Search results

This case study draws on interviews conducted with officials from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), City of Woonsocket and Town of North Smithfield. Additionally, it pulls from relevant legal documents, recordings and minutes from meetings of the Woonsocket City Council and North Smithfield Town Council, City Council resolutions, state legislation and local press coverage.

From 2012–2017, the communities of Woonsocket and North Smithfield engaged in a protracted dispute concerning wastewater disposal. For 30 years, the two jurisdictions had maintained a signed service agreement. Following its expiration; however, Woonsocket imposed a new host fee on North Smithfield. Woonsocket needed to upgrade the facility to comply with mandates from the RI DEM. Over the next five years, leaders from both jurisdictions vociferously fought over the new fee. At the same time, leaders within communities experienced their own divisions. This case study highlights the challenges that decision-makers faced in both communities.

This case is appropriate for graduate and executive level courses in environmental policy, communication and leadership.

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 April 1992, this multinational consumer foods and beverages company is the focus of takeover rumors, which have prompted an assessment of the firm's returns. The student must choose among the principal methods of estimating the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC) for GrandMet and its three main business segments, and must then produce WACC estimates in order to evaluate the firm's performance.

Winner of the 2014 EFMD competition for best African Business case.

In the 1990s, two entrepreneurs made daring, early entries into mobile telecommunications in Sub-Saharan Africa, both seeing great market opportunities there. One firm, Adesemi, would ultimately go bankrupt. The other firm, Celtel, would ultimately succeed and make its founder, Mo Ibrahim, a star of the global business community. Why the difference in outcome? Emerging markets often present weak rule of law, bringing many challenges to business success—from the demand for bribes to regulatory obstacles, hold-up problems, and even civil war. This case explores strategies that can limit these critical non-market risks in foreign direct investment and entrepreneurship. Students will step into the shoes of both companies by exploring their entry strategies, wrestling with the challenges they faced, and diagnosing the reasons why a shared insight about a new business opportunity turned out to be prescient—and led to extremely different endpoints.

• Identify key challenges to successful entrepreneurship in emerging markets

• Evaluate government officials or competitors that might trigger regulatory obstacles or hold-up problems

• Evaluate potential allies that can help avoid these problems

• Assess strategies to avoid paying bribes

• Understand the importance of incentive alignment in directing investment success, even in the face of difficult challenges

• Identify and appraise the strategic value of partnerships with development agencie

Identify key challenges to successful entrepreneurship in emerging markets

Evaluate government officials or competitors that might trigger regulatory obstacles or hold-up problems

Evaluate potential allies that can help avoid these problems

Assess strategies to avoid paying bribes

Understand the importance of incentive alignment in directing investment success, even in the face of difficult challenges

Identify and appraise the strategic value of partnerships with development agencie

This case is a relatively straightforward exercise in valuing a potential acquisition target. The case affords students an opportunity to use both discounted cash flow and multiples in their analyses. In addition, at the instructor's discretion, students can do a simple valuation of an option contract and analyze currency choice in a debt issue. The latter two objectives arise if the case is used as an examination. Case Exhibit 1 poses the relevant questions for student preparation.

A new director of this small brewery must prepare to vote on three issues coming before the board of directors the next day: (1) approval of the financial plan for 1993, (2) quarterly dividend declaration, and (3) incentive-compensation plan for the marketing manager. The tasks for the student are to evaluate the past and prospective financial performance of the company and to assess the extremely liberal credit and inventory terms the company is extending to its distributors. The objective of the case is to introduce and exercise tools and concepts of financial-statement analysis. Perhaps the biggest insight gained by students concerns the link between incentives and financial performance: in this case, the marketing manager is motivated to build sales volume, which he accomplishes by a dramatic buildup in receivables and inventory.

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.

In September, 2011, to prevent its currency from appreciating after the Global Financial Crisis, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) decided to peg its currency to EUR and announced that it would not let CHF go beyond 1/1.20 EUR. Maintaining the peg required the SNB to purchase foreign currency assets virtually endlessly in response to the worsening Eurozone crisis. By end of 2014, its foreign currency exchange reserves amounted to almost 80% of its GDP. In an attempt to deter capital flows and reduce its balance sheet size, in December, 2014, the SNB first bought the interest rate on commercial bank deposits to negative levels and then, facing impending quantitative easing by the European Central Bank, announced the removal of the peg on January 15, 2015. The case describes the backdrop and the circumstances leading up to removal of the peg.

Deutsche Bahn AG (Deutsche Bahn hereafter) was the former German railroad monopolist until deregulation in 1996. It was a well-known company that operated in worldwide markets for transport and logistics at the time of the case (late 2013). The case “Deutsche Bahn AG: a former monopoly off track?” focuses on the opportunities and challenges faced by Deutsche Bahn with regard to its position in the German individual transportation market. On the one hand, Deutsche Bahn is facing external problems. Increasing competition in short- and long-distance traffic threatens its strong business position. The competition emerged from a growing long-distance bus market and the increase in private railway companies. During the last few years before 2013, Deutsche Bahn has lost several public tenders for individual passenger travel in Germany. On the other hand, Deutsche Bahn has internal problems that endanger its image as a service company. A lack of service quality and the technical condition of its trains has led to rising numbers of customer complaints. In addition, staffing and punctuality problems have exacerbated the situation. One of the main technical issues the company faces is that ordered trains have not been delivered on time. Given the focus on Deutsche Bahn’s domestic challenges, its international business activities are tackled only briefly. While regulatory and political events have an impact on Deutsche Bahn, these are not the main subjects of the case.

This case has been written from public sources. Consequently, no company release is provided. None of the information has been disguised in any way.

The case is intended for use in a 90-minute strategic management class attended by students at the end of their undergraduate studies or in postgraduate study. Although the case relates to issues in strategic management, the special regulatory environment and some of the issues covered could make the case a useful complement in other classes as well, such as classes in supply chain management (procurement) or the management of public companies. Therefore, students should have basic knowledge in developing strategies, management, marketing, human resource management, and finance.

Strategic Analysis and Strategic Management, Railroad Logistics, Deregulation of a former Monopoly, Stakeholder Theory.

The theoretical basis for the case is information asymmetry and signaling theory, with buybacks providing a mechanism for reducing information asymmetry between management and investors. The controversy surrounding buybacks has led to political and regulatory scrutiny, which, consistent with evidence from academic research, may affect corporate behavior.

The compact case is based on secondary, public information about stock buybacks. All sources used are cited in-text, with full citations included in the references section at the end of the teaching note.

Stock buybacks, a means of providing returns to shareholders, have recently received increased scrutiny by politicians, media and shareholder activists. Proponents have argued that buybacks result in efficient allocation of capital by returning funds to shareholders, whereas opponents have criticized buybacks for enriching executives, providing tax advantages to shareholders and contributing to income inequality. Corporations did not curtail their use of buybacks after the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 imposed an excise tax. The case frames the buyback debate in current events and focuses on the buyback activity of Apple. The case provides students the opportunity to analyze alternative ways that companies can provide returns to shareholders, evaluate impacts of buybacks on corporate stakeholders and appraise the reasons for, and implications of, current controversy regarding buybacks.

This compact case is appropriate for upper-level undergraduate or graduate courses in financial accounting, tax and finance. This case provides an opportunity to analyze and evaluate stock buyback decisions in the context of the current controversy related to buybacks.