office, that accured the Japanese government and Fuji of “Unfair trading practices”. According to the petition, the Japanese government helped to create a ‘ profile sanctuary’ for Fuji in Japan by systematically denying Kodak access to Japanese distribution channels for consumer film and paper. Kodak claims Fuji has effectively shut Kodak products out of four distributors that have a 70% share of the photo distribution market. Fuji has an equity position in two of the distributors, gives large year –end relates and cash payments to all four distributors as a reward for their loyalty to Fuji, and owns stakes in the banks that finance them. Kodak also claims that Fuji uses similar tactics to control 430 wholesale photo furnishing labs in Japan to which it is the exclusive supplier. Moreover Kodak’s petition claims that the Japanese government has actively encourages these practices.
But Fuji a similar counter arguments relating to Kodak in U.S. and states bluntly that Kodak’s charges are a clear case of the pot calling the kettle back.
(a) What was the critical catalyst that led Kodak to start taking the Japanese market seriously? (b) From the evidence given in the case do you think Kodak’s charges of unfair trading practices against Fuji are valid? Support your answer.
CASE 2 (20 Marks)
Two Senior executives of world’s largest firms with extensive holdings outside the home country speak. Company A : “We are a multinational firm. We distribute our products in about 100 countries. We manufacture in over 17 countries and do research and development in three countries. We look at all new investment projects both domestic and overseas using exactly the same criteria”. The execution from company A continues, “ of course the most of the key ports in our subsidiaries are held by home country nationals. Whenever replacements for these men are sought, it is the practice, if not the policy, to look next to you at the lead office and pick some one (usually a home country...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document