Say corporations A, B & C have a certain market cornered, each owning 33% of it.
B is really a non-profit, being sustained by donations from A.
A's long-term goal is to drive C out of the market.
I am no game theorist, but common sense tells me that A should dispose of B later rather than sooner, since B is in its pocket anyway. Together, their 66% has a much better chance of taking over the other 33%.
Whereas if A first destroys B by withdrawing funding, then B's userbase is likely to bifurcate and go to A and C, in which case A's 50% would be fighting C's 50%, a much less advantageous situation than the first.
What I should do if I were A:
1. Keep sponsoring B, and together with it drive C out of the market
2. Withdraw funding from B, hopefully destroying it
3. Profit!
You know who A, B and C are.