On April 22, 2005, Maytag Corporation's stock price fell 28 percent after the company reported disappointing first-quarter results and significantly reduced its earnings outlook for 2005. The company's sales were declining due to increased foreign competition and its production costs were increasing due to higher energy, materials, and distribution costs. Maytag's management and board clearly understood the need to make strategic decisions to turn around the fate of their company. Maytag could propose a drastic turnaround plan and remain independent, sell itself to either a large domestic competitor such as Whirlpool or a foreign firm such as Haier, or it could choose to go private by selling to a financial buyer (Ripplewood).

This article highlights several important dimensions of planning for exit from strategic alliances and also offers several examples of the disastrous consequences of inadequate exit-planning. While many companies fall into the trap of having no exit plan, other companies take too simple a planning approach, wondering if the exit will be unconditionally easy or hard. A more effective approach involves questions such as "When should the exit be easy and when should it be hard? And for which partner?" The article develops a framework that stipulates contingency-specific exit provisions for each partner in the alliance-specifically, situations in which exit should be symmetric and easy for both partners, symmetric and hard for both partners, or asymmetric, hard for one partner and easy for the other. Furthermore, many alliances today reflect complex deals that cover several distinct developmental stages, each of which contains a distinct set of contingencies. Such alliances require a dynamic application of the exit framework, wherein each stage of the alliance development entails a different set of exit provisions, and exit from one stage would signify the beginning of the next.