Search results

Later in the discussion, the options for long run strategy in dealing with a possible takeover offer and other strategic options can be discussed by the class. Lack of familiarity by students with the role of the outside potential acquirer of the camp (in this case, a hotel chain) and the lack of familiarity with the role of an investor who is a family investor, who may wish to sell stock and use the proceeds for another purpose, or a small investor who invests because he or she uses the camp and takes advantage of the stockholder’s discount will probably preclude role playing, except in executive MBA classes where students have sufficient experience in possible takeover situations or in investment management, Emphasis should probably be placed on discussing the major issues, such as social and cultural issues and on marketing and public relations issues and on financial issues, including the options available in the event of a possible takeover effort. All of these issues are impacted fully by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Instructors will need to play an active role in teaching this case. It is recommended that the instructor give a short lecture or discussion at the beginning as to how a camp such as Camp Teddy functions. The authors recommend that the instructor then begin the case discussion by asking students questions about such issues as social and cultural issues and marketing and public relations issues.

Camp Teddy is a seasonal camp for families in rural Connecticut adjacent to New York City and suburbs in New York and Connecticut. It is technically a for-profit organization but operates more like a nonprofit organization because many of the campers own shares and have used the camp sometimes for several generations. The camp has traditions that are liked by many of the shareholders and campers. Although net income has increased in the past year, there does not seem to be enough funds to support necessary capital expenditures to improve facilities for the future. The largest stockholder has recently died. His immediate heirs’ control 300 of the 1,000 shares and other family members control 400 shares with the remaining 300 shares in the hands of small shareholders, many of whom use the camp each summer. A large hotel chain is interested in possibly acquiring the camp through a buyout or perhaps a hostile takeover, with a potential large gain to shareholders. The board of directors must consider a number of issues to insure good occupancy of the camp in the future and must decide what to do about a potential takeover attempt.

This case can be used in several courses, including investment management, hospitality management, corporate finance and business strategy. There are ethical and societal issues in the case, so that the case might also be used in courses looking at business, environment or business ethics. The case is best used at the graduate level, but it might be suitable for some advanced undergraduate courses.

Several theories emerge in a reading of this case; however, the primary or overarching focus of the case is the role of communication and how ineffective or non-existent communication during training, coordination and follow-up of a critical incident can impact officers, departments and communities. Furthermore, this case provides valuable insights for civilian businesses on the importance of formal and informal communication.

The case was based upon extensive interviews with a police officer involved in a shooting. In addition to extensive semi-structured interviews, research for the case also included review of psychological evaluations of the officer involved, journalism pieces and blogs written about the shooting under study, and reports from the Attorney General’s investigation of this shooting.

Detective Keith Casey, an undercover Narcotics Officer for 12 years, had trained and served as a member and point person for the Emergency Response Team (i.e. Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team) for seven years. On April 25, 2010, Casey was working on an electronic surveillance (i.e. a wiretap) out of the FBI office when he received the call about a barricaded suspect in Hammonton, New Jersey. The barricaded suspect had pulled a gun on an EMT in Deptford New Jersey and threatened to kill himself and others. At approximately, 4:10 a.m. because he was perceived to be a danger to himself and others, the SWAT team was sent into the home where the suspect was barricaded. After ignoring repeated commands to drop his weapon, the barricaded suspect was struck down by cases moments after the SWAT team entered the home. Preparation and training on intervention and team management has become increasingly more important for police departments around the world. In recent years, a great deal of attention has been placed on officer bias; however, little attention has been placed on officers who pull the trigger and the events that follow. This case offers a first-hand account of how communication, between all players, before, during and after an officer involved shooting impacts all phases of the critical incident.

This case is targeted to undergraduate and graduate students in organizational communication, but may include public relations, introduction to management, strategic management and organizational behavior, especially if the course includes a discussion of communication and crisis management.

Carl Woods, a management consultant, experiences a series of frustrating events when trying to replace the mesh sling to a patio chair. Eventually, he realizes that he could organize a coopetitive relationship among the various outdoor furniture companies, each of which provided only a portion of the service he needed. The case tracks Carl's recognition of the opportunity presented by a hole in the market and the consultant's role in the development of coopetition in the Florida outdoor furniture industry. Students are asked to assist Carl in performing the consulting role by developing solutions to the problems that have arisen within the coopetitive group.

This case has been field researched.

The case is suitable for undergraduate students in basic entrepreneurship, small business management, or organizational behavior.

On April 4, 2007, Don Imus, one of the company&s most popular talk show personalities made comments on the air regarding the Rutgers women&s basketball team. According to the transcription from Media Matters for America, Imus said, “ That&s some nappy-headed hos there. I&m gonna tell you that now, man, that&s some … woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like … kinda like … I don&t know.” At first, the comments did not seem out of the ordinary for one of radio&s “shock jocks.” However, as the public reaction grew, the situation changed considerably. Under pressure from the public, Moonves reluctantly suspended Imus. But it was too little too late. By the end of the day on April 11, analysts estimated that $2.5 million in advertising revenue was lost. On April 12, Moonves terminated Don Imus& contract.

After Moonves fired Imus, there was still a lot to consider. He really wanted a way for the company to meet the demands of the company&s stakeholders. In addition, he wanted to avoid any more distractions from the firm&s normal day-to-day operations.

This case explores the decision of a fast-growing company to expand its distribution network. Financial information is provided in it so students can understand the basic distribution network design covering inbound transportation, outbound transportation, distribution-center operations, and inventory.

In December 2001, after a six-month process of vying for AT&T's Broadband, the president of cable operator Comcast Corporation, had just received word that Comcast's $72-billion offer had won the auction. Comcast, the cable industry's third-largest operator, would merge with industry leader AT&T Broadband to form a company with more than $20 billion in revenue and an unparalleled distribution (a presence in 22 of the nation's top 25 markets). Now the presidents of both companies began to consider their post-merger integration strategies. What was important and how should they prioritize their activities? How could they get all stakeholders to understand the rationale for the deal and its business goals and excited about the new AT&T Comcast?

This case reviews the financial performance of the Fidelity Magellan Fund up to mid-1995. In essence, the Magellan Fund has managed to “beat the market” over time under three different fund managers despite its enormous size ($51 billion at the date of the case). The tasks for the student are to assess the adequacy of this performance, evaluate its likely sources, and opine on its sustainability. The case affords the opportunity to consider the appropriateness of various possible benchmarks in a risk-return framework and to assess the reasonableness of the efficient-markets hypothesis. The case can be used in an introductory finance course to present general information about equity markets and the behavior of large, sophisticated money managers.