From a tax law outlook that has been somewhat off the menu for a few reasons for a while now (for new structures anyway, there are better alternatives), but to avoid poluting my hobby with my work, I'll just leave it as: retaining some of the structures set up in that way was still favourable because of sunk cost, investment and economic incentives offered to companies that are still paying bank.

That said, a big part of maintaining that investment is the additional security and stability of not rocking a smooth sailing ship. Big corporations are surprisingly bureaucratic and ironically take risk assessment pretty seriously. Insurance companies are even worse because, well, weighing risk is their job.

So while BEPS related stuff has lessened the tax benefits somewhat of structures like the double dutch, actions like this in the OP are highly likely to tip the scales towards some other country that isn't likely to go around nationalising shit because of who owns shares where.

For perspective: even the Russian assets confiscated after 2022 are still nominally Russian. Straight up taking them would be theft, legally speaking. Even taking the interest earned on those holdings is problematic and likely to result in diminished investment into EU by foreign governments (if it hasn't already). But that's hitting a foreign government. This is hitting a company which opens a wholy different can of worms from a free market perspective, even if the company in question here (Nexperia) was partially state owned (I think its 'partial' at least).

Most companies that are traded publicly have a responsibility to shareholders to grow the value of their investment. Funnily enough, that growth often comes from...more investment. Whether Western Countries like it or not, Chinese investment is a welcome injection for most companies and actions like this from Netherlands would make any company have to rethink whether it is worth their while to avoid Chinese shareholders.