Search results

In January 2012, Ellen Kullman, CEO and chairman of DuPont, must decide whether to retain or sell the company's Performance Coatings (DPC) division. This is an introductory case on valuing a leveraged buyout. The case focuses on a publicly listed corporation's decision to divest a large division and asks students to compare the division's value if it remains under DuPont's control or is sold to an outside party. The transaction size of approximately $4 billion is too large for potential strategic buyers in the industry, making private equity (PE) firms the most likely bidders. The case provides a base-case adjusted present value (APV) model of DPC as a stand-alone company and gives students specific assignments to adjust it to reflect the division's potential value under PE ownership (e.g., EBITDA growth, multiple arbitrage, and increased leverage).

The case is designed to illustrate and discuss the differences between a public company's valuation based on unlevered free cash flows and a PE sponsor's valuation based on residual (levered) cash flows.

This case has been successfully taught in a second-year elective course covering entrepreneurial finance and private equity and in an advanced undergraduate course on corporate finance. It is appropriate for use in classes on private equity, advanced corporate finance, or deal valuation.

In February 1991, the managers of this multinational specialty publishing company proposed to take the company private in a leveraged buyout (LBO). In addition to the ordinarily interesting features of the typical LBO, this transaction was the first to be denominated in ECUs and one of the few in which the managers provided all the equity financing. The tasks for the student are to value the company and evaluate the attractiveness of the transaction from the standpoints of seller, senior lender, mezzanine lender, and equity investor/manager. The case can be used to (1) exercise students' skills in valuing a highly leveraged company, (2) illustrate how deal structuring can mitigate potential agency problems, and (3) explore the problems and possible solutions associated with financing a global firm.

This case is taught at the University of Virginia McIntire School of Commerce in the fourth year course, “Corporate Restructuring.” The case is suitable for advanced undergraduates or MBS students that have already completed a course in corporate finance or valuation. The material would fit well in a second Corporate Finance class, particularly if the instructor would like to devote some time to discussing financial distress and restructuring. It could also work well in a business reorganization class at a law school. Danfurn LLC is a U.S. manufacturer and retailer of high-end furniture that is in financial distress following a 2007 LBO and subsequent declines in profitability in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007–08. The nearly 50-year-old company has recently blown through cash flow covenants on its $100 million senior financing facility and is seeking a restructuring of its capital structure that will allow the company to survive. Although Danfurn's lenders are hopeful that a consensual decision can be reached on how to restructure the company without resorting to a bankruptcy filing, filing for bankruptcy or even liquidating the company are very real possibilities. This case is an exercise in negotiating a consensual restructuring of a financially distressed company when stakeholders have varied incentives, legal rights, potential remedies, and interests in how the company will be managed going forward. The case discussion works best if students are divided into groups representing the different stakeholder groups—the senior lender, mezzanine lender, board, private equity owner, and founder interests—and are asked to think about how best to maximize their positions while recognizing the costs of failing to reach a negotiated outcome.

The director of equipment finance at Burlington Northern Railroad Company must decide if a leveraged-lease proposal is acceptable. The case emphasizes the importance of the lessee's tax status to the value of the lease and how the perception of residual value affects the valuation for both the lessee and lessor. To value the lease properly, the student must identify the relevant cash flows and the appropriate discount rates for those flows.

This case is used in Darden's course elective, Corporate Financing, and is accompanied by a teaching note for instructors and Excel spreadsheet for students. The Carlyle Group IPO case explores the circumstances leading up to the firm's IPO in May 2012. Over the past 25 years, Carlyle had grown from a fledgling private equity firm to one of the world's largest and most diversified investment firms. Carlyle had prepared extensively for the roadshow; management anticipated some tough questions. Students are asked to evaluate the extent to which Carlyle is undervalued relative to its peers. The case provides information on how to evaluate the earnings received by the public shareholders and outlines several alternative approaches to value PPEs.

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.

In the late 1990s, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) faced a rude awakening as Congress stipulated that it eliminate its reliance on federal subsidies by 2002. In response, Amtrak drew up a plan for self-sufficiency, the centerpiece of which was a new high-speed passenger service that, it was hoped, would boost revenue enough to make Amtrak self-sufficient by 2002. To run this new service, Amtrak needed to purchase $750 million worth of new locomotives and train sets in 1999. Three alternatives were available for funding the purchase: debt financing, lease financing, or reliance on federal sources. The case opens with Amtrak's CFO instructing her staff in April 1999 to review a leveraged-lease proposal that has just been submitted by BNY Capital Funding LLC. The objectives of the case are to introduce students to financial leases as a financing alternative, explore the lease-versus-buy decision and the conditions under which financial lease arrangements make sense, and exercise skills in the valuation of financial leases.

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.