Search results

This case looks at the design and implementation of a risk management strategy. It reviews the early moves by Great Plains Energy (GPE) to establish a corporate-wide Enterprise Risk Management program. The corporate Chief Risk Officer is Andrea Bielsker. Andrea appointed Jana Utter to take charge of coordinating the design and implementation of the ERM program. Utter faces a number of challenges. She has had to first conceptualize the program given the charge by the Board of Directors, then design a process by which she identifies the risks that the corporation faces, assist in designing measures for the risks, and work with the various divisions and functional areas to put processes in place to mitigate the identified risks.

In response to the potential collapse of large financial institutions in 2007, the U.S. government committed trillions of dollars to loans, asset purchases, guarantees, direct spending to provide fiscal stimulus, expansionary monetary policy, and bailouts of various private financial institutions. The bailouts were especially controversial because public money was used to protect private financial institutions and their wealthy executives while ordinary citizens received no such protection. One outcome of the government's response was the proposal to enact into law the Volcker rule, which prohibited banks from engaging in proprietary trading, or trading for their own---not their clients'---benefit. Proprietary trading was believed to generate up to 10 percent of total trading revenues, which would have exceeded $5.9 billion in 2010 for the six largest American banks alone. If the Volcker rule were to become law, government agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FDIC, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, would write the detailed regulations that would implement the law. These agencies employed civil servants but were run by political appointees with technical backgrounds. After issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking the agencies would solicit comments from the public, which would help shape the regulations. Executives of large banks needed to decide how to respond to this potential change in their business environment.

After analyzing the case, students should be able to: Understand and map out the various interests at work in shaping a regulation Develop a nonmarket strategy for a company facing a potential regulatory change Predict the likely outcome of a proposed regulation

After discussing this case, the authors expect that the students will have the following learnings: critically analyse the latest Reserve Bank of India (RBI) banking proposal, which was proposed by the Internal Working Group (IWG) in November 2020. Understand concepts such as connected lending, crony capitalism and financial crisis. Have a basic idea about the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and regulatory framework in the Indian banking sector.

This case is an analysis of the recent RBI proposal on banking regulations in India. The authors have referred secondary data in terms of published papers by stalwarts and experts in the banking and economics field. This case analyses the pros and cons of the IWG proposal to RBI governing body. The case also touches upon interesting banking and macroeconomics concepts. What makes this case interesting is that RBI is open to receive comments from all the stakeholders till January 2021.

Applicable to undergraduate and postgraduate students studying banking and finance specialisation in commerce and business management streams.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

In October 2005, the representatives of the Planning Commission, Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and Ministry of Shipping met to discuss the RITES recommendations to work towards framing a policy document for running container trains by private and public sector operators on the IR network. Starting with this meeting until January 2006, various aspects of the RITES report were debated by the Planning Commission and Ministry of Railways to evolve a policy statement. There were concerns raised by the Planning Commission on the proposals by RITES which had implications such as entry barriers and denial of a level playing field with the incumbent, CONCOR. Other specific issues including entry criteria, entry fees and revenue share, and maintenance were questioned. In January 2006, a policy statement titled ‘Policy to permit various operators to move container trains on Indian Railways’ was released by the Ministry of Railways which stated the terms and conditions for running container trains by private and public sector operators on IR network. Subsequent to this, 14 parties signed up with the IR for container train operations. The empowered subcommittee of the Committee on Infrastructure was to meet in February 2006 to discuss the process for finalizing a Model Concession Agreement between Indian Railways and the container train operators. This case provides a background for this meeting.

The writing of this case study was triggered by the numerous media reports in 2020 that talked about the EU nations losing its solidarity. EU being a very appropriate example of economic, monetary and customs union while teaching theories of economic integration and international relations, the post-pandemic approach of EU leadership to rebuild the crisis-ridden member nations seemed an excellent material for developing a teaching case study.

The case study was written based on secondary data and published information available. Enough desk research was undertaken to build the characterisation of the protagonists and due diligence done to chronologically report all facts of the case as the story developed. It was decided to build the epilogue into the case study so that the case analysis had enough depth.

The case is set in 2020 when the global economy was reeling under the massive impact of a lockdown and the aftermath. The case study examines the model of economic union in international business and the various challenges that governance of an association of nations such as the 27 member EU can throw up. It examines the conflict of interest that can arise among member nations during critical circumstances such as the pandemic and its massive tolls.

EU had established itself as a critical international trade player and had already proven their might as a united entity to the world trade partners, given the fact that they were not only a customs union but also a monetary union. In this scenario when the pandemic threw them into the whirlwind of lockdown-induced crisis, the united front of the mighty EU all but crumbled. As the worst-hit economies of Italy and Spain struggled to pull themselves back to normalcy, EU experienced one of its worst solidarity crises.

EU’s president Angela Merkel and ally French President Emmanuel Macron with support from the EU Council’s President Charles Michel stepped forward to resurrect the badly hit economies. They viewed this as the best opportunity to bring about a united front by coming together at Brussels for a summit when lockdown eased up in July 2020. It was to be a show of unity to jointly bail out the severely affected member nations by grants rather than loans. The summit, however, snowballed into bitter arguments and open bickering between the wealthy and not-so-wealthy members, and they could not agree upon the issue of debt vs aid. The fact that the EU was an agglomeration of 27 nations, which were far from homogenous in socioeconomic status, not to speak of divided political ideologies, only added dimensions to the dispute. Negotiations repeatedly hit roadblocks. Can the EU leaders lead their bitterly divided house to a consensus?

The case is suitable for graduate and post-graduate levels. Management courses where international business studies, international trade blocs and global leadership are part of curriculum can use the case to teach concepts of “Regional economic integration”, “Economic and Political union” and theories of “International relations” and “Negotiation”. It can also be ideally used in an executive management programme on “Global Leadership” to highlight the complexities of “governance of international associations” and “consensus building amidst diversity”.

The case describes a situation where the government as the dominant majority shareholder in a listed Public Sector Enterprise (PSE) directs it through its executive Chairman (a government selected executive) to buy a part of government's stakes in another listed PSE, in which also the government is a majority shareholder. The Chairman is summoned for a meeting in the governing ministry and ‘persuaded' to agree to the proposal, without the proposal having been discussed in the company's board. Being a government appointed employee, the Chairman faces the difficult task of putting the matter for discussion in the board while informing the board that he had already agreed to the proposal. The case describes the events that preceded the board meeting to discuss the proposal. The board faces the unpleasant task of dealing with the Chairman's lapse in not taking the board into confidence prior to his agreement conveyed at the ministry meeting. A bigger difficulty was the possibility that the proposal was not desirable from ONGC's point of view. How will the board then convey the decision to the government? What levers does the board have to deal with the matter?

The COO for Suape Container Terminal, the largest deep–water port in Brazil's Northeast must consider a proposal presented by the users' council that calls for the establishment of a reservation scheme that minimizes the risk of docking delays. Under this proposal, ocean carriers, on the one hand, agree to pay a reservation fee that significantly increases revenue for Tecon Suape. On the other hand, they expect Tecon Suape to compensate them financially when a berth is not available upon vessel arrival. Tecon Suape's management team must evaluate that suggestion, as the team prepares to enter contractual negotiations with the users.

This case was developed using a mixture of publicly available documents created by the partner community, general information from public sources like the First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA) website and Government of Canada websites, and personal and first-hand experience of the indigenous coauthor, Storm Gould.

Wisikk is a Mi’kmaq sovereign reserve territory located in Mi’kmaq’ki in the place that settler governments call Nova Scotia. The community has existed in its location since time immemorial and has been recognized by the settler government since the early 19th century. An opportunity for community-run business has arisen for Wisikk based on the legalization of cannabis throughout Canada in 2018. This case’s protagonist is the community’s Vice-President for Business Development, Andrew Googoo, as he considers bringing a proposal for a cannabis retailing venture to the Chief and Council. Cannabis legalization in Canada left sales policies to the provinces and was silent as to the rules governing cannabis sales by indigenous communities on their sovereign territory. Considering both potential negative impacts to the community, as well as the potential financial benefits from a successful reserve-based cannabis dispensary, Andrew must soon present his initial findings to the Chief and Council for their deliberation and decision. Any venture undertaken by the reserve would require a loan from the FNFA, so Andrew must also consider the projections and reports that the FNFA would require to support their lending decision.

The case is appropriate for mid-level or capstone undergraduate and graduate business courses, especially those focused on entrepreneurship, business ownership or indigenous ownership. The case was originally developed for the accounting division of an international undergraduate case competition. In addition to accounting concepts like pro forma/budgeted income statements and decision analysis, it is intended to showcase some legal and cultural features of community-led indigenous business ventures. The idea is for students to explore concepts of sovereignty, community involvement and broader stakeholder impact, as well as more technical accounting and financial concepts.

The case describes the competitive advantages that U.S. farmers enjoy in the global cotton industry and the subsidies they receive from the U.S. federal government. Arguments for and against the subsidies are presented in the context of global competition. The case includes the data needed to estimate a supply curve for 2004 cotton production and predict the average 2004 cotton price using total cotton consumption for 2004. Students can also estimate the result of eliminating the U.S. cotton subsidies on the average 2004 cotton price.

Students have the opportunity to learn about the history and structure of U.S. cotton subsidies as well as their impact on global cotton prices. Students also are able to practice building and interpreting an industry supply curve.

The founding principle of contracts is the freedom of the parties. The parties are free to choose their terms and follow any modality of communication, oral or written. As they can freely make a contract, they can freely modify or unmake it. Written contracts have a clause, No Oral Modification Clause (NOM Clause), precluding oral modifications of the contract. Irrespective of it, business persons make oral agreements modifying the contract, and later, dispute its validity. If the parties are free to contract, why should the oral agreement not be binding? In a NOM Clause then, ineffective? The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd, explores this fundamental question on contract law.