and the seller can up prices without fear of competitor activity. In a nutshell higher and higher prices without challenge.

 

Need to look at the long-term big picture. 

5 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 Ultimately monopolies are not good for anybody.

 

For the customer it reduces / cancels competition and the seller can up prices without fear of competitor activity. In a nutshell higher and higher prices without challenge.

 

Need to look at the long-term big picture. 

They can also buy in bulk and reduce prices, have promotions and discounts.

No explanation of why the Canadian company is not a good buyer. 

27 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

They can also buy in bulk and reduce prices, have promotions and discounts.

Of course, but do you really think CP and similar monopoly organizations want to hold promotions and have discounts when they have no competition? 

 

Their focus is ultimately, like all business operations:

- Highest possible revenues, with

- Highest possible profit margins.

5 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Of course, but do you really think CP and similar monopoly organizations want to hold promotions and have discounts when they have no competition? 

 

Their focus is ultimately, like all business operations:

- Highest possible revenues, with

- Highest possible profit margins.

My local superstore owned by the CP group always have sales, promotions and excellent pricing.