Search results

Family members knew something was very wrong when Adolf Merckle, who had guided the family holding company, VEM Vermogensverwaltung GmbH, through dozens of successful investments, left the house one afternoon in January 2009 and failed to return. That night their fears were confirmed when a German railway worker located Merckle's body near a commuter train line near his hometown of Blaubeuren, about a hundred miles west of Munich. It was no secret that the recent financial crisis had taken a toll on Merckle's investments. He was known in Germany as a savvy investor, but had lost hundreds of millions of Euros after being caught on the wrong side of a short squeeze of epic proportions involving Volkswagen stock. This was not the only large bet against that company's stock. A number of hedge funds, including Greenlight Capital, SAC Capital, Glenview Capital, Tiger Asia, and Perry Capital, lost billions of Euros in a few hours based on their large short positions in Volkswagen's stock following the news on October 26, 2008, that Porsche AG had obtained a large long synthetic position in Volkswagen stock through cash-settled options. In the next two days, this short squeeze produced a fivefold increase in Volkswagen's share price, as demand for shares from hedge funds exceeded the supply of borrowable shares.

This case focuses on the massive equity derivative positions entered into by Porsche in relation to Volkswagen stock and by TCI and 3G in relation to CSX stock. Students will learn how equity exposure can be created without buying stock and without prior disclosure. The role of regulators, courts, and investment banks that facilitate these transactions is also explored.

The CFO of a diversified baking company must decide whether to issue convertible debt rather than straight debt or equity. In evaluating the proposed terms of the convertibles offering, the student must value the securities by valuing the call option (using option pricing theory) and the bond component. This case introduces the topic of convertible securities. Student and instructor worksheet files are available for use with the case and teaching note.

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.

January 27, 2005, was an extraordinary day for Gillette's James Kilts, the show-stopping turnaround expert known as the “Razor Boss of Boston.” Kilts, along with Proctor & Gamble chairman Alan Lafley, had just orchestrated a $57 billion acquisition of Gillette by P&G. The creation of the world's largest consumer products company would end Kilts's four-year tenure as CEO of Gillette and bring to a close Gillette's 104-year history as an independent corporate titan in the Boston area. The deal also capped a series of courtships between Gillette and other companies that had waxed and waned at various points throughout Kilts's stewardship of Gillette. But almost immediately after the transaction was announced, P&G and Gillette drew criticism from the media and the state of Massachusetts concerning the terms of the sale. Would this merger actually benefit shareholders, or was it principally a wealth creation vehicle for Kilts?

To understand the factors that persuaded shareholders of both P&G and Gillette to merge their companies, the valuation metrics involved in determining the merger consideration, compensation packages for key managers, and the politics (internal, local government, and regulatory) that impact major mergers.

This case is a vehicle for discussing the theory and practice of option pricing through the valuation of warrants of Chrysler held by the U.S. government and of the loan guarantee provided by the U.S. government to Chrysler.

Via this case, students are introduced to several alternative methods of valuation, including the valuation based on the “real options” theory. The novelty of the case is the link between valuation and the type of innovation that the company represents. The suggested valuation frameworks, which include both quantitative and qualitative assessments, are applicable not only in the context of an IPO valuation but also in the context of any kind of M&A activity.

This case was prepared mostly via secondary research. All the information about Uber and the industry was collected via publicly available sources. No internal documents of the company were used in the preparation of this case. The primary research consisted of an interview with the protagonist Catherine (whose name is disguised). Other disguised elements in the case include the name of the Value Investor conference organizer (Spyros Spyrou, not his real name), the country of the Value Investor conference (omitted) and the conference venue (Princess hotel, not any actual venue).

In 2019, Uber, the famous ride-sharing company, made waves in financial markets as the most controversial IPO valuation. With a wide range of proposed values, Uber puzzled investors, once again living up to its fame of a rebel and a disruptor. When Uber finally went public in May 2019, its IPO valuation stood at $82.4bn. The heated discussion in the media continued even after the IPO: “Is Uber worth this amount? Is there an upside potential for the investors who bought shares at the IPO price? What if this is a hype and markets are simply embracing higher valuations?”

This case can be used at the undergraduate, graduate (MBA) or executive level in finance-related courses such as Company Valuation or Valuing Innovation, which cover the topic of valuation and specifically the topic of valuing innovative companies.

This case explains marketing process for follow-on equity offerings, the direct and indirect costs of issue, and the long-run performance of equity issuers. Students use analysts' projections from which to estimate the intrinsic value of the company's share—including the cost savings from the VEBA and financial improvements over the next several years. It is appropriate for use in corporate finance courses covering the topics of capital raising, equity financing, capital structure, costs of financing, funding alternatives, investment banking, and valuation. It presents the classic profile on an equity issuer—a firm whose stock price has risen to new heights in recent months. Will the issue lead to additional value that creates opportunities for shareholders, or is it a sign the firm is overvalued? The case explores the thinking of a prominent investment manager who had accumulated a large stake in Goodyear and who did not see the need for Goodyear to make an equity issue at this time. The company's position was that the high stock would allow it to further strengthen its balance sheet and pursue international growth opportunities. Students are asked to decide what the investor should do with respect to the current offer—buy, sell, or hold.

The theoretical basis for the case is information asymmetry and signaling theory, with buybacks providing a mechanism for reducing information asymmetry between management and investors. The controversy surrounding buybacks has led to political and regulatory scrutiny, which, consistent with evidence from academic research, may affect corporate behavior.

The compact case is based on secondary, public information about stock buybacks. All sources used are cited in-text, with full citations included in the references section at the end of the teaching note.

Stock buybacks, a means of providing returns to shareholders, have recently received increased scrutiny by politicians, media and shareholder activists. Proponents have argued that buybacks result in efficient allocation of capital by returning funds to shareholders, whereas opponents have criticized buybacks for enriching executives, providing tax advantages to shareholders and contributing to income inequality. Corporations did not curtail their use of buybacks after the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 imposed an excise tax. The case frames the buyback debate in current events and focuses on the buyback activity of Apple. The case provides students the opportunity to analyze alternative ways that companies can provide returns to shareholders, evaluate impacts of buybacks on corporate stakeholders and appraise the reasons for, and implications of, current controversy regarding buybacks.

This compact case is appropriate for upper-level undergraduate or graduate courses in financial accounting, tax and finance. This case provides an opportunity to analyze and evaluate stock buyback decisions in the context of the current controversy related to buybacks.

The case highlights a $1.4 billion fraud committed by the founder of a NYSE listed, Information Technology Services firm in India. In response to the crisis, the Indian government appointed an interim board to find a strategic investor in the company. The case traces the events leading to the fall of the company. Students are asked to analyze the governance and intermediation failures, assess the financial position of the company and to estimate the intrinsic value of the company from an acquirer's perspective.