OSM Maritime Group and Thome Group have agreed to a merger of the two companies. The combined company will be named OSM Thome.
Today, the two companies manage 1,000 ships, whereof 450 ships on full technical management, and 550 ships on crew management. The fleet consists of different segments such as tank, bulk, container, car carriers, cruise ships and offshore vessels and units.
Completion of the merger of the two companies is conditional upon approval from the competition and other relevant authorities, which is anticipated during the first quarter of 2023. Until the merger has been formally approved, the two companies will operate as before, with separate management and organisations.
OSM Maritime’s CEO Finn Amund Norbye will assume the role of CEO for the merged OSM Thome, while Thome’s CEO, Olav Nortun, will take up the position of COO for the consolidated ship management activities. OSM founder Bjørn Tore Larsen will become Chairman of the new Board of Directors and Thome’s Claes Eek Thorstensen will be the Vice Chairman.
By joining our resources in OSM Thome, we will become an even better partner to our customers. With our emphasis on safe and efficient operations as well as innovation, our ambition is to make the combined company even more relevant and attractive to customers, employees, and seafarers
said Finn Amund Norbye, Group CEO of OSM Maritime Group.
The headquarters of the combined company will be located in Arendal, Norway, with strong technical management hubs maintained in Singapore and Europe.
Together, the two companies have a total of 31,000 employees, whereof 2,000 onshore in 22 countries, representing a diversity of expertise and experience
added Olav Nortun, Group CEO of Thome Group.
In another merger, that did not go as planned, Euronav filed an application request for urgent interim and conservatory measures in relation to “Frontline’s unilateral action in pursuing the termination of the combination agreement of July 10, 2022.”
Euronav also reiterated its determination that Frontline’s unilateral action in pursuing the termination of the combination agreement has no basis under the terms of the combination agreement and that Frontline failed to provide a satisfactory reason for its decision to pursue termination.
