Search results

In writing this case, the research team used secondary resources such as academic journals, trade magazines and websites to inform and verify the information.

January 7, 2021, was not a good day for Goya Foods CEO Robert Bob Unanue, who has been at the helm of Goya since 2004. On that day, the nine-member board of directors of Goya censured Unanue for publicly questioning the legitimacy of the 2021 United States Presidential election. A day before, on January 6, a mob “trapped lawmakers and vandalized the home of Congress in the worst desecration of the complex since British forces burned it in 1814” (Hockstein, 2021).

Unanue was considered a follower of former president Trump and has expressed that “the country was […] blessed to have a leader like President Trump, who is a builder” (Hawkins, 2020). In January 2021, Unanue appeared on Fox News and said a “ war was coming,” as Joe Biden’s election was “unverified.” These, among other words, motivated the censured by the board of Goya Foods, Inc. (Santana and Isidore, 2021).

Students are asked the following questions for discussion: Did the board of directors of Goya Foods carry its role too far by openly censuring Unanue? Did Unanue go too far by openly expressing subjective opinions and thus influencing how people view the election results? Should he have remained as CEO of Goya Foods after his words on Joe Biden’s election?

One of the authors has taught the case in the Strategic Management course for MBA students. In addition, graduate students of corporate governance, business ethics, social responsibility and leadership, among other classes, will be the target segments for the case.

1. Recognize the effects on brand image and sales when CEOs participate in political arenas and publicly discuss social issues.

2. Understand the dynamics behind ethnic family businesses, such as their governance and conflict resolution approach.

3. Assess the value of the corporate board’s management of corporations.

CCS11: Strategy

In April 2012 Bill Nichols, a financial analyst at the real estate investment firm Koenig Capital, was about to enter a unique lease renegotiation. One of Koenig's tenants, Hasperat Inc., had sixteen years left on its long-term lease of the Kelley Building, a 165,000-square-foot office building in downtown Cleveland. The lease contained a clause giving Hasperat the option to buy the Kelley Building from Koenig. When Nichols tried to place a mortgage on the property to take advantage of low interest rates, he learned that the existence of this option in the lease contract prevented lenders from offering Koenig their lowest rates. As a result, Nichols had been tasked with renegotiating the lease to remove the option clause. This unexpected event offered Nichols the opportunity to use his financial skills. He needed to calculate the fair value of the purchase option to be able to justify to his superiors by how much they should compensate Hasperat. Students will step into the role of Bill Nichols and apply real options modeling techniques to value the purchase option in Hasperat's lease.

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

• Apply real options theory to the valuation of a purchase option in a commercial real estate lease

• Identify the common mistakes in applying traditional discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to financial problems with option components

Apply real options theory to the valuation of a purchase option in a commercial real estate lease

Identify the common mistakes in applying traditional discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to financial problems with option components