Search results

The case uses primary source documents, such as the court cases brought forth by the SEC and US District Attorney, for the specifics about the fraud and secondary sources for further background information about the town and industry. The individuals in the case are not disguised. The authors have no connection to the case.

Thomas Laws was a CPA, a registered investment advisor and a real estate broker. Laws made a poor business investment. Instead of taking the financial hit, Laws orchestrated a complex Ponzi scheme using clients from his CPA practice and embezzling money from an employer, Santa Fe Gold Corporation. Laws’ scheme continued until his employer confronted him about missing funds. Frank Mueller, the CFO of Santa Fe, did not exercise the due diligence necessary until it was too late. Rest’s framework for ethical decision making is used to frame the ethical decisions Mueller can make. The case examines the conflict-of-interest guidance issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and allows students to examine the due diligence and controls needed by employers and prospective investors.

This case is designed for undergraduate accounting students taking Intermediate Accounting I, ACCT 0312 at the authors’ institution, typically junior-level students. It would be appropriate whenever you introduce the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct during an ethics discussion.

This case is based on primary archival research. The original reports from MSCI, Sustainalytics and S&P 500 formed the foundation of the case in addition to the 144-page Tesla’s 2021 Impact Report. Secondary sources were used to provide contextual information. All sources are cited as endnotes.

In June 2022, Tesla, Inc., the Austin, Texas-based electric car company faced a number of challenges that called into question its environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. Questioning the company’s corporate governance practices, SOC Capital, a watchdog organization publicly released a letter that it had sent to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission where it had demanded that the agency sanction the company for not replacing an independent director at its next stockholder meeting. The State of California’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment filed a lawsuit alleging various counts of discrimination at Tesla’s manufacturing facility in Fremont, California. S&P Global removed the company from its index of ESG companies. This action had negative consequences for the company’s stock price. Tesla’s board of directors, led by Robyn M. Denholm, had to address Tesla’s overall approach to ESG in light of these challenges.

The case is suitable for an upper-level undergraduate or an MBA course on strategy or strategic management.The issues in the case involve the stakeholder perspective, corporate governance and the purpose of a firm. Instructors face two choices here: using this case early in the course introduces the broader stakeholder perspective early on without addressing it as an afterthought at the very end of the course. The other choice is to use it at the end because most strategy textbooks cover these topics at the back end.

Data for the case came from public sources, including legal proceedings, court filings, company press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

In June 2020, former Pinterest employees made public charges of gender and racial discrimination. Despite changes implemented by the company, several Pinterest shareholders filed derivative lawsuits charging the company with breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and violating federal securities laws. The case provides an overview of the company’s management, board and stock structures, as well as information on the shareholders who sued the company and their concerns. The case raises substantial questions about management’s and board member’s responsibilities in corporate governance, illustrates how stock structures can be used to impede governance and suggests ways to evaluate activist shareholders.

This case is appropriate for graduate, advanced undergraduate or executive education courses in strategy, corporate governance or strategic human resources that discuss corporate governance, fiduciary responsibilities, designing workplace culture or management responses to shareholders. Instructors can apply two sets of theories and frameworks to this case: theories of corporate governance and Hirschman’s (1970) exit, voice or loyalty framework in the context of shareholder activism.

To complete this case, students will need to access financial statements from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s webpage. The links are provided. Students will also need to review the conceptual framework that is typically covered in Intermediate 1 to respond to question 5.

This case is based on the three financial statement restatements that Weatherford International Ltd. made over an approximately 18-month period. The restatements were due to a fraud committed by manipulating the income tax accrual in the financial statements. The manipulation used was to overstate the amount of income used to calculate the dividend exclusion and then use a relatively high tax rate to calculate the resulting tax benefit. The tax rate used for the fraud was substantially more than Weatherford’s effective tax rate (ETR), which was a prominent part of the company’s strategic growth plan. The tax senior with the external auditors who reviewed the entry made for the dividend exclusion captured the inconsistency with the comment that “This [the entry] deserves a huh?” The case is intended for students in Intermediate 2, where financial statement restatements and their effect on the company’s financial statements are typically covered. During the years covered in this case, Weatherford was also under investigation for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Weatherford’s FCPA violations included multiple instances of bribery, the inappropriate use of volume discounts, improper payments and kickbacks in the United Nation’s Oil for Food program. Weatherford received the eighth-largest fine in the history of FCPA violations (at that time) of $152m. Weatherford’s FCPA investigation expanded, and the company paid another $100m in fines for violations of sanctions law and export control law. This case focuses only on the fraudulent manipulation of the financial statements through the tax accrual and does not delve into the other investigations. However, the linkage between those investigations and the fraud in this case is Weatherford’s nonexistent internal controls.

This case was designed to be used in Intermediate 2 financial accounting classes to highlight financial statement restatements and review the conceptual framework and materiality. The students who used the case did not have difficulty with the tax aspect of the case. However, most of the students had taken one tax class previously or concurrently. If students have not had any exposure to tax, the instructor might want to walk students through the tax aspects of the case.

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.

This case investigation used firsthand statements, reports, testimony and regulatory records. While widely publicized in the popular press, this case is based on primary documents. On their website, many documents were obtained from Wells Fargo’s Corporate newsroom, such as the internal audit report shared with shareholders and press releases. Most other sources were from US regulatory websites (.gov) or congressional testimony. In a few places, quotes and comments came from reliable journalistic sites that cite their sources and follow a journalist’s code of ethics and conduct, ensuring that the reported remarks and data were verified.

Since 2016, Wells Fargo Bank has faced multiple customer mistreatment investigations and resultant fines. Public outcry and distrust resulted from Wells Fargo employees creating hidden accounts and enrolling people in bank services without their knowledge to meet desired levels of sustained shareholder growth. Over the past five years, Wells Fargo has been fined and returned to customers and stockholders over $3bn. Wells Fargo executives spent the first year of the scandal citing improper behavior by employees. Leadership did not take responsibility for setting the organizational goals, which led to employee misbehavior. Even after admitting some culpability in creating the extreme sales culture, executives and the Board of Directors tried to distance themselves from blame for the unethical behavior. They cited the organizations’ decentralized structure as a reason the board was not quicker in seeing and correcting the negative behaviors of these ‘bad apple’ employees. Wells Fargo faced multiple concurrent scandals, such as upselling services to retirees, inappropriately repossessing service members’ vehicles, adding insurance and extra fees to mortgages and other accounts and engaging in securities fraud. As time has passed, the early versions of a handful of “bad apples” seem to be only a part of the overall “poison tree.”The dilemma, in this case, is who is responsible for the misbehavior and the inappropriate sales of products and services (often without the customer’s knowledge)? Is strategic growth year-over-year with no allowances for environmental and economic factors a realistic and reasonable goal for corporations? This case is appropriate for undergraduates and graduate students in finance, human resources, management, accounting and investments.

An active case-based learning pedagogical approach is suggested. The materials include a short podcast, video and other materials to allow the faculty to assign pre-class work or to use in the classroom before a case discussion.

Data for the case came from public sources, including legal proceedings, court filings and Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The authors perused hundreds of court documents and identified 28 that were most relevant to this case. The authors also used press interviews with the women highlighted in the case. The authors have no relationship with the company and no one from the company has reviewed the information presented in this case. As the case is drawn from sworn legal testimonies, interviews and related documents in the public domain, the authors did not have to seek approval for publication.

Pinterest touted itself as “the nicest place on the Internet.” It had an almost 80% female user base and purported to have an inclusive culture that embraced diversity. However, in June 2020, in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, two former female employees of color violated their non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to publicly accuse Pinterest of racial and gender discrimination. In August 2020, Pinterest’s former Chief Operating Officer, Francoise Brougher, filed a lawsuit charging the company with gender discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination, and authored a public blog post titled, The Pinterest Paradox: Cupcakes and Toxicity, detailing her own experience with the company’s discriminatory culture. Three days later 236 of Pinterest’s 2,545 employees staged a virtual walkout and 445 employees signed a petition in an attempt to change Pinterest’s policies and culture. The case provides a brief overview of Pinterest, including its mission, values and organizational culture, and details several incidents and complaints by female and minority employees. The case questions whether employee complaints are a relatively narrow issue involving disgruntled former employees who did not fit at the organization or a much broader issue involving discrimination and managerial neglect in creating and maintaining a nondiscriminatory, inclusive culture. Students are encouraged to evaluate the situation in which Co-Founder, Board Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Ben Silbermann finds himself, evaluate the actions taken and decide if Silbermann should take any additional actions to address the discrimination claims and ensure a positive culture for all employees.

This case is appropriate for graduate and advanced undergraduate level courses in organizational behavior, human resource management and business law or any course where discrimination and workplace culture are discussed.

This case uses an array of carefully selected and excerpted revenue recognition related information contained in Salesforce.com's January 31, 2019, 10-K. Maria, the fictional protagonist, is seeking to understand those disclosures as part of her preparation for an upcoming job interview with the company. As such, she is relying on those disclosures to provide insights as to the company's main product/service lines, the events that signal when and how much revenue the company has earned (i.e., the essence of its business model), along with the related official generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) criteria pertinent to the valuing and timing of recorded revenues.

T Education is a leading educational science and technology enterprise in China with technology-driven, talent intimacy and quality leadership as the core development objectives. Since its inception, it has been committed to creating better learning experience for children. As the predecessor of T-education, X-education was founded in Beijing in 2003. At first, it mainly provided after-school math counseling for school-age children. Over the past 10 years, its business has been expanding, covering almost every aspect of school-age education. This case studies accounting issues and business ethics challenges that firms may face when they transform from a single (traditional education) line of business to a multiple channel business.

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.