When regulators suspended the high profile initial public offering (IPO) of the Chinese fintech company Ant Group, investors and businesspeople were surprised and unsettled. The offering was halted just two days before the planned listing, after Ant had received routine regulatory approvals. Ant Group leadership needed to understand what the government's expectations were and how to reposition the company to move forward and build on its powerful brand and business model, to maintain success in the absence of an immediate IPO.

As John Donahoe prepared to take over as CEO of Nike, Inc., he faced growing controversy over the company's failure to support anti-government demonstrations in Hong Kong. After US basketball team Houston Rockets manager Daryl Morey tweeted agreement with the Hong Kong protesters, Nike did not publicly back this stance. Instead, it removed Rockets merchandise from its China stores. Nike's silence on this matter contrasted sharply with its past strong support of individual's opinions. Nike management had to determine how to reconcile the company's image based on Western values with its continued growth in China.

The US used to dominate the global rare earths industry, but over the years lost its edge to China. It now wants to reduce its dependence on China for rare earths-the question is, how?

A cup of Starbucks was a middle-class symbol in China. Since the opening of its first store in China in 1999, Starbucks had conquered the Chinese coffee market with its experience driven philosophy. Nonetheless, a few ambitious and well-funded Chinese tech entrepreneurs had decided to challenge Starbucks. Founded in October 2017, Luckin Coffee expressed a desire "to be part of everyone's life, starting with coffee." Leveraging its core competence in technology and a business model focused on delivery and heavy discounts, Luckin scaled up rapidly. By 2020 it operated more stores in China than Starbucks. But Starbucks was responding to the new threat, forging an alliance with Alibaba backed Ele.me. In this situation, what should both firms do to do to win the war for China's coffee consumer?

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Huawei) was the world's largest telecommunications equipment provider, and was widely acknowledged to be the leader in developing fifth generation (5G) mobile network systems. In 2018-2019, the US government took a series of steps to restrict Huawei's business with the US government and US companies, citing security concerns. Huawei needed to craft a response that would minimize damage to its financial position, protect its leading position in 5G equipment, and allow it to continue to expand its overall business.

Foxconn, well known as the iPhone maker, was the largest electronic manufacturing service provider in the world. Foxconn was founded in Taiwan in 1974. It grew enormously since mid 1980s after setting up manufacturing in mainland China. It benefited from the low labour cost in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as China's open-market policies. But China experienced significant demographic changes: the working-age population peaked in 2010 and the education level of workers overall increased steadily since 1980s. Both changes put pressure on Foxconn to increase wages. On the demand side, Apple started to diversify its supplier base by supporting a rival Taiwanese EMS provider, Pegatron, to assemble its products. Foxconn's profit margin dropped significantly after 2000s despite its effort to lower costs through automation and product diversification. Faced with challenges from both labour cost and customers, Foxconn had to adjust its market position in the new era. The case covers the history of Foxconn, the changing macroeconomic environment and actions taken by Foxconn trying to increase its profitability. The case details the challenges faced by Foxconn and Foxconn's efforts to reposition, especially though acquisition attempts. Keeping in mind the core competencies of Foxconn, students need to explore the strategies Foxconn has employed and suggest future strategies for Foxconn.

Since China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001, economic relations between China and the US have deepened. Along with closer ties, however, has also come greater political conflict. In this case, students will analyse the current Sino-US diplomatic relationship through two distinct lenses: 1) bilateral diplomatic relations; 2) economic theory. By understanding the complex political and economic factors underpinning the relationship, students will be called on to propose potential solutions to avoid further escalation.

The case contains a discussion on Lesso Group, a leading construction material and home decor manufacturer in China, and its market entrance strategy to establish footprint in the retail space in the United States.

The case describes the position of Marks & Spencer (M&S), a leading high-street retailer in the UK. The retailer decided to enter China's retail market in 2008 is based on perceived synergies between the company's products and an increasingly affluent Chinese middle class. Upon entry, M&S encounters myriad challenges that are not part of its original strategic calculations: errors in basic shop keeping, an evolving Chinese retail environment, and the emergence of e-commerce. M&S's difficulties in China among foreign retailers are not unique, however. Numerous high-profile retailers, such as Tesco, Best Buy, Home Depot, and Asos, find China's retail market inhospitable, leaving shortly after entry. Although M&S experiences challenges similar to those these firms faced, it also encounters a shifting retail landscape that even some experienced local retailers find difficult. After eight years in China experimenting with different business models and deteriorating financials, M&S faces a key decision: should it stay or leave?

Shipping conglomerate and industry leader Maersk Group has to figure out a strategy to remain competitive in the struggling shipping industry. In the face of sluggish global trade, overcapacity in the shipping industry and falling freight rates, the company has managed to stay afloat by conducting cost cuts and operational improvements. But the strategic direction ahead is not clear. And to further complicate the issue, its other major revenue stream in the oil and gas business isn't doing well either. Falling oil prices has severely affected the profitability of its upstream oil and gas division. Søren Skou, recently appointed CEO of the company, now has to forge a new strategic direction for Maersk. Should he look into M&As, alliances, or even dispose of the oil business? How can he further differentiate Maersk and create a competitive strategy for sustainable growth? This case explores the strategic options of a market leader in a competitive dilemma. It touches upon concepts of alliance, M&A, differentiation, horizontal diversification, vertical integration, and technology adoption. It also looks into the issues of companies operating in China, where state-owned firms are incentivized to adopt cross-subsidization.

Coca-Cola was one of the first MNCs to enter post-reform China. The soft-drink manufacturer established robust market share on the back of a strong brand. Chinese consumer preferences, however, gradually changed: they preferred "healthy" drinks over soft drinks. As a result, Coca Cola's competitive position eroded as foreign and domestic competitors released new products. After a failed high-profile M&A attempt, Coca-Cola faced a strategic challenge: develop new products in-house or attempt to acquire them?

IBM's strategy in China was to go it alone. The company researched, produced, and distributed its own products. The Chinese government, however, viewed technology as a key factor for economic growth and national competitiveness: it wanted to promote technology transfer between foreign technology firms and domestic firms. As IBM's business and ambitions in China grew, it would have to make a decision: would it compete and cooperate with local firms?

In July 2014, a Shanghai television station revealed that Shanghai Husi, a Chinese subsidiary of a reputable US-owned food supplier, was producing substandard meat products. McDonald's was one of its biggest fast food clients and had been sourcing from the supplier for more than two decades. After cutting tie with Shanghai Husi, McDonald's China and its branches in Hong Kong and Japan were forced to pull a number of products from the menu due to a severe shortage of meat and vegetable supplies. The impact of the scandal was clearly reflected in the poor performance of its sales and stock. The food scare dissipated the general belief that food produced by foreign brands was better than that from Chinese counterparts. With large foreign-owned suppliers in China no longer guaranteeing reliability, what could McDonald's China do to strengthen its supply-chain management? What lessons should it learn from the incident? Would it be better for McDonald's China to run its own food processing plants in China?

In August 2013, the United States Securities and Exchanges Commission ("SEC") opened a bribery investigation into JPMorgan's "princeling hiring" practices in Hong Kong, China's Special Administrative Region. The investment bank's Hong Kong operation hired the daughter of a senior official of the state-owned China Railway Group ("CRG") in 2007, and the son of the chairman of state-owned China Everbright Group ("Everbright") in 2010. Months after the 2007 hiring, JPMorgan successfully secured the job of underwriting CRG's initial public offering ("IPO"). Similarly, although few business deals between JPMorgan and Everbright and its subsidiaries were made before 2010, JPMorgan then successfully secured several financial advisory jobs for the company. The US Security Exchange Commission's subsequent investigation put investment bank efforts to build "guanxi" in China by hiring princelings in the spotlight.

China's healthcare reforms in the 1980s left the country's hospitals under-subsidized and its medical officials underpaid. Hospitals relied on profits generated from the provision of medical services to cover the funding gap, while doctors became kickback seekers to make up for their low rates. In traditional markets, global pharmaceutical companies ("pharm companies") are no strangers to wooing hospitals and doctors to favor prescriptions of their drugs. These questionable "marketing" practices were taken to the next level in the China market. Streams of financial flows, legal or not, from pharm companies to hospitals and doctors to win their favor in prescribing their drugs became a structurally embedded problem of the country's healthcare system. The Chinese government introduced a new round of reform in 2009. While it promises to spend millions more on healthcare, its action to wipe out bribery and other kickback-seeking behaviors of the industry left many players perplexed. The first to take the heat was GlaxoSmithKline Inc. ("GSK"), a large British pharm company active in the China market since 1984. In July 2013, the Chinese government launched an investigation on GSK's China operation regarding its activities that lure hospitals doctors and administers to buy GSK drugs. The alleged practice of bribery is an industry open secret common to pharm companies. Is this investigation an indication that the Chinese government is targeting multinationals in favor of local players? Despite high-voltage growth rates, this regulated industry in the market economy with Chinese characteristics only has a bare-boned distributions infrastructure, while it is filled with patient-trying administrative hurdles, has price restrictions on an expanded list of drugs, and offers weak institutional protection for companies' intellectual property. Will long-term investment in the country pay off? Should GSK continue its China business? Should it change its strategy in China?

At the end of 2012, an "instant chicken" scandal was revealed in China after a leading national broadcaster reported that chickens reared for KFC in the country were illegally fattened with excessive antibiotics. The local food safety authorities investigated the situation and found that KFC China had been aware of the situation since 2010 but had chosen to remain silent. Local consumers and netizens were in an uproar over the scandal, which eventually in 2013 broke the group's 11-year streak of double-digit growth. A series of marketing campaigns were conducted to rescue the reputation of the fast food giant. The incident reflects the challenges faced by KFC China's supply chain management in ensuring the safety and quality of products from its first-tier suppliers and their suppliers in a subsequent tier. Would the "Finger Lickin' Good" chain be able to rebound fast from the scandal? What could KFC China do about its supply chain and consumers' trust?

Visa's China strategy was challenged by the Chinese monopoly, China UnionPay Company ("CUP"), on all fronts after a few short cooperative years. Visa countered CUP's competitions by scaling the disputes up on the WTO level. What were the implications of Visa's history of monopoly and where would the disputes between two global monopolies lead?

Tetra Pak, the world's largest manufacturer of aseptic packaging materials, is a typical market leader that faces growing challengers around the world and runs the risk of becoming embroiled in antitrust cases. Greatview Aseptic Packaging Company Limited ("Greatview") is an exemplary Chinese national champion that penetrates into developed markets, which are usually saturated with only a few key players. The case describes how Greatview emerged and challenged Tetra Pak, which set industry standards largely by using the tying and bundling strategy and the innovation and patent strategy. Since 2003, Greatview has actively influenced the Chinese government to establish and enforce an antitrust law, which supports the company as it positions itself as the best alternative to Tetra Pak for reducing customers' single-supplier risks and costs. In 2011, Greatview announced the building of its first overseas plant, in Germany, to penetrate into Tetra Pak's home market of Western Europe-the world's largest market for aseptic packaging. In 2013, although Greatview announced ambitious factory expansion plans, its challenges overseas are huge. Meanwhile, Tetra Pak realized that its European patent was not able to protect its historic innovation, aseptic technology, from being imitated. Even more complicated, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, China's market regulator, launched a national investigation against Tetra Pak, accusing it of misusing its dominant position to limit competition. Both companies need to devise their next competitive moves.

Foxconn's management seemed keenly aware of the company's need to reposition its business. While its revenues increased almost uninterruptedly over the previous decade, its net income margin had decreased over this time frame. Should Foxconn double down on manufacturing or make attempts to leverage its current advantages into new kinds of business, such as becoming an original design manufacturer ("ODM")?

In October 2005, Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") formed a partnership with Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba"), the country's biggest e-commerce firm. The company invested US$1 billion in Alibaba for a 40% stake and transferred the ownership of Yahoo! China ("Yahoo China") to Alibaba. However, some media outlets have described the two companies' relationship since 2005 as being anywhere from rocky to downright ugly. Yahoo's decision in mid-2009 to switch to Microsoft's Bing search technology has prompted Alibaba to adopt a search engine from Yahoo's local competitor Sohu.com. Then Alibaba collaborates with eBay Inc. instead of Yahoo in entering the US business-to-business market. Meanwhile, Yahoo directly competes with Yahoo! China for advertisers by soliciting companies in southern China to advertise on Yahoo's Hong Kong website. Alibaba has been taking a loss in its operations since 2006, and the search revenue share of Yahoo! China has dropped from 27% in 2005 to an insignificant level in 2010. But Yahoo! has turned down Alibaba's offer to buy back its stake because it would like to wait for the IPOs of Alibaba's two major subsidiaries before any exit. In light of growing tension with Alibaba, Yahoo's board would like to review its approach to managing this partnership and figure out what should be done to mend the ties.