Tata mulls Jaguar, Land Rover buy

• IBTimes RSS
• Print
• E-Mail
• digg
• Del.icio.us

In recent years, Ford, which depends much more on sales of light truck models, such as SUVs, pickups and minivans than on the more fuel-efficient car models, found itself battered by high gasoline prices, rising pension and retiree health costs in the United States even as Japanese automakers like Toyota dominated U.S. sales and won the hearts of US consumers with what many view as more reliable, fuel-efficient models.

Ford reported losses of $12.6 billion last year.

When Ford sold Aston Martin for $848 million in March, it had denied any plans of selling the other divisions of its Premier Automotive Group, which include Jaguar, Land Rover and the Swedish carmaker Volvo.

However, Ford spokesman John Gardiner recently said the company was "actively" studying options that could include the sale of its legendary British nameplates Jaguar and Land Rover as part of a company-wide strategic review.

A British newspaper, The Sunday Times, citing unnamed sources in London, also said, July 15, the decision to sell Volvo was made in the past two weeks, but that the timing of the sale had yet to be decided. No bank had been appointed to handle the transaction, the newspaper said, adding the deal could be worth $8 billion.

Ford bought Jaguar in 1989 for $2.5 billion, Volvo's car operations in 1999 from Sweden's Volvo AB for $6.45 billion and Land Rover in 2000 from BMW for $2.73 billion.

Ford officials were not available for comment.

According to sources close to the development, Tata Motors, whose parent group is one of India's largest and most respected business conglomerates having business interests spanning engineering, mining and energy to consumer products, IT and hotels and having operations in more than 40 countries, had appointed advisors to evaluate a bid and also signed a confidentiality agreement with Ford for access to the financials of the luxury brands.

When contacted, a Tata Motors spokesperson said the company does not comment on speculation on mergers and acquisitions.

• 1
• 2
• 3