Search results

The Beringer Wine Estates Company has been expanding its market share in the premium segment of the wine industry in the 1990's. After operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the giant Nestlé food company for almost a quarter of a century, the firm was sold in 1996 to new owners, in a leveraged buyout. For the next year and a half, management and the new owners restructured the firm and expanded through internal growth and strategic acquisitions. With a heavy debt load from the LBO, it seemed prudent for management to consider a significant rebalancing of its capital structure. By paying off a portion of its debt and enhancing the equity account, the firm would achieve greater financial flexibility which could enhance its growth rate and business options. Finally, a publicly held common stock would provide management with another “currency” to be used for enhancing its growth rate and overall corporate valuation. With the equity markets in turmoil, significant strategic decisions had to be made quickly. Should the IPO be completed, with the district possibility of a less than successful after market price performance and these implications for pursuing external growth initiatives? A variety of alternative courses of action and their implications for the financial health of the Beringer Company and the financial wealth of Beringer stockholders are integral components of this case.

Groupon, an online coupon company, was one of many companies that considered an initial public offering (IPO) during what might be a second technology/internet/social media IPO boom in 2011. Some companies chose to postpone their IPOs, while others took advantage of the media attention focussed on technology companies, and in particular, social media firms. Should investors hop on the tech IPO bandwagon, or hold off to better evaluate the long-term prospects of tech companies, and in particular social media companies? Would the valuation of Groupon justify an investment in IPO shares?

The case was researched from secondary sources, using Groupon's IPO filing information, news articles about the IPO and industry research sources, such as IBIS World.

This case is appropriate for an advanced undergraduate or MBA corporate finance or investment elective. Most introductory finance classes do not have the time to cover later chapters in a finance textbook, where information about IPOs is generally found. It could also be used at the end of a core finance course, where the instructor wanted to introduce this topic through a case study of a hard-to-value internet-based company to illustrate the difficulties in setting IPO prices. The case could also be used in an equity analysis class, an entrepreneurial finance class or an investment class, to spur discussion about valuing an internet company and choosing appropriate investments for pension fund investing. This case could also be used in a strategy class, focussing on the five forces question, and eliminating the valuation question.

There is a great deal of literature about IPOs and their long-term performance. An excellent source is Jay R. Ritter's research, http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter, which has a longer time period and more data than could be contained in this case. IPO puzzles include persistent undervaluing of IPOs; in other words, the offer price is lower than, and sometimes substantially lower than, the first day close price. A second issue is the generally poorer long-run performance of companies after their IPO when compared to similar firms that did not do an IPO.

In the spring of 2004, Google was one of the most-talked-about IPO ideas since Netscape had gone public in 1995. Bullish investors believed Google could set off a string of successful IPOs following a lull in tech-offering activity since 2000. Executives at Google faced several questions in the following months: Should Google go public? What options did Google have for taking its shares to market? Was the traditional form of book-building necessarily the best course of action? Could a sealed-bid auction (e.g., W.R. Hambrecht's OpenIPO) yield superior results?

In 2011, Sherry Hunt was a vice president and chief underwriter at CitiMortgage headquarters in the United States. For years she had been witnessing fraud, as the company bought billions of dollars in mortgage loans from external lenders that did not meet Citi credit policy and sold them to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This resulted in Citi selling to GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pools of loans that were considerably defective and thus likely to default. Citi had also approved hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of defective mortgage files for U.S. Federal Housing Administration insurance. After reporting the mortgage defects in regular reports, notifying and working closely with her direct supervisor (who was subsequently asked to leave Citi after alerting the chairman of the board to these issues) to stop the purchase of defective loans, leaving anonymous tips on the FBI's and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's websites, and receiving threats from two of her superiors who demanded that she change the results of her quality control unit's reports, the shy and conflict-avoidant Hunt had to decide who she should tell about the fraud, and how.

The case gives students the opportunity to recommend how Hunt should proceed based on their analysis of the stakeholders involved. To aid instructors, the case includes Kellogg-produced videos of Hunt—the only on-camera interviews she has ever given—explaining what happened after she reported the fraud to Citi HR and, later, the U.S. Department of Justice. Within the case, students are also briefly exposed to legislation and bodies pertinent to whistle-blowing in the United States, including the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the SEC Office of the Whistleblower.

This case won the 2014 competition for Outstanding Case on Anti-Corruption, supported by the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), an initiative of the UN Global Compact.

• Analyze stakeholders' motivations to prepare counter-arguments to the resistance one might encounter when reporting unethical behavior

• Write a script for who to tell, how, and why

• Discuss how incentive structures, management, and culture play roles in promoting or hindering ethical behavior in organizations

• Identify behaviors that help a whistle-blower be effective

• Gain experience resolving ethical dilemmas in which two values may conflict, such as professional duty and personal ethics

Analyze stakeholders' motivations to prepare counter-arguments to the resistance one might encounter when reporting unethical behavior

Write a script for who to tell, how, and why

Discuss how incentive structures, management, and culture play roles in promoting or hindering ethical behavior in organizations

Identify behaviors that help a whistle-blower be effective

Gain experience resolving ethical dilemmas in which two values may conflict, such as professional duty and personal ethics

This case study is intended to supplement postgraduate business learning with the facilitation of an academic practitioner. The case draws on a culmination of subjects, and the participants are encouraged to juxtapose the case information with their professional experiences; however, the primary focus of the case material will be centred on strategy, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

The primary audience for the teaching case is management education programmes including: Master of Business Administration (MBA), Postgraduate Diploma (PGDip), specialist Masters in Management, and certain Executive Education programmes.

This case is about protagonist Ndabenhle Junior Ngulube, the cofounder of an innovative technology-enabled insurance intermediary company called Pineapple. The company has identified an opportunity to resolve the inherent conflict of interest within the insurance industry, as well as the grudge association of non-life insurance purchases. While the competitive landscape of the sector is traditionally dominated by a few large incumbent market participants, Pineapple's digital distribution strategy is more effective at converting ‘clicks-to-clients’, at a fraction of the typical customer acquisition cost. The peer-to-peer business model also allows for superior risk-selection, greater affinity, and lower incidents of fraudulent claims. Ndabenhle and the team develop the company's customer acquisition strategy by drawing on technological trends, reputation drivers, and a concentrated social media approach that focusses on trust, access, product, and value. But, as 2020 begins, Ndabenhle faces choices about the means and methods of scaling the business operation. The case documents the first few years of Pineapple's operations, with a strong focus on business model innovation, distribution, scalability, and technological integration.

To analyse the role disruptive technologies play within sectoral business model innovation

To evaluate the industry-specific competitive business landscape and complexities of building and maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage within a niche market segment

To assess the strategic growth opportunities for an emerging market Insurtech disruptor

To critically appraise the entrepreneurial complexities faced by decision-makers when looking to challenge incumbent market leaders

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.

In 2007 Conseco's CEO, C. James Prieur, faced a complicated set of problems with his company's long-term care (LTC) insurance subsidiary, Conseco Senior Health Insurance (CSHI). CSHI faced the threat of congressional hearings and an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, triggered by an unflattering New York Times article alleging that CSHI had an unusually large number of customer complaints and was denying legitimate claims. This threat came in addition to broader systemic problems, including the fact that the entire LTC industry was barely profitable. What little profitability existed was dependent on the goodwill of state insurance regulators, to whom the industry was highly beholden for approvals of rate increases to keep it afloat. Furthermore, CSHI had unique strategic challenges that could not be ignored: First, the expense of administering CSHI's uniquely heterogeneous set of policies put it at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the industry and made rate increases especially necessary. Second, state regulators were negatively predisposed toward Conseco because of its notorious reputation and thus were often unwilling to grant rate increases. Finally, CSHI was dependent on capital infusions totaling more than $1 billion from its parent company, Conseco, for which Conseco had received no dividends in return. Faced with pressure from Conseco shareholders and the looming congressional investigations, what should Prieur do? Students will discuss the available options in the context of a long-term relationship between Conseco and state insurance regulators. Prieur's solution to this problem proved to be innovative for the industry and to have far-reaching consequences for CSHI's corporate structure.

After reading and analyzing this case, students will be able to: evaluate the impact of a regulatory environment on business strategy; and assess the pros and cons of various market strategies as well as recommend important non-market strategies for a firm in crisis in a highly regulated industry.

After studying this case, students must be able to explain the rationale for going public; identify the type of markets available for listing a company on Bursa Malaysia and explain the listing process; and analyse pre-IPO financial performance using trend analysis, comparative analysis and common-size analysis.

Uniutama Education and Consultancy Sdn. Bhd. (UECSB) in Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) was a company with strong financial performance and growth opportunities. In 2020, UECSB was planning for an initial public offering (IPO), whereby the company could offer shares to the public. This would allow UECSB to raise capital from public investors, and increase UECSB’s credibility and exposure. Therefore, Halim, who was the General Manager of UECSB, needed to decide whether or not UECSB should go for an IPO.

This case is more appropriate for final-year undergraduate students, particularly those majoring in Finance. This case is also suitable for postgraduate students, especially those enrolling in Master of Business Administration (MBA), Master of Business Management (MBM) and Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) programmes, and Executive Education programmes in Management.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

Jefferson County was in a financial crisis as the commissioners faced a decision concerning whether the County should file for bankruptcy. The County was under an EPA mandate to update an outdated and overrunning sewer system. Estimates to do the work ranged from $250 million to $1.2 billion. The situation led to graft, corruption, bribery and illegal activities. More than 20 people were prosecuted in association with the illegal activities involved in financing and construction of the sewer system and four of the five commissioners were sentenced for their involvement in the corruption. Five new commissioners were elected and had to determine what to do after the down-grade of the County's bonds and warrants; the reduced revenues; and the corruption had put the County in a situation where funds were not available to continue to operate the County and provide services to its citizens. Should they declare bankruptcy or choose other paths open to them?

Data sources – this case is based on field research and interviews with a commissioner, court documents and from many other public sources. Extent of disguise – the case is not disguised.

The case can be used in graduate or upper division undergraduate courses in accounting, strategy, public administration or finance. There are several topics in the case that could be addressed: governance; economics, government and political issues, ethics, accounting, financial instruments, and strategy.

In November 2003, a vice president of Deutsche Bank Securities received a request from a client to finance the acquisition of a large hospital-supply distributor. The client needed to present to the seller an offering price and indication of financial commitment within two weeks. The contemplated transaction entailed a highly leveraged acquisition of the target. The tasks for the student are to value the target firm and projected synergies, assess the creditworthiness of the target (i.e., the ability to bear the high debt), and critically evaluate the general design of the transaction.