Search results

Are hedge funds heroes or villains? Management of Blockbuster, Time Warner, Six Flags, Knight-Ridder, and Bally Total Fitness might prefer the “villain” appellation, but Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and HealthSouth shareholders might view management as the real villains and hedge funds as vehicles to oust incompetent corporate managers before they run companies into the ground or steal them through fraudulent transactions. Could the pressure exerted by activist hedge funds on targeted companies result in increased share prices, management accountability, and better communication with shareholders? Or does it distract management from its primary goal of enhancing long-term shareholder value?

To determine the benefits and disadvantages of activist hedge fund activity from the perspective of corporate management and shareholders; to examine if a hedge fund's suggested corporate restructuring could create greater shareholder value; and to explain the changing roles and perspectives of hedge funds.

Data for the case came from public sources, including legal proceedings, court filings, company press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

In June 2020, former Pinterest employees made public charges of gender and racial discrimination. Despite changes implemented by the company, several Pinterest shareholders filed derivative lawsuits charging the company with breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and violating federal securities laws. The case provides an overview of the company’s management, board and stock structures, as well as information on the shareholders who sued the company and their concerns. The case raises substantial questions about management’s and board member’s responsibilities in corporate governance, illustrates how stock structures can be used to impede governance and suggests ways to evaluate activist shareholders.

This case is appropriate for graduate, advanced undergraduate or executive education courses in strategy, corporate governance or strategic human resources that discuss corporate governance, fiduciary responsibilities, designing workplace culture or management responses to shareholders. Instructors can apply two sets of theories and frameworks to this case: theories of corporate governance and Hirschman’s (1970) exit, voice or loyalty framework in the context of shareholder activism.

Within 18 months of exiting bankruptcy, Kmart's position was sufficiently strong to launch an acquisition of Sears, once the nation's largest retailer and also a core holding of ESL. Looks at a number of compelling issues related to Kmart's bankruptcy, restructuring, and rebirth under the control of ESL, a large hedge fund. Presents some of the key metrics that Eddie Lampert, head of ESL, had available to him as he made two decisions: first, in 2002, to amass a controlling stake in Kmart's defaulted debt during the restructuring; and second, in 2004, to launch a takeover of Sears. The first deal illustrates the decision-making process for a financial buyer, including the downside protection of Kmart's real estate holdings, whereas the second deal represents a traditional strategic acquisition. Illustrates the innovative use of real estate as a “hedge” for ESL in the event that the retail combination does not produce the required financial results. Also focuses on the role of investment bankers and the increasingly important position that hedge funds and LBO funds have carved out in the M&A market.

To outline the explosive growth in assets and influence of alternative investment managers, particularly LBO funds and hedge funds, and the transition of some larger hedge funds from shorter term trading strategies to longer term plays on distressed debt, restructurings, and turnarounds.

Aramex PJSC: carving a competitive advantage in the global logistics and express transportation service industry.

Entrepreneurship, International Business, Strategy.

Post-graduates, Practitioners.

This case chronicles the Aramex PJSC story of entrepreneur Fadi Gandhour. The case looks at the new start-up, its growth and financing plans for expansion and how it got a competitive advantage in an industry dominated by big players. Aramex, as of 2012, was the only Arab company to have successfully listed on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange. After 30 years at the helm of the company, Fadi Ghandour, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), was stepping down and was being succeeded by regional head, Hussein Hachem, the CEO of Middle East and Africa. Aramex had a competitive edge in emerging markets, and Fadi and Hussein knew that the route to sustainable growth was to capitalize on this opportunity using organic growth, acquisitions and strategic alliances.

Strategy included looking at gaining a competitive advantage in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and other emerging markets. Lessons are provided on capitalization of opportunity, funding and creating an organization culture that is sustainable and reflects the Founder's ideal.

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

The case and supporting teaching note were developed through the use of secondary sources such as company documents and archives, news articles and academic publications.

Jane Fraser, Citigroup CEO and the first woman to lead a major Wall Street bank, found herself at a crossroads. Weeks prior to the company’s 2022 annual shareholder meeting, Citigroup announced it would provide reproductive health-care benefits to employees traveling out of state for an abortion. Prompted by legal developments that hinted at the potential for a widespread ban on abortions, the announcement resulted in threats from Republican lawmakers to change course or suffer financial consequences. Through the case, students explore the role of business and corporate leadership in response to controversial political issues, including the potential opportunities and threats.

The case is best-suited for management or other business students at the undergraduate or graduate/MBA level. The learning objectives of the case would fit well within any of the following courses: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)/Business and Society; Business Ethics and Decision-Making; and Strategic Management. Instructors should position the case after students have been introduced to the topic of corporate social responsibility, ethical decision-making and/or CEO activism.

This case focuses on valuation using various methods to price a firm. Students attempting this case should know the basics of how to value a company using discounted cash flow, comparable multiples and comparable transactions. Students will need to calculate the weighted average cost of capital using comparable companies and the capital asset pricing model and determine differences in value created by an acquisition vs a leveraged buyout (LBO). The case also discusses qualitative issues in mergers, such as fit between target and acquirer, integration issues, potential high debt from LBO.

This case was library-researched, using Amazon and Whole Foods public filings and business press papers.

Whole Foods Markets received a buyout offer from Amazon. Whole Foods could solicit offers from other firms, including firms more directly in the grocery business. Whole Foods also considered a management buyout or purchase by a private equity firm. Whole Foods had underperformed, with a falling stock price and reduced profitability. Amazon’s bid was attractive, a premium of about 40 per cent over Whole Foods’ pre-merger stock price. Whole Foods also wanted to consider issues such as culture. Whole Foods’ strategy was to sell organic foods at premium prices, while Amazon was a retail discounter with a largely online business.

This case is appropriate for graduate students at the end of their introductory course or for graduate or undergraduate students in a corporate finance elective, particularly a merger/restructuring elective. The case has been used in an advanced undergraduate finance elective, with a team presenting the case to the class, with remaining students in the class required to write case summaries and questions for the presenting group.

With the establishment of Competition Commission of India (CCI), Competition law-class actions, especially with regards to abuse of dominance by monopolists, are slowly becoming unhappy realities with both government-owned as well as private companies. This case used Coal India Limited (CIL), a public monolith which was penalized recently by CCI, as a subject of analysis to delve deeper into various conceptual understandings related to public sector functioning, such as public versus private provisioning, natural versus designed monopoly, dominance versus abuse of dominance, corporate governance versus government mandated governance, and finally natural resource allocation.

The case examines the liquidity issues that J. C. Penney (JCP) experienced in 2012 and 2013 following a decline in sales and profits over several years. Despite once being a highly profitable and growing company, the increasing pressures of competition led to changes in strategy and in management that were insufficient to return the company to the consistent financial results it had previously enjoyed. While sales and profits waned, the cash balance also suffered, and Wall Street analysts began expressing liquidity concerns as the company wrestled with having enough cash on hand to cover daily operating needs.

Students are asked to calculate a time series of quarterly liquidity and leverage ratios to illustrate the declining financial condition of the company. They are further challenged to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of raising equity versus debt as a solution for the company's lack of liquidity. To assess the amount of external capital required, students are asked to use a sources and uses analysis that provides intuition for the cash flow challenges facing the company. Set against the background of an iconic retailer, the case provides an engaging context in which to discuss the need for a major capital structure decision due to operational challenges.

Roger Cagle, the co-founder and deputy CEO of SOCO International, watched the dreary London rain outside his office window one February morning in 2015. Never had SOCO, the oil-and-gas exploration and production player that ranked among Britain’s top 200 companies, experienced such a public backlash against its operations. For nearly 20 years, Cagle had helped steer his company’s projects around the world—often in volatile regions where others feared to tread, such as Vietnam, Russia, and Yemen—while delivering significant returns to investors. But the international uproar surrounding SOCO during the past year had been nothing short of mind-boggling.

Adani Power Limited (A) is the first case in a series of cases on the attempts by the firm to wriggle out of negative consequences of long-term fixed price power purchase agreements it had entered into. The firm wanted to terminate the agreement on the ground that its bid was based on coal allocation by another Government owned entity. This case describes as to how the firm was unable to get the contract terminated due to regulatory interventions. The case also raises public policy issues including the robustness of guidelines for procurement of power.