Search results

This case illustrates the differences between customers and the occasions when conditions change and buyer-seller relationships fail. The key issue is to find ways to anticipate this problem with other clients.

It may be used in second-year courses of MBA marketing programs as well as in specific executive education programs dealing with key account management (KAM) systems, business strategy, industrial marketing and/or sales management courses. This case can also be used at undergraduate programs and courses dealing with sales, sales management, international business, and organizational behavior.

In 2003, after Carlos Etcheverry joined San Antonio (SA) as Latin American Region Vice President, the company implanted a KAM System. SA's relationships with its two key clients, Vintage and Chevron, seemed to progress nicely until mid 2004, when Chevron's newly hired Purchasing Manager decided to change the company's commercial structure, rendering its purchasing process more bureaucratic and extremely competitive. In March 2005, Etcheverry was to meet Chevron's purchasing manager, since Chevron had decided to reassign a service contract through a new invitation to bid, leaving San Antonio out. The case puts forth the questions faced by Etcheverry at the time of the meeting: How had San Antonio come to jeopardize a key account? Would SA's organization need a change? Was this the only solution available? What other factors should be considered?

This case may help students to: understand the complexity of key account management (KAM) system implementation, sales force concepts and business-to-business relationships; and analyze the difficulties faced by companies upon implementing a change in their sales strategies and the effects of this change on the sales force, corporate culture and the organization as a whole management system.

Teaching notes and a Technical note are available; also access to audio visual support with an interview to Carlos Etcheverry.

During December 2012, Jorge Paulo Lemann, a co-founder and partner at 3G, proposed to Warren Buffett that 3G and Berkshire Hathaway acquire H. J. Heinz Company. Lemann and Buffett, who had known each other for years, jointly decided that the Heinz turnaround had been successful and that there was significant potential for continued global growth. 3G informed Heinz CEO William Johnson that it and Berkshire Hathaway were interested in jointly acquiring his company. Johnson then presented the investors' offer of $70.00 per share of outstanding common stock to the Heinz board.

After much discussion, the Heinz board and its advisors informed 3G that without better financial terms they would not continue to discuss the possibility of an acquisition. Two days later, 3G and Berkshire Hathaway returned with a revised proposal of $72.50 per share, for a total transaction value of $28 billion (including Heinz's outstanding debt).

Following a forty-day “go-shop” period, Heinz, 3G, and Berkshire Hathaway agreed to sign the deal. But was this, in fact, a fair deal? And what might be the future consequences for shareholders, management, employees, and citizens of Pittsburgh, the location of the company's headquarters? Last, what was the role of activist investors in bringing Heinz to this deal stage?

After reading and analyzing the case, students will be able to:

• Understand the influence of investment bankers on M&A transactions

• Consider synergies that drive M&A

• Consider the role of activist investors in corporate strategic decision-making

• Understand the impact of M&A on key corporate stakeholders

• Apply core valuation techniques to support M&A valuation

Understand the influence of investment bankers on M&A transactions

Consider synergies that drive M&A

Consider the role of activist investors in corporate strategic decision-making

Understand the impact of M&A on key corporate stakeholders

Apply core valuation techniques to support M&A valuation

This study has used public sources, interview with one of the case protagonists.

This business case portrays the problems that an energy producing company faced in Portugal, in its transition from being a public company to becoming privatized. The Portuguese Government issued EDP with generous subsidies to guarantee its future profits and privatization success, but a few years later, after EDP was fully privatized, there was great political pressure to downsize such subsidies. The case describes the main steps taken by EDP from its creation and privatization, culminating at the end of 2017, where it was heavily criticized by media and political parties due to a high value of subsidies that had been granted to the company by the Portuguese Government in the past, while it was still a public company, and the renegotiation of those same subsidies after it had been privatized. EDP’s President António Mexia was under police investigation due to having led the renegotiation talks in 2007, and it was feared that EDP’s investors could refrain from investing in the company. Should EDP campaign to clear its good name, or would it be better to let the matter fall with the passing of time? Could the share value be affected? Should EDP prepare itself for loss of revenue due to an eventual downsizing of the subsidies?

This study covers energy sector, privatization issues and government support. The relevance of this study is good for use in Business Schools and MBA courses.