Search results

In March 2015, Amgen is preparing for the launch of Repatha, a new molecule that has demonstrated a remarkable ability to treat high cholesterol. Through a series of clinical trials, Amgen has proven that the molecule is both safe and effective for patients with high cholesterol. It also is effective for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, a difficult-to-treat population that has exceptionally high levels of cholesterol. Amgen expects the FDA to approve the molecule before the end of the year. Now, the Repatha team has to develop a revenue forecast.

It is January 2014, and the case protagonist, David Milestone (senior advisor at the Center for Accelerating Innovation and Impact at the U.S. Agency for International Development's Global Health Bureau), is preparing for a meeting of global stakeholders and pharmaceutical manufacturers who are interested in reducing mortality caused by childhood pneumonia and are prepared to donate $10 million to support this effort.

Milestone's goal is to propose a strategy to address childhood pneumonia in Uganda, toward which the $10 million donation would go. In addition to effectively and sustainably reducing childhood pneumonia deaths, the plan must align the interests of various stakeholders behind the problem. A successful strategy in Uganda could be a model for interventions elsewhere. The United Nations Commission on Lifesaving Commodities for Women and Children recently identified Uganda as a “pathfinder” country, meaning it could serve as the example for other countries wrestling with the same issues. This is a remarkable opportunity to change the lives of children in Uganda—and all around the world.

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

• Perform a stakeholder analysis

• Appreciate the challenges involved in improving public health, especially in developing countries

• Create a patient journey and use it to identify potential impact points

Perform a stakeholder analysis

Appreciate the challenges involved in improving public health, especially in developing countries

Create a patient journey and use it to identify potential impact points

The case can be used in strategic management, international business or ethics courses. In strategic management courses, students will be able to identify political relationships as sources of a firm’s competitive advantage. Students will also understand the role of ethics in the firm’s competitive advantage. In international business courses, the students will be able to analyze the role that corruption and bribery play in the analysis of a country’s institutions. Students will also understand how corruption in a host country influences a firms’ decision to internationalize. Finally, students will understand the challenges that firms face when serving customers in other countries. In ethics courses, students will understand the nature of state/business corruption, i.e. the abuse of public office for private gain and the concept of state capture, i.e. managers controlling the political system for their advantage. Students will be able to analyze the decision of whether to collaborate with unethical partners or customers.

Bell Pottinger Private (BPP) was a British public relations (PR) firm with a successful but questionable reputation of helping famous critical figures and despots improve their public image. In 2016, Lord Tim Bell and the other leaders of BPP were asked to create a PR campaign for the Gupta family. The Guptas were a group of businessmen headed by three brothers who migrated from India to South Africa in the early 1990s. By the 2010s, they had built a business empire allegedly thanks to a corrupt relationship with the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma and his family. The press and prosecutors were increasing their investigations on these relations. The case has two parts, which address two separate challenges and can be taught as standalone cases or in a sequence in two sessions.

MBA and Executive Education.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International business.

In September 2015, VW had admitted to United States regulators that it had deliberately installed “defeat devices” in many of its diesel cars, which enabled the cars to cheat on federal and state emissions tests, making them able to pass the tests and hit ambitious mileage and performance targets while actually emitting up to 40 times more hazardous gases into the atmosphere than legally allowed. The discovery had prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to halt final certification of VW’s 2016 diesel models, and VW itself had halted sales of its 2015 models. As fallout from the defeat devices developed, VW posted its first quarterly loss in more than 15 years, and its stock plummeted. Top executives were replaced, and VW abandoned its goal of becoming the world’s largest automaker. Stakeholders around the world had been asking since the scandal broke: “How could this have happened at Volkswagen?”

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.

This case uses Uber Technologies Inc. to engage students in a serious conversation about how a firm both affects its stakeholders and is affected by its stakeholders as well as the role of strategic leadership in the amount of emphasis placed on ethical practices. Uber represents a visible high-growth startup that has received considerable positive and negative attention in the media; however, few people know of the extent of its aggressive management approach. Much of the publicity about Uber is both a direct consequence of and a direct consequence for stakeholder relationships. Students are asked to analyze Uber’s approach and offer suggestions for moving forward.

This case was created using secondary data sources. The issues for Uber that led the authors to write this case were not very flattering to Uber, and therefore, the authors decided to use secondary sources. Since Uber and many of its direct competitors were private companies, the authors collected as much financial data as the authors could from publicly available sources. Also, due to the contentious nature of some of the managerial tactics used within Uber, the use of secondary data sources was warranted.

This case was crafted with senior undergraduate students in strategic management as the primary audience, but is also relevant for MBA-level strategy courses as well. This case touches upon core content in the vast majority of undergraduate strategic management courses with a special emphasis on two concepts underrepresented in most strategic management textbooks, stakeholder theory and ethical decision making.

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows:1. Learn to analyze a hostile takeover bid from the perspectives of the acquirer, target firm’s management and a large institutional investor in the target firm.2. Review the structuring, financing, valuation, mode of consideration, legal and regulatory aspects of a hostile takeover.3. Understand the role of the target firm’s board in a hostile takeover transaction.4. Address “to sell or not to sell” dilemma of a large institutional investor in the target firm in the event of a tender offer given financial and non-financial considerations.

On June 14, 2019, Pulak Prasad, Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at Nalanda Capital, in consultation with other managing partners at Nalanda Capital, had to decide whether to tender a 10.6% equity holding in Mindtree Ltd. in an unsolicited open offer made by Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd. Until then, Nalanda Capital, led by Prasad, had aligned with the Mindtree founders and had led a campaign to thwart L&T’s bid to acquire Mindtree; L&T’s offer to acquire 31% of Mindtree shares was because of open on June 17, 2019 and it is time for Prasad and the management team to take a reasoned call – whether to stay in Mindtree or to exit? Associated aspects included – What could be the consequences of not selling the stake? What could be L&T’s game plan? Could Mindtree continue to create wealth for its shareholders under L&T?

This case is appropriate for Mergers & Acquisitions and Strategic Financial Management courses in modules focused on structuring, financing and takeover defence techniques in a hostile takeover transaction. The case is appropriate for graduate MBA and EMBA programmes.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.