Search results

This case presents the “best practices” of a highly successful post-merger integrator that grew from $400 million in 1997, to $1.5 billion in 2000, to $4 billion in 2002. The case focus is on the $4.0 billion IT sector of Northrop Grumman, a company confronting immense change in the rapidly consolidating defense business. This integration is unique in that the product is a complete melding of various companies, systems, leaderships, and cultures of 11 legacy organizations. Not only is the result an organization with a new identity, but also one with new strategic capabilities unavailable to any of the stand-alone legacy companies. A teaching note is available to registered faculty, along with video clips that include footage of weapons systems (e.g., B-2 bomber) and information about the company's PMI process.

On April 4, 2007, Don Imus, one of the company&s most popular talk show personalities made comments on the air regarding the Rutgers women&s basketball team. According to the transcription from Media Matters for America, Imus said, “ That&s some nappy-headed hos there. I&m gonna tell you that now, man, that&s some … woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like … kinda like … I don&t know.” At first, the comments did not seem out of the ordinary for one of radio&s “shock jocks.” However, as the public reaction grew, the situation changed considerably. Under pressure from the public, Moonves reluctantly suspended Imus. But it was too little too late. By the end of the day on April 11, analysts estimated that $2.5 million in advertising revenue was lost. On April 12, Moonves terminated Don Imus& contract.

After Moonves fired Imus, there was still a lot to consider. He really wanted a way for the company to meet the demands of the company&s stakeholders. In addition, he wanted to avoid any more distractions from the firm&s normal day-to-day operations.

The case is set in summer 2016, centered on the writer and performing star, Lin-Manuel Miranda, whose Broadway show Hamilton had grossed almost $75 million and won 11 Tony Awards. The musical's cultural influence was buoyed by Miranda’s 578,000 Twitter followers; hundreds of celebrities from Oprah Winfrey to Jennifer Lopez had become ambassadors for the musical; and its impromptu #Ham4Ham live performances were engaging thousands of people on social media with each release. The case explores specific tactics the show employed, challenges students to consider the importance of personality in creating social media buzz, and studies the practical influence social media may have had on the show’s success. It is appropriate for any marketing course, particularly a digital media class in which students are familiar with the major platforms.

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.

Later in the discussion, the options for long run strategy in dealing with a possible takeover offer and other strategic options can be discussed by the class. Lack of familiarity by students with the role of the outside potential acquirer of the camp (in this case, a hotel chain) and the lack of familiarity with the role of an investor who is a family investor, who may wish to sell stock and use the proceeds for another purpose, or a small investor who invests because he or she uses the camp and takes advantage of the stockholder’s discount will probably preclude role playing, except in executive MBA classes where students have sufficient experience in possible takeover situations or in investment management, Emphasis should probably be placed on discussing the major issues, such as social and cultural issues and on marketing and public relations issues and on financial issues, including the options available in the event of a possible takeover effort. All of these issues are impacted fully by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Instructors will need to play an active role in teaching this case. It is recommended that the instructor give a short lecture or discussion at the beginning as to how a camp such as Camp Teddy functions. The authors recommend that the instructor then begin the case discussion by asking students questions about such issues as social and cultural issues and marketing and public relations issues.

Camp Teddy is a seasonal camp for families in rural Connecticut adjacent to New York City and suburbs in New York and Connecticut. It is technically a for-profit organization but operates more like a nonprofit organization because many of the campers own shares and have used the camp sometimes for several generations. The camp has traditions that are liked by many of the shareholders and campers. Although net income has increased in the past year, there does not seem to be enough funds to support necessary capital expenditures to improve facilities for the future. The largest stockholder has recently died. His immediate heirs’ control 300 of the 1,000 shares and other family members control 400 shares with the remaining 300 shares in the hands of small shareholders, many of whom use the camp each summer. A large hotel chain is interested in possibly acquiring the camp through a buyout or perhaps a hostile takeover, with a potential large gain to shareholders. The board of directors must consider a number of issues to insure good occupancy of the camp in the future and must decide what to do about a potential takeover attempt.

This case can be used in several courses, including investment management, hospitality management, corporate finance and business strategy. There are ethical and societal issues in the case, so that the case might also be used in courses looking at business, environment or business ethics. The case is best used at the graduate level, but it might be suitable for some advanced undergraduate courses.