Kindof off topic, but I find it odd that they are referring to Cruise/GM as a merger. GM is a behemoth compared to Cruise. Isn't that more of an acquisition? Is merger a legal term? If so, can anyone clarify why this is a merger and not an acquisition?
The terms are usually used interchangeably. If it's an actual merger, then they'd be merging with a GM subsidiary and not GM itself. Most public companies like GM (most companies in general, even) have a number of subsidiary companies for various reasons, such as asset protection or other financial considerations. GM's subsidiaries are listed on their 10-K filing with the SEC [0].
Sometimes, there might be a specific reason for structuring a deal as a merger rather than an outright acquisition. It could help a company get around a minority shareholder who would otherwise kill a deal if there's no drag-along provision in their shareholders' agreement, for example. But that's unlikely to be the case here.
