Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
[2] [3] The merger with the Chrysler Corporation had increased Daimler-Benz's share of the North American market, and Mitsubishi Motors offered a gateway to Asia. [1] The deal was to prove costly for both DaimlerChrysler shareholders and for Schrempp personally, whose part in the deal contributed to his eventual replacement at the helm of DCX ...
Daimler-Benz was formed with the merger of Benz & Cie., the world's oldest car company, [4] and Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft in 1926. The company was renamed DaimlerChrysler upon the acquisition of the American automobile manufacturer, Chrysler Corporation in 1998, it was renamed to Daimler upon the divestment of Chrysler in 2007.
During his tenure, Daimler-Benz made the 80% acquisition of the Chrysler Corporation to become DaimlerChrysler. Schrempp called the merger a "match made in heaven". In addition to the acquisition of Chrysler, Schrempp pursued the acquisition of Mitsubishi Motors as part of his 'Three Pillars' strategy to expand the reach of Daimler-Benz into the major markets of the United States and Asia.
German automaker Daimler (DDAIF) has won its appeal of a court ruling that would have required it to pay €230 million ($324 million) to former Daimler-Benz shareholders who claimed they weren't ...
In chapter 10 of "Modern Value Investing: 25 Tools to Invest With a Margin of Safety in Today's Financial Environment," Sven Carlin pulled those tools together in a case study of Daimler (XTER:DAI ...
After a disastrous merger with Chrysler in the late 1990s, which unwound in less than a decade, you'd think Daimler (DAI) would be gun-shy about teaming with another auto maker. But in linking up ...
The name of the company, too had changed: "Chrysler Motors Corporation" had become part of DaimlerChrysler when it merged with Daimler-Benz AG in 1998. The former Chrysler operations were now referred to informally as "the Chrysler Group", but were legally known as DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC.
Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.S. 117 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. [ 1 ]