Japan sees these things very differently. If anything, the only reason something like this would happen is because behind the scenes Japanese administrators are orchestrating a shotgun wedding.
Multinational antitrust is the issue here. I probably see this as also requiring antitrust approval outside of Japan and there is no way foreign regulators will allow that.
What is your purposed mechanism/leagally authorative/enforcing body to stop two multinational corporations from incorporating in any one of their markets?
Even if they where headquarterd in US and strictly trading on US market, corporations have rights akin to human beings.
Con-agra, unliver, comcast. All these merged in the US just fine under a very stringent FTC. How could they possibly prevent a foreign multinational corp from doing the same?
They’d be forced to divest from some of their US subsidiaries, so one of the brands would become an independent car company with brand and technology licensing agreements but independent management and shareholders.
For example when InBev merged with Anheuser-Busch they had to sell Labbat’s USA operations to FIFCO USA with geographic exclusive rights to their brands to get the deal through the US DoJ. EU regulators forced Dow and DuPont to divest of much of their crop protection stuff in Europe to complete the US merger.
That seems like a pretty wild stretch - I don't know if that has ever been enforced in the car industry, especially for import brands.
And it's not like we are talking about two dominant brands. Nissan is flirting with complete bankruptcy in the next year. It's unclear what US regulators would latch onto here as part of an anti-trust case.
Comments
Japan sees these things very differently. If anything, the only reason something like this would happen is because behind the scenes Japanese administrators are orchestrating a shotgun wedding.
Multinational antitrust is the issue here. I probably see this as also requiring antitrust approval outside of Japan and there is no way foreign regulators will allow that.
What is your purposed mechanism/leagally authorative/enforcing body to stop two multinational corporations from incorporating in any one of their markets?
Even if they where headquarterd in US and strictly trading on US market, corporations have rights akin to human beings.
Con-agra, unliver, comcast. All these merged in the US just fine under a very stringent FTC. How could they possibly prevent a foreign multinational corp from doing the same?
They’d be forced to divest from some of their US subsidiaries, so one of the brands would become an independent car company with brand and technology licensing agreements but independent management and shareholders.
For example when InBev merged with Anheuser-Busch they had to sell Labbat’s USA operations to FIFCO USA with geographic exclusive rights to their brands to get the deal through the US DoJ. EU regulators forced Dow and DuPont to divest of much of their crop protection stuff in Europe to complete the US merger.
That seems like a pretty wild stretch - I don't know if that has ever been enforced in the car industry, especially for import brands.
And it's not like we are talking about two dominant brands. Nissan is flirting with complete bankruptcy in the next year. It's unclear what US regulators would latch onto here as part of an anti-trust case.
An example involving Stellantis in Turkey: https://moparinsiders.com/stellantis-turkish-unit-sale-faces...
You still have the EU.
Many car manufacturers are state-supported, I don’t think they play by the same rules as other businesses.
Isn't Nissan close to going bankrupt? Would that not make things different/easier?