Search results

This case study is designed to enable students to analyze the competitive landscape of a business impacted by technological disruption; evaluate the viability of an organic growth strategy using stakeholder analysis; evaluate the revenue and cost structure of Apollo 24/7 and decide on the future investment strategy; and analyze funding strategies of traditional hospitals versus pure digital players.

To extend its reach, Apollo Hospitals Enterprise (Apollo Hospitals), a leading private sector brick-and-mortar hospital chain in India known for using state-of-the-art technology, launched a unified virtual mobile platform Apollo 24/7 in February 2020, 45 days into the COVID-19 pandemic. The management believed that the digital platform had a unique ecosystem that could not be replicated. The analysts were optimistic about the impact of the decision on the future performance of Apollo Hospitals, as it was expected to lead to higher penetration and increased revenue. They also anticipated the unlocking of value, as and when the venture capitalist (VC) would invest in Apollo Hospitals. However, with increasing operating expenses on account of burgeoning technological and marketing expenses, things did not seem to go going as planned. Three years later, in February 2022 after the Q3 of financial year 2023 results. Suneeta Reddy, the company’s managing director found herself pondering whether the digital platform could boost Apollo Hospitals’ profitability in addition to expanding its reach and increasing affordability when the company missed the analyst estimates. In India, which was then the second most populous country, “incremental access” and “affordability” were what mattered to the patients, However, for the investors and analysts, it was quarter-on-quarter performance. The change in the macroeconomic environment stalled the company’s plan of raising money from VCs.

Furthermore, the financing dilemma also plagued Reddy. She knew there was a difference between financing for conventional businesses that for digital businesses. She also had to take decide between short-term profitability with which investors were obsessed versus long-term sustainability, which involved taking care of stakeholders’ interests.

This case study is basically aimed at postgraduate courses and executive management courses.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS11: Strategy.

This case was developed to serve as a foundation for student discussion of the use of contingent forms of payment in M&A. The protagonist in the case represents the buyer, and must design terms of contingent payment (“arnout”) that will protect the buyer if the rosy future does not occur, yet reward the seller if it does. Students are given completed discounted cash flow (DCF) valuations of the target (Digitech) under both the seller's and buyer's forecasts, which reveal a wide gulf in valuation. The protagonist seeks to bridge this gulf through a combination of fixed and contingent payments to the seller. Two different earnout designs are suggested in the case. Students must simulate the value of the earnout to estimate the expected value of this provision from the standpoints of both the buyer and seller.

In January 1996, an investment manager of a hedge fund is considering purchasing an equity interest in a start-up biotechnology firm, Rocky Mountain Advanced Genome (RMAG). The asking price is $46 million for a 90% equity interest. Although managers of the firm are optimistic about its future performance, the investment manager is more conservative in her expectations. She asks an analyst to fashion a counterproposal for RMAG's management. The tasks for the student are to apply the concept of terminal value, interpret completed analyses and data, and derive implications of different terminal value assumptions in an effort to recommend a counterproposal. Little computation is required of the student. The main objective of the case is to survey many conceptual and practical challenges associated with estimating a firm's terminal value. Issues addressed include the concept of terminal value; the materiality of the terminal-value assumption; the varieties of terminal-value estimators and their strengths and weaknesses; taxation of terminal values; when to assume liquidation versus going-concern terminal values; choosing a forecast horizon at which to estimate a terminal value; the constant growth valuation model, its derivation, limiting assumptions of constant growth to infinity, and WACC > g; use of the Fisher Formula as a foundation for estimating growth rate to infinity; and using a variety of estimates to “triangulate” in on a terminal value.

This case may be taught singly or used as a merger-negotiation exercise with “Chrysler Corporation: Negotiations between Daimler and Chrysler” (UVA-F-1240). Set in February 1998, the case places students in the position of negotiators for the company; their task is to value both firms, assess the potential earnings dilution of a combination, and negotiate a detailed agreement with their counterpart. The case can be used to explore such interesting negotiation issues as determination of a share-exchange ratio, treatment of major stockholders, and structuring a deal. Also, the case and exercise can be used to spark a discussion of acquisition in comparison with strategic alliance, or other less formal models of combination.

This case may be taught singly or used as a merger-negotiation exercise with “Daimler-Benz A. G.: Negotiations between Daimler and Chrysler” (UVA-F-1241). Set in February 1998, the case places students in the position of negotiators for the company; their task is to value both firms, assess the potential earnings dilution of a combination, and negotiate a detailed agreement with their counterpart. The case can be used to explore such interesting negotiation issues as determination of a share-exchange ratio, treatment of major stockholders, and structuring a deal. Also, the case and exercise can be used to spark a discussion of acquisition in comparison with strategic alliance, or other less formal models of combination.

In August 2005, an investment manager of a hedge fund is considering purchasing an equity interest in a start-up biotechnology firm, Arcadian Microarray Technologies, Inc. The asking price is $40 million for a 60 percent equity interest. Managers of the firm are optimistic about the firm's future performance; the investment manager is more conservative in his expectations. He calls on the help of an analyst with her firm to fashion a counterproposal to Arcadian's management. The tasks for the student are to apply the concept of terminal value, interpret completed analyses and data, and derive implications of different terminal-value assumptions in an effort to recommend a counterproposal. Very little numerical figure-work is required of the student.

In the (A) case, Jason Phillips, Chief Financial Officer of a soup manufacturing business, is given the task of maximizing the value of the firm twelve months after the case is set. Although he does not want to break any legal rules, Jason is interested to see whether accounting and real action choices can be used to enhance the company's financial position and increase its perceived value to investors. The case permits him to select from a menu of options, including decisions on product pricing, inventory levels, accounts receivables, leasing or purchasing a new machine and valuation or sale of securities. These choices are fed into an Excel spreadsheet which adjusts financial projections and accounting disclosures accordingly.

In the (B) case, Ben Kerr, Chief Investment Officer at one of Dragon's main competitors, considers the financial statements produced by Dragon to unravel any earnings management behavior and establish a true value for the company. Although the case can be focused on the accounting consequences of real decisions, a richer discussion is obtained when considering the ethical angles of the decision process. In particular, how much “earnings management” should be pursued and what types of behaviors are simply going to be unraveled by investors?

Students will explore: the concepts of “legal” earnings management as compared to true value optimization; whether sophisticated investors misled by such behaviors; and the management of information flows to investors.

In the (A) case, Jason Phillips, Chief Financial Officer of a soup manufacturing business, is given the task of maximizing the value of the firm twelve months after the case is set. Although he does not want to break any legal rules, Jason is interested to see whether accounting and real action choices can be used to enhance the company's financial position and increase its perceived value to investors. The case permits him to select from a menu of options, including decisions on product pricing, inventory levels, accounts receivables, leasing or purchasing a new machine and valuation or sale of securities. These choices are fed into an Excel spreadsheet which adjusts financial projections and accounting disclosures accordingly.

In the (B) case, Ben Kerr, Chief Investment Officer at one of Dragon's main competitors, considers the financial statements produced by Dragon to unravel any earnings management behavior and establish a true value for the company. Although the case can be focused on the accounting consequences of real decisions, a richer discussion is obtained when considering the ethical angles of the decision process. In particular, how much “earnings management” should be pursued and what types of behaviors are simply going to be unraveled by investors?

Students will explore: the concepts of “legal” earnings management as compared to true value optimization; whether sophisticated investors misled by such behaviors; and the management of information flows to investors.

This case considers the unusual terms under which Rhone-Poulenc, the large French chemicals producer, acquired the U.S.-based Rorer Group, Inc., in August 1990. Set a year later, in August 1991, the case reviews the terms of the merger and the experience of the new entity in its first year, and invites the student to evaluate the “contingent value right” (CVR) issued by Rhone-Poulenc in the merger.

The case describes the structure of Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs) created and launched in Indian markets in 2017. Besides introducing InvITs and their potential role in relaxing the financing constraint created by the lack of an active corporate debt market in India, the case can help in analysing why the market is discounting the IndiGrid unit price relative to its issue price. It also offers an opportunity to value IndiGrid's Patran acquisition.