Search results

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 The County was under an EPA mandate to update an outdated and overrunning sewer system.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.

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.

In March 1997, the board chair of this small steel mill is pondering how to finance the growth of his firm: either with an initial public offering of equity or a private placement of 8-year senior notes with warrants. The task for the student is to sort out the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each alternative—including valuing the possible securities—and recommend a course of action.

The learning outcomes of this paper is as follows: to understand and analyze the turnaround model of Pearce and Robbins (1993); to familiarize with parameters and actions in the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) framework of Reserve Bank of India (RBI); to comprehend the probable situation warranting turnaround; to identify the key ratios which signal the financial health of a bank; and to understand the applicability of the turnaround model in bank’s revival.

The case explores various challenges faced by Mr Prashant Kumar during the turnaround process of Yes bank. The youngest bank started its operation in 2004, and in the first six years of operations, Yes bank registered a compound annual growth rate of 100% on the balance sheet, becoming the fourth-largest private sector bank in the country. However, the irony is that this shine and glitter was a short-lived phenomenon and after the regulatory inspection of 2016, Yes bank collapsed like a house of cards. This case has incorporated the three major phases of Yes bank i.e. the rise, the fall and the revival. The turnaround process led by Mr Kumar was explained using the turnaround model given by Pearce and Robbins (1993) and the PCA framework of the RBI. The conditions which warranted the need for the turnaround in Yes bank and the factors responsible for the same are discussed. The multiple challenges faced by Mr Kumar and the strategic responses adopted by him were incorporated in great detail. What were the outcomes of those strategic choices? Should he continue with similar approaches? Was he successful in stabilizing the bank which was broken from the core? What next if stability is achieved? How Mr Kumar should lift Yes bank to the recovery zone? And most importantly, will Mr Kumar be able to change the poor public image of Yes bank? The reflections of all the above questions are narrated with the actions of Mr Kumar.

The case is intended to be taught in the class of strategic management for postgraduate-, master- or executive-level participants of business administration. As the case is focused on a banking organization, it also can be taught in banking class.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

In mid-June 2000, MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor is considering an investment of $125 million of convertible preferred stock in his firm by a group of private investors including Citadel Investment Group LLC. The offer comes at a difficult time for the company, because only three months earlier, its stock had reached a record price of $300 per share. At that point, the company had registered a $1 billion seasoned equity offering. Shortly thereafter, the company was forced to restate its earnings after running afoul of the SEC for its revenue-recognition practices. Although the restatement did not change the company's cash-flow position, it did result in an SEC investigation and the cancellation of the stock offering. In order to meet Saylor's ambitious plans for MicroStrategy, additional funding must be obtained. With public-market funding sources shut off, students must evaluate what the best course of action is for the firm at this moment. Students are asked to evaluate a new form of venture financing called private investments in public enterprises (PIPE). PIPEs differ from conventional floating-rate convertibles in that the conversion price in most cases can only be adjusted downward. The case considers both the pros and cons of these investments.

In November 2003, John Fruehwirth, a principal at Allied Capital, was considering a $20 million mezzanine investment in growth capital for Elephant Bar, a California restaurant chain. Elephant Bar had had some initial success in California but now Allied's investment committee had to wrestle with the question of whether the restaurant concept was strong enough to travel and become a national brand or whether it was mainly a “California Concept.” And if the concept was strong enough to travel, would Allied Capital be able to meet its underwriting standards? Because Elephant Bar is a company with aggressive growth plans, it is significantly riskier than traditional mezzanine investments. The case can be used in courses on venture investing to illustrate another funding source available to young companies. Traditional mezzanine financing is often used to provide a portion of the funding for late-stage investments, such as leveraged buyouts. The case can also be used in courses on private equity to illustrate the perspective, risk mitigation strategies, and return expectations of mezzanine investors.

This case has a teaching note and a spreadsheet, which are available to registered faculty members.

Arvind Mills incurred a loss of Rs.316 crores in the year 1999-2000 after a period of declining profits in spite of increasing sales. In January 2001 lenders to Arvind Mills received the Information Memorandum on Debt Restructuring which offered several alternative schemes. They had to decide whether they should accept the proposal and if they accept which specific scheme they should choose.

The case was created via an interview of the protagonist.

The case describes the dilemma a young leader, Captain Bryson, faces after a few months in his new organization. Amid a routine meeting, two of CPT Bryson’s direct reports get into a verbal (and nearly physical) altercation over a relatively benign issue. CPT Bryson must decide how to handle the conflict at that moment. Further, the organization is resource constrained, so the personnel will be working in the same organization for at least the next six months. Therefore, CPT Bryson must try to diagnose the types and sources of conflict so that he can decide on how to manage the conflict in both the short and long terms.

This case is designed for use in undergraduate and graduate level courses on leadership and management. The case is useful for teaching lessons (or electives) on conflict management, developmental communication (counseling), emotional intelligence and power and influence.

In March 2009, Steve Fowler, vice president of strategy and client service at full-service advertising agency Ayzenberg, had just completed what he considered to be one of the most innovative campaigns he had ever handled. Capcom, a leader in the video gaming industry, had just launched Resident Evil® 5 (RE5), the latest release of one of the industry's most valuable game franchises. RE5, a powerful asset with a passionate fan base, had warranted the use of an online viral, or word-of-mouth (WOM), campaign for its worldwide game launch. Although the creative work and appropriate media for the RE5 launch had been meticulously planned, Fowler was also interested in measuring the effectiveness of the campaign to better serve his client. In the past, measuring WOM was practically impossible. However, a software company named Meteor Solutions had found a way to do exactly that. Fowler and his team had worked with Meteor to execute several campaigns for other clients, but he had never applied Meteor tools on such a large scale. Fowler knew Capcom would want to hear specific WOM figures. What was the return on investment for the RE5 campaign and the implications for future campaigns? Had the Meteor tools provided comprehensive and actionable information, or was more work needed before these solutions could be widely used in advertising?

How to measure the value and fully leverage social media marketing including key success factors, challenges, metrics and implications for future campaigns and other industries.

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.