IMD-3-2050 © 2009
Nie, Winter; Ryans, Adrian; Lu, Abraham Hongze
Choice 1 utilizes the (A) case followed by the (B) case. Choice 2 utilizes the (A1) and (A2) cases followed by the (B) case. The (A1) case is virtually similar to the (A) case, however has less details on Holip.
Much of this added details was not understood to Danfoss at the time of the (A1) case. This permits a richer conversation of the 2 point of views in class than is possible if the entire class has actually checked out the (A) case. Knowing goals: This case offers individuals a chance to grow their understanding of the concerns an international maker of high efficiency items should deal with as it deals with enhancing competitors from regional gamers producing excellent adequate items.
Choice 1 utilizes the (A) case followed by the (B) case. Choice 2 utilizes the (A1) and (A2) cases followed by the (B) case. The (A1) case is nearly similar to the (A) case, however has less details on Holip. The (A2) case is composed from the viewpoint of Holip management and offers total and in-depth info on Holip and the hopes and issues of the Holip management group.
Subjects: Low cost competition; Mergers & acquisitions; M&A; Chinese entrepreneurs; Frequency converters; Multinationals competing in China; Pre-acquisition analysis; After acquisition integration; Dual-brand strategy
Settings: China; Frequency converters; 2004: Danfoss sales €2.2 billion, Holip sales €8.5 million;May 2005
Related Case Solutions & Analyses:
Strong Tie Ltd.
Engro Chemicals Pakistan Limited – Business Disaster Overcome
Advanced Micro Devices: Competing in the Shadow of a Giant (A)
BHP Billiton and Mozal (B)
Politics Institutions and Project Finance: The Dabhol Power Project
Quality Imaging Products (QIP)
Endeca Negotiation: Hardy Smith
CAFÉ D. POWND
Diamond Chemicals Public Limited Corporation
Project Sun Devil and Project Paris
