Search results

In mid-1992, Christine Olsen, the chief financial officer (CFO) of this large CAD/CAM equipment manufacturer, must decide on the magnitude of the firm's dividend payout. A subsidiary question is whether the firm should embark on a campaign of corporate-image advertising and change its corporate name to reflect its new outlook. The case serves as an omnibus review of the many practical aspects of the dividend decision, including (1) signaling effects, (2) clientele effects, and (3) finance and investment implications of increasing dividend payout.

After completion of the case study, students will be able to understand key stakeholders’ current and future role in a family business using techniques like Gersick 3 Axes Model, understand the power dynamics in a family business, understand the power struggles seen in the family business and understand the challenges in the implementation of a deed of family settlement (DFS) with multiple stakeholders.

Kirloskar group was established in 1888 by Laxmanrao Kirloskar. He started with farm manufacturing equipment and later diversified into various kinds of engine manufacturing units. Kirloskar Group today is an Indian conglomerate multinational company with its headquarters in Pune, Maharashtra; India exports to more than 70 countries, most of which are from Africa, Southeast Asia and Europe. The group was managed as a cohesive unit until Chandrakant Kirloskar was at the helm as the chairman. Each brother’s family was managing a business and companies in the fold in which they started. The Kirloskar Group had first split in 2000 when Bengaluru-based Vijay Kirloskar (Ravindra Kirloskar’s son, fourth son of Laxmanrao Kirloskar) moved out of the group with Kirloskar Electrical while the Pune-based Kirloskar brothers moved out with Kirloskar Oil Engine Engines, Kirloskar Brothers, Kirloskar Pneumatics and related subsidiaries. In 2009, a DFS was signed among the family members, including a noncompete clause against each other regarding the usage of the Kirloskar brand name and the tagline “Kirloskar Enriching Lives.” The current dispute started in 2020 when first Vijay filed a suit against his nephews regarding illegal usage of the Kirloskar brand name for the companies not eligible to use it and second when Sanjay Kirloskar also filed a similar lawsuit against his brothers for illegally using the brand name and violating the noncompete clause. The high court, in its judgment, sent the case for arbitration, but Sanjay approached the Supreme Court of India regarding the stipulated arbitration process. With both sides taking a hard stance, there did not seem to be a quick resolution to this dispute.

This case study is suitable for both undergraduate and postgraduate level in entrepreneurship course and family business course.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship

Teaching notes are available for educators only.