Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how resilience can support entrepreneurs in uncertain environments. The study’s objective is to show how different dimensions of resilience (emotional/cognitive) are dynamically connected to different logics of actions (causation/effectuation) allowing the development of a successful entrepreneurial project.

The study is based on a qualitative analysis of a blog written by an entrepreneur during the first 17 months of a search, negotiation, and financing process for a company takeover.

The results highlight that in high uncertainty, strong entrepreneurial resilience and shift of logics of action can contribute to the success of a business takeover. This study identifies forms of resilience during the business takeover process that helped the entrepreneur overcome adversity and succeed. Moreover, these forms of resilience seem to be related to effectual and causal logics.

This study could help future entrepreneurs succeed in the creation or takeover of an organization by improving knowledge of the relationship between resilience and logics of actions.

This study proposes a different approach to the study of entrepreneurial resilience by analyzing it in relation with the logics of action (causation/effectuation). Moreover, the study offers a modern methodological approach by using an internet blog as a data source.

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.

A burgeoning stream of tourism and hospitality research highlights the role of entrepreneurship in bringing about positive social and economic outcomes for both refugees themselves and their host countries. Yet little has been done so far both in mainstream entrepreneurship research and tourism scholarship to explore how motivations influence perceived entrepreneurial success of refugees and how this eventually affects their subjective well-being. To address this gap, the present study aims to propose and empirically test a conceptual model postulating relationships between contextual and individual entrepreneurial motives, perceptions of entrepreneurial success and life satisfaction.

This study draws on quantitative data collected through 172 surveys of refugee entrepreneurs venturing in different subsectors within tourism and hospitality in Turkey and the UK. A structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the proposed theoretical model.

The results reveal that contextual and individual entrepreneurial motives have a significant positive impact on perceived entrepreneurial success. As predicted, perceived entrepreneurial success is found to have a significant positive impact on life satisfaction. A multigroup analysis involving host country (Turkey vs the UK) and mode of entry (founder vs takeover) indicates no significant difference based on host country, whereas the strength of relationships for takeovers is relatively greater as compared to founders.

This study advocates that the reductionist approach viewing refugees as temporary “outsiders” who are in consistent need of public provision, and welfare services should not prevail against their ability to achieve self-efficiency through entrepreneurship. Hence, policies need to be oriented toward supporting refugee entrepreneurial activities over various business stages and modes of entry. More importantly, ensuring high success rates among refugee entrepreneurs should be viewed as a pivotal tool to address the well-being of refugees, their families and their fellows.

While previous research identifies drivers of entrepreneurship success and the potential favorable outcomes, none of these studies empirically models refugee entrepreneurship motives, self-reported entrepreneurial success and life satisfaction as a distinct and growing cohort of entrepreneurs. This study makes significant theoretical contributions to the corpus of literature on the social outcomes of entrepreneurship and provides timely implications for policymakers to use entrepreneurship as a market-based solution to address refugees’ subjective well-being.

Many established trading companies have had considerable capital value locked into their operational properties. These properties have been identified as producing lower returns on invested capital than core business activities. Consequently, there has been a growing trend for the splitting of operational property from core business activity. This paper seeks to identify trends in sale‐and‐leaseback, which is the most common model in the UK.

This paper reviews, the existing literature and some past transactions in order to identify the motivations of both operational businesses and property investors in adopting the model. Some transaction case studies are also highlighted.

Identification of the motives behind this approach. Accounting, taxation and capital release are identified as the main drivers when the model first became widespread in the UK two decades ago. It is now driven by taxation and capital release. Originally adopted by leading companies, sale‐and‐leaseback has more recently been used by weaker covenants. The model has remained popular with investors, but there have been some recent failures.

This paper examines recent trends and seeks to identify how the sale‐and‐leaseback model may develop in the UK. Furthermore, the application of the model in the UK may give some insight into its application in other parts of the world, where it is either gaining further acceptance or may have greater potential application.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the crisis faced, strategies adopted, barriers for recovery and the future outlook by the operators of family-owned small foodservice business firms in responses to COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded unprecedented challenges, severely disrupted the family-run small foodservice business units and often put them on the brink of closure of business.

The methodology adopted is a qualitative research approach. The data for the research is collected through a semi-structured interview. The data was collected from the 13 family-owned foodservice providers. The data is collected through a semi-structured telephone interview as there is a restriction of travel between different regions.

The finding reveals that small family-operated foodservice firms faced multiple challenges, including threat for existence, the pressure of fixed cost, feeling unethical, financial instability, uncertainty on future and feeling of loss of goodwill with lenders.

The current research work is the first to discuss the impact of Covid-19 on small family-owned food services businesses in an Indian context.

A corporate takeover (with major stake in equity) gives the acquirer the right to appoint majority of directors in the target’s board to control its management and policy decisions. When such acquisition is unsolicited and unwelcome, it becomes a “hostile takeover.” In such cases, the acquirer is said to be a “raider” and the raider’s management team may act under the influence of “hubris” implying that they seek to acquire the target for their own personal motives ignoring pure economic gains for the owners of both the companies. The hostile bidder makes all possible efforts to justify the takeover by paying handsome premium over the target’s fairly valued share price. In a hostile takeover, the target management or target promoters resist and fight tooth and nail against the raider to convey to the world that the bidder’s acts are not in the best interest of all their stakeholders. Any unsolicited and hostile takeover offer is generally viewed as oppression, domination or coercion by the bidding company against the target and its management. In a hostile bid, the existing target management always believes that whatever they do is in best interest of everyone. They feel complacent and assume that their standards of corporate governance are of highest order. Therefore, they are unwilling to succumb to the aggression and hostility of another corporate entity for takeover. The “so-called” victimized target resorts to all means to gain sympathy from peers, press, common shareholders, employees and general public. In today’s regulated market for corporate control, an intelligent hostile bidder would probably not acquire a business unless it has good strategic or financial reasons to do so. Hence, “stewardship” on the part of bidder’s management is very important in case of any hostile takeover. This chapter derives motivation from a three-and-half-decade-old abortive hostile takeover bid in India by Caparo Group of the UK and also the recently completed hostile takeover in India of a famous mid-sized information technology company, Mindtree by Larsen & Toubro, a major conglomerate. This research aims at developing a distinctive model to demonstrate that unsolicited hostile takeover may not be a good mechanism for a successful business combination.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the Board Neutrality Rule and the primacy afforded to shareholders during takeovers is justified under common law and policy.

The paper provides a detailed assessment of the role play by the board neutrality rule and whether this is supported by takeover law and Company law. A review of case law and statutes is provided. The paper is largely analytical.

The paper finds little justification for the continued imposition of the Board Neutrality Rule.

The paper adds to the growing body of research literature which has analysed the role played by the Board Neutrality Rule during takeovers.

This paper aims to address the question: What is the distribution of value (in pounds) created in a sample of domestic takeovers in the United Kingdom from 2013 to 2020 among acquirer and target stockholders?

The author employs a traditional event study methodology to calculate the percentage excess returns of companies on the announcement date. These returns are then converted into pound-denominated excess returns using the companies' market capitalizations. This allows the author to estimate the synergies of the mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and how they are allocated between acquirers and targets. This innovative transformation from percentage to pound excess returns establishes a new ratio methodology for addressing the paper's objective.

This paper reveals that in UK takeovers, 40 percent of the synergies in pounds are allocated to the stockholders of acquiring companies, while 60 percent go to the stockholders of target companies. In other words, acquirers retain a significant portion—more than half—of the synergies generated in these domestic deals. This original finding is statistically significant at the one percent level and strongly contradicts the hypothesis that acquirers, at best, merely break even.

The evidence that UK takeovers distribute value gains nearly equally between domestic deal parties challenges the enduring conventional insight in the M&A literature. This conventional wisdom suggests that the value created by business combinations is entirely distributed to target company stockholders. Consequently, this reexamination may have broader implications, offering an alternative perspective on the motives behind business combinations. This perspective differs from the “managerial hubris hypothesis,” which aligns with the prevailing conventional insight but receives limited support in the original finding reported here.

The rules on takeover bids are generally considered to be an important factor within the debate on corporate governance. The risk of a takeover bid – and of a consequent change in company control – should motivate a company’s board to act in the best interests of the shareholders (the so-called disciplinary mechanism). The European rules on takeover bids are enshrined in Directive 2004/25/EC (which is also known as the Thirteenth Directive on Company Law), which applies to bids for securities of companies (issuers) governed by the laws of Member States. In this chapter the author analysed the European rules on takeover bids and highlighted certain national options for implementing the Directive, although a revision of the European Directive, which will be based, among other things, on an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of its application, has been under way since 2004. The chapter also considered the revisions currently being proposed by the European Commission and the European Parliament.

The purpose of this research is to highlight the financial characteristics of large French targets which were subject to takeovers during the period 2001–2007 and thereafter deduct the implicit motivations of acquirers.

Using a global sample of 128 French listed companies (64 targets and 64 non-targets), the authors carried out Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney testing and logistic regression in order to test nine hypotheses likely to discriminate between the two categories of companies (targets and non-targets).

According to the results, target firms are more unbalanced in terms of growth resources and less rich in liquidity than their peers. They have unused debt capacity, offer greater opportunities for growth than firms in the control group and present low levels of value creation.

The main limitation of this study is regarding the sample size, limited by the exclusive use of large firms (deals of over $100m). The scope of this research could be broadened in future by including medium-sized companies.

The authors believe that their results have two major implications. First, they enable market investors to achieve abnormal returns by investing in predicted targets through a portfolio of high takeover probability firms. Second, CEO of companies that are potentially targeted can assess their takeover likelihood in order to act and to manage such a situation for the benefit of their shareholders.

This research concerns the last wave of takeover prior to the subprime-mortgage financial crisis (2001–2007), a period that has not been sufficiently covered in empirical studies. This research contributes to the existing literature in two main respects. First, the results of this study improve our understanding of motivations for takeovers, particularly in the French context. Second, the introduction of new accounting and financial variables, not previously tested in the literature, enriches the available information concerning the profile of takeover targets.