GLOBAL - ProLogis, the US logistics company recently embroiled in a spat with the €272bn Algemene Pensioen Groep (APG), has announced it is to grow its existing €8.7bn European portfolio in an aggressive expansion focused on prime assets.

ProLogis, which earlier this month merged with property firm AMB, is understood to have a global war chest of $3.2bn following an announcement last week that it had agreed $2.2bn in senior credit agreements with 20 banks. The multi-currency deal will mature in 2015, with a one-year optional rollover.

In a presentation given at a NAREIT conference last week, ProLogis said its strategy was to focus on targeted regions, enhance use of its assets, monetise landbanks and capitalise on its combined investment management franchise.

The announcement comes just over a month after APG agreed to sell all its shares in ProLogis European Properties (PEPR), following ProLogis's rejection of a bid from an APG-led group to gain control of the listed fund.

The consortium, which comprised pension scheme and sovereign wealth fund PEPR shareholders, believed the firm's de facto control via a lock-in management contract on listing meant PEPR inevitably traded at a discount to NAV.

Robert-Jan Foortse, head of non-listed European property at APG, said: "APG had a long history with the portfolio, the assets and the manager. But once the fund went public, APG felt there were flaws in the governance of the fund.

"It had to do with the position of Prologis as a manager, as well as a shareholder. APG tried for years actively to work to make changes, but the company was insufficiently responsive."

When Prologis would not sell, APG had no option but to sell its own shares.

At one point during the attempted takeover, ProLogis accused APG in an SEC filing of exerting "undue influence" in using the timing of its pending merger with AMB.

"It is an unfair allegation to suggest we exerted undue influence when we launched the bid," said Foortse.

"It's fair to say the timing of the merger had an impact on our decision. After the merger, we foresaw several conflicts. The combined entity would have five balance sheets competing for the same assets."