Search results

This short case could be handed out at the end of class discussion on “J&L Railroad” [UVA-F-1053] in preparation for the following class, or if students are more experienced with hedging and option pricing, the instructor may choose to cover both cases in a single class period. It is the companion case to “J&L Railroad” [UVA-F-1053], and presents more technical issues regarding the hedging problem by requiring students to understand option-pricing principles. The board likes the CFO's hedging recommendations, but it wants a more careful analysis of the bank's prices for its risk-management products: the caps and floors. Besides demanding an understanding of option pricing, this case puts particular emphasis on the calculation and use of implied volatility.

The Tata owned Coastal Gujarat Power Limited is seeking to reopen Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with state owned distribution utilities because of increase in imported coal prices resulting from a change in Indonesian laws. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has decided to provide relief through a “compensatory tariff”. This is opposed by the power purchasers. Simultaneously, another Reliance Energy owned power project is seeking relief from unprecedented change in exchange rates using the CGPL decision as a precedent. The CERC and the power purchasers have to decide what to do next.

In this case, a senior business analyst at the online travel agency Trek-ation struggles with the decision of whether to pursue a potentially lucrative idea. Her innovation team had proposed revising the online pricing algorithm in order to use the cookies and other information from customers’ web browser to customize pricing for flights and hotels. Although she wanted to increase revenue for the company and meet her targets, she was also concerned not only about the backlash if this tactic was revealed to the public but also, more importantly, about both the fairness of this practice and the violation of customer privacy norms.

The case explores information technology (IT) company Mindtree’s journey of 20 years from the time it was founded in 1999 to be different from others, and how it became a target for acquisition by an Indian diversified conglomerate in 2019. It offers insights into developing organizational culture and values in an organization, threats faced by a company when promoters dilute their shareholding, and the strategies followed by the acquirer and the target firm. It also deals with the challenges in the acquisition of a knowledge service digital firm. After working through the case and assignment questions, students will be able to: identify the circumstances under which a company can become a target for hostile takeover; describe motivations of the acquirer firm in an acquisition; distinguish between acquisition and hostile takeover, and discuss salient features of Securities and Exchange Board of India (substantial acquisition of shares and takeover) regulations, 2011; list the defenses a target firm can adopt to ward off hostile acquirer; explore strategies followed by acquirer and target firms; analyze important ingredients of organization culture, and importance of cultural congruence in an acquisition; and discuss challenges faced by an acquirer in India, namely, legal, retention of clients and key people in the target firm particularly in hostile environment.

The case explores how ten IT professionals founded mid-tier IT services company Mindtree in 1999 in Bengaluru, India (home to Infosys and Wipro) to be different from others – by inserting themselves at a higher level in the value chain, being philanthropic as a part of broader business strategy to attract a certain kind of employee and customer. It developed a culture of equality, consideration and respect. Its attrition rate of 12 to 13 per cent was significantly lower than the Industries. Mindtree crossed annual revenue of US$1bn for FY 2019 and was growing at twice the industry’s growth rate. The most attractive part was that its proportion of revenue from digital services was about 50 per cent as compared to 25-35 per cent of other services vendors. With time, the share of promoters/founders declined and increased one investor’s shareholding of V. G. Siddhartha and his related entities. In early March 2019, the promoters’ stake was 13.32 per cent while Siddhartha had 20.32 per cent. Larsen and Toubro (L&T) one of India’s conglomerate entered into a share purchase agreement on March 18, 2019 with Siddhartha to acquire his 20.32 per cent stake. Immediately, L&T asked its broker to purchase up to 15 per cent of share capital of Mindtree at a price not exceeding INR 980 per share (each share of face value INR 10). This would trigger an open offer by L&T to purchase additional 31 per cent shares of Mindtree. The action of hostile takeover bid by L&T evoked emotional criticism from Mindtree founders. Mindtree efforts to defend itself could not materialize. L&T’s stake crossed 26 per cent on May 16, 2019. After Indian regulator SEBI’s approval, L&T’s open offer to buy shares from Mindtree shareholders commenced on June 17, 2019. The case examines motivation of the acquirer firm particularly when it is a conglomerate, and how a well-performing company became a target for hostile takeover. It looks at vulnerabilities of a target firm, and defensive steps a firm can take to fence itself against such takeover. The case also explores how organizational culture is built in a people-oriented business, namely, digital services, and what role it plays in a merger of two firms.

The case is suited for postgraduate students of management, as well as those undergoing executive courses in management.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 11: Strategy.

This study enables to critically assess: what constitutes the consequences of a financial crisis to a multi-national enterprise operating in the emerging market of Russia; the decision-making processes behind crisis management and the corresponding search for informational grounds to be used as decision justification; and the role of sustainable development in times of crisis.

During the 2014–2015 financial crisis in Russia, L’Oréal Russia managed to increase growth by 7%–15%, strengthening its place as the market leader in the country. First, the case illustrates the way Antonio, the General Manager of L’Oréal Russia, had successfully approached this situation by learning from the shortcomings of the company’s strategy during the 2007–2008 crisis and deciding to take a proactive position concerning stakeholders. Then, upon recalling his success story, Antonio suddenly found himself at the dawn of yet another crisis caused simultaneously by the COVID-19 outbreak and oil prices drop. In the face of uncertainty regarding the applicability of prior crisis management strategy for the new economic and social reality of Russia, Antonio was worried about whether the company would be able to achieve the 2020 sustainable development goals of L’Oréal by the end of the year. The case dilemma involves choices Antonio faced during mid-March 2020 about strategy formulation based on an adjustment to the expected consumer behavior patterns and possible need to rethink sustainable development goals priority.

This case is appropriate for an undergraduate or graduate-level program curriculum for courses dedicated to or including topics related to crisis management, doing business in emerging markets, corporate social responsibility and consumer behavior. Before engaging with the case, the students should be aware of basic management- and economics-related concepts and terms, such as strategy, sustainable development, CSR and economic crisis.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 11: Strategy.

This case is based on using the fraud triangle, theoretical aspects like rationalization and motivation for understanding the financial pressures and corporate greed lead to accounting fraud. Building on the corporate governance’s weakness, the case explores the challenges and the changes that the company has to make to survive.

The case study has been entirely based on published resources. The case explores out the reasons why the companies commit accounting fraud using the motivations, financial pressures and the opportunities exploited due to a weak governance system.

The case deals with a RMB 2.2bn accounting fraud at Luckin Coffee Inc. (L.K.), a US-listed Chinese company, which led to a steep fall in its share price by more than 80% in April 2020. The company’s CEO had to resign in light of the accounting fraud, which involved fabricating the transactions in 2019, the same year it got listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. The case is a classic example of greed, corporate ambition and flaws in the corporate governance that led to the fraud while framing a course of action for the company moving forward. The case allows the learners to dive deep into the facts to find out why the fraud happened and its repercussions for the company and its various stakeholders. The case can be useful in Accounting, Corporate governance or Ethics modules for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

The case can be used for both postgraduate and undergraduate financial accounting or corporate governance modules or the executive development programmes explicitly dealing with ethical challenges and accounting fraud.

Robert Davidson, pricing manager for Tupelo Medical, was concerned about the variability in price paid for its top-selling product, the Micron 8 Series blood pressure monitoring system. Using historical transaction data, Davidson must determine the appropriate price floor. Setting a price too high risked the loss of a large number of customers, putting the company at substantial risk due to the importance of the product. Setting a price too low would impact Davidson's ability to meet the stated objective of increasing margins by 3 percent. He wondered what the optimal price floor would be and what the expected profits would be for that new price floor. Additionally, the company's business varied considerably by geographic region, account size and account type. As a result, he needed to consider whether it made sense to set a single price floor or whether he could improve profits by allowing some variability in the price floor by customer segment.

• To illustrate how one can build a data-driven pricing model to study the tradeoff between margin and probability of winning a sale in a B2B market

• To quantify the value from implementing a price floor with a B2B sales force

• To demonstrate the incremental value of implementing a price floor that varies by customer segment.

To illustrate how one can build a data-driven pricing model to study the tradeoff between margin and probability of winning a sale in a B2B market

To quantify the value from implementing a price floor with a B2B sales force

To demonstrate the incremental value of implementing a price floor that varies by customer segment.

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows:1. Learn to analyze a hostile takeover bid from the perspectives of the acquirer, target firm’s management and a large institutional investor in the target firm.2. Review the structuring, financing, valuation, mode of consideration, legal and regulatory aspects of a hostile takeover.3. Understand the role of the target firm’s board in a hostile takeover transaction.4. Address “to sell or not to sell” dilemma of a large institutional investor in the target firm in the event of a tender offer given financial and non-financial considerations.

On June 14, 2019, Pulak Prasad, Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at Nalanda Capital, in consultation with other managing partners at Nalanda Capital, had to decide whether to tender a 10.6% equity holding in Mindtree Ltd. in an unsolicited open offer made by Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd. Until then, Nalanda Capital, led by Prasad, had aligned with the Mindtree founders and had led a campaign to thwart L&T’s bid to acquire Mindtree; L&T’s offer to acquire 31% of Mindtree shares was because of open on June 17, 2019 and it is time for Prasad and the management team to take a reasoned call – whether to stay in Mindtree or to exit? Associated aspects included – What could be the consequences of not selling the stake? What could be L&T’s game plan? Could Mindtree continue to create wealth for its shareholders under L&T?

This case is appropriate for Mergers & Acquisitions and Strategic Financial Management courses in modules focused on structuring, financing and takeover defence techniques in a hostile takeover transaction. The case is appropriate for graduate MBA and EMBA programmes.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

Greg Mills describes his search for the perfect engagement ring which includes an analysis of the prices of 6,000 diamonds. An engineer, Greg hopes to impress Sarah Staggers by using regression to find an underpriced diamond. Students are asked to either select one of the 6,000 diamonds or provide point forecasts for prices of 3,142 diamonds in a hold-out sample. The instructor can use the actual prices of the held-out diamonds to evaluate student pricing models.

On March 18, 2019, Yuvraj Mehta, head Corporate Brand Management & Communications (CBMC) at Larsen & Toubro (L&T), heard about negative media narratives against L&T, following a high-profile merger and acquisition (M&A) between the company and Mindtree. Some of the allegations against L&T were “hostile takeover” and “destruction of Mindtree's culture.” Mehta was faced with the issue of influencing all stakeholders; turning the tide and changing the narrative from hostile takeover to continuity, growth and profitability; and integrating Mindtree and its employees and culture into L&T. Compared to L&T's previous acquisitions, which were small, and other strategic initiatives, which were mostly organic, Mindtree acquisition was the largest (in value terms) in its history. It was also the most complex as Mindtree promoters aggressively resisted the acquisition, and L&T had to acquire a large number of shares through an open offer. Media speculations began in January 2019 when L&T, the engineering and construction giant, planned to acquire a majority stake in the young IT firm, Mindtree. Soon the reporting changed to aggressive media ranting. Time was at a premium. Mehta knew he would need to begin strategising almost immediately. How should he proceed? What should be his first move?