智能品牌跨界造车做海外版华为；新势力三成薪资转股票，成本不降反增；智驾公司内斗搅黄收购终破产

Group 1 - Domestic automotive brand A successfully went public, but the forced dissolution of its subsidiary B months prior highlights significant internal conflicts and missed opportunities for integration [1][2] - A Company initially offered 20% equity and higher salaries to B's team, but the proposal to merge B into A was rejected due to concerns over stock value and lock-in periods [1] - The failure to unify A and B's interests led to B's dissolution, which has left A with operational challenges in its newly established intelligent driving center [2][3] Group 2 - New energy vehicle company C is facing cash flow issues and has proposed converting over 30% of salaries for senior employees into stock to alleviate financial pressure [3][4] - C's ongoing layoffs have not effectively reduced costs due to high salaries of senior staff, leading to a disproportionate impact on lower-paid employees [4] - Internal governance issues at C, including an excessive number of vice presidents and ineffective cost control measures, have exacerbated its financial struggles [4] Group 3 - Intelligent technology brand D has launched a cross-industry vehicle manufacturing initiative, aiming to become the "overseas version of Huawei" [5][6] - D's extensive experience in various industries and its aggressive funding strategy position it well for entering the automotive market, despite potential risks associated with its ambitious revenue targets [6] - The competitive landscape has shifted towards sales capabilities, with D leveraging its global network to enhance its market presence [7] Group 4 - Company E, once a promising player in the L4 autonomous driving truck sector, faced internal strife and cash flow issues, leading to its eventual collapse [8][9] - A proposed acquisition by company F fell through due to internal conflicts and a lack of trust among E's team members, highlighting the importance of cohesive governance [8][9] - The departure of E's CEO due to power struggles further illustrates the critical role of effective organizational structure in navigating crises [9] Group 5 - A collaboration between domestic brand G and foreign brand H has encountered severe disagreements, jeopardizing a joint electric vehicle project [10][11] - Initial plans for the partnership aimed to revitalize H's brand presence in China, but communication breakdowns have led to a shift in project control to the application party [10] - H's withdrawal from active project management reflects the challenges faced in cross-border collaborations within the automotive sector [10] Group 6 - High-level misconduct involving executive Ding at company I has resulted in significant professional and personal repercussions, affecting his leadership role [11][12] - Ding's previous successes were overshadowed by personal issues that led to a loss of support within the company, ultimately resulting in his diminished authority [12] - The situation underscores the impact of personal conduct on professional trajectories within the automotive industry [12] Group 7 - Company J has successfully entered the automotive market by leveraging its supply chain and innovative marketing strategies, achieving a competitive edge over traditional manufacturers [13][14] - J's approach includes extensive investments in upstream and downstream automotive enterprises, creating a robust supply chain that supports its production [13] - The company's marketing tactics, such as engaging logistics teams for effective vehicle promotion, demonstrate a creative approach to market visibility [14]