Corporate Law Analysis: Negotiation Strategy for Lansa and Newco Case

This report analyzes the negotiation strategy in the Lansa and Newco case, focusing on the interactions between National Electronics Wares, Inc. (Newco) and López y Arricoitxea Nacional, SA (Lansa). The report examines the composition and roles of the negotiation-advance team, highlighting the importance of communication and collaboration. It explores ethical and moral considerations, such as maintaining good relations and the influence of political factors. The analysis delves into the significance of timing, trust, and the roles of the board of directors in decision-making. The report discusses the legal aspects of the agreement and the importance of legally binding promises. It also addresses the challenges of international negotiations, including communication complexities and the impact of different perspectives, ultimately providing insights into the strategic planning required to resolve issues and achieve the objectives of both parties.

Running Head: Corporation Law
0
LANSA AND NEWCO CASE
Negotiation Strategy
8/3/2019

Corporation Law
1
To: Board of Directors
From: Mr. R. J. Abercrombie, CEO (National Electronics Wares, Inc.)
Date: 4 August 2019
Subject: Consideration at different cases
1. The negotiation- advance team means that members of team has good skills and role
distribution to requires the two parties, to come together and make an agreement that
is accepted by both the parties (Mackenzie, et al., 2015). The negotiation-advance
team composition should be where different or mixed characteristics people are there
in a team and they can interact interdependently to achieve the common task of the
company. Each member has its individual role like- Preparation before meeting, Clear
and effective communication, to identify interests and goal analysis problems and
Collaboration and team work. Lead –negotiator is the one who is leading overall
negotiations and also focuses on the completion of all tasks and form of agreement.
2. Information should I want to know about the players, because there is no clearly
mentioned the players and what are the role they play (Singh and Hess, 2017). Second
one is to more information regarding the companies and what clear information about
the agreement they talked about in this case.
3. In this case players are the companies where they have to fulfill their future objectives
and for that they both want to connect to each other so by the name and work of each
other, both the companies can fulfill the objectives by the negotiation agreement.
Negotiable-advance team helps in negotiation between the companies in the
agreement (Lippi and Plebani, 2017). So, that deal can be finalized by the companies
and they both achieve their objectives.

Corporation Law
2
4. American perspective is the process that refers to internal business processes, allow
the managers to know how well their business is working and whether their products
and services are up to the customers requirement.
5. There are some issues that is ethical and moral that had been surfaced are as- Both
companies were thought about each other and trying to maintain the good relation
with each other. Mr. Abercrombie by suggesting the advanced team to bring a gift
related to do with fishing to Mr. Arricotxea, this shows to create a friendly relation
between both. It’s kind of morality. Both companies think about future benefits of
their company and create a relation to each other.
6. Proper protocol dictates means that involves in the proper procedures or systems of
rules that govern the companies’ affairs and there is protocol officer who make the
rules and regulations to achieve the companies objectives.
7. The communicative complexity was that when the Lansa’s partners said Mr. Toni
Lelipini to call Newco for the information. So, Mr. Lelipini’s English is fair but his
pronunciation is lacking and there is unwillingness to cooperate in the part of Newco
and it passes 2 months.Teams meet in Mexico, a central point to discuss matters of
length (O'Faircheallaigh, 2015).
8. Both companies giving their best afford to make an agreement because of their own
future benefits as per the view of Lansa. But there is lack of timing, so both
companies create a better and regular communication between them and also create a
best relation, so that they can know more about each other’s and make agreement as
soon as possible (Miglani, et al., 2015).
9. No, there was no relation on the bases of trust between the companies.

Corporation Law
3
10. As we know, Newco would have to raise their value of the stocks, if this could be
public so this is better for their company but first of all they taken the risk to make a
negotiation by the Lansa. Lansa is taking risk by dealing with an American company
because they believe that to offer to do everything iin their powers to come to an
understanding, but elections are coming up and Mr. Arricoitxea is thinking about
running to office and this deal leads this.
11. The time plays very important part in this case because this agreement is essential for
both the company’s future perspective and it’s important to do this agreement as soon
as important.
12. Board of directors is the decision makers of the companies. They played a major role
in it because when Newco’s board of directors gives the mandatory order to the CEO
regarding the “Informatrix” so on the other side Lansa want to create connection to
know more about “Informatrix” because it helps them too for election (Sivathaasan,
2016).
13. The form should be there will be legally binding set of promises that requires the
comprising an offer and acceptance between the parties known as agreement, then
there will be consideration, intention to create legal relations and legal formalities.

Corporation Law
4
References
Lippi, G., & Plebani, M. (2017). The add value of laboratory diagnostics: the many reasons why
decision-makers should actually care. Journal of Laboratory and Precision
Medicine, 2(12).
Mackenzie, G., Vincent, A., & Zeleznikow, J. (2015). Negotiating about charges and pleas:
balancing interests and justice. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24(4), 577-594.
Miglani, S., Ahmed, K., & Henry, D. (2015). Voluntary corporate governance structure and
financial distress: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Contemporary Accounting &
Economics, 11(1), 18-30.
O'Faircheallaigh, C. (2015). Negotiations in the Indigenous world: Aboriginal peoples and the
extractive industry in Australia and Canada. Routledge.
Singh, A., & Hess, T. (2017). How Chief Digital Officers Promote the Digital Transformation of
their Companies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1).
Sivathaasan, N. (2016). Corporate governance and leverage in Australia: A pitch. Journal of
Accounting and Management Information Systems, 15(4), 819-825.