Search results

1 – 3 of 3
Case study
Publication date: 20 January 2017

David P. Stowell and Christopher D. Grogan

January 27, 2005, was an extraordinary day for Gillette's James Kilts, the show-stopping turnaround expert known as the “Razor Boss of Boston.” Kilts, along with Proctor & Gamble…

Abstract

January 27, 2005, was an extraordinary day for Gillette's James Kilts, the show-stopping turnaround expert known as the “Razor Boss of Boston.” Kilts, along with Proctor & Gamble chairman Alan Lafley, had just orchestrated a $57 billion acquisition of Gillette by P&G. The creation of the world's largest consumer products company would end Kilts's four-year tenure as CEO of Gillette and bring to a close Gillette's 104-year history as an independent corporate titan in the Boston area. The deal also capped a series of courtships between Gillette and other companies that had waxed and waned at various points throughout Kilts's stewardship of Gillette. But almost immediately after the transaction was announced, P&G and Gillette drew criticism from the media and the state of Massachusetts concerning the terms of the sale. Would this merger actually benefit shareholders, or was it principally a wealth creation vehicle for Kilts?

To understand the factors that persuaded shareholders of both P&G and Gillette to merge their companies, the valuation metrics involved in determining the merger consideration, compensation packages for key managers, and the politics (internal, local government, and regulatory) that impact major mergers.

Details

Kellogg School of Management Cases, vol. no.
Type: Case Study
ISSN: 2474-6568
Published by: Kellogg School of Management

Keywords

Case study
Publication date: 15 November 2019

Sudhir Naib and Swati Singh

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…

Abstract

Learning outcomes

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.

Case overview/synopsis

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.

Complexity academic level

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

Supplementary materials

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

Subject code

CSS 11: Strategy.

Details

Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies, vol. 9 no. 3
Type: Case Study
ISSN: 2045-0621

Keywords

Case study
Publication date: 20 January 2017

Robert Korajczyk, Linda Vincent, Matthew Galas, David Mathews, Danielle Qi and Saurabh Goyal

This case asks the student to take a stance on whether an portfolio manager should take a long or short position in the equity of Universal Display Corporation (PANL). The stock…

Abstract

This case asks the student to take a stance on whether an portfolio manager should take a long or short position in the equity of Universal Display Corporation (PANL). The stock is polarizing, in that reasonable arguments could be made for both long and short positions. The case suggests a number of steps that an analyst might follow when valuing a company

Discounted cash flow valuation, comparables valuation, short selling. After students have analyzed the case they will be able to value the equity of a publicly traded company and take a position on whether a portfolio manager should buy or sell the stock.

Details

Kellogg School of Management Cases, vol. no.
Type: Case Study
ISSN: 2474-6568
Published by: Kellogg School of Management

Keywords

Access

Year

Content type

Case study (3)
1 – 3 of 3