Search results

The decade from 2000 until 2010 was a turbulent time for Toyota Motor Company. The carmaker came under significant criticism from the United States government, consumers throughout the world, and media critics amid allegations of poor quality control and vehicle safety concerns. Problems with accelerators and brake systems were found on several of its most popular models, a situation initially exacerbated by the slow and somewhat tentative response from top management. Toyota was accused of not addressing early warning signs that appeared several years before the crisis received intense negative publicity. Toyota struggled to retain the confidence of consumers and governmental regulators, eventually recalling approximately eight million automobiles.

The case deals with comparison of two events namely Bhopal Gas Tragedy and BP Oil Spill Tragedy. Specifically, the case compares the negotiation process and its outcome. In other words, the case compares how negotiation was carried out on behalf of victims of these tragedies and resulted in optimal outcomes in one situation and sub-optimal outcomes in another situation. It case also provides insights into cross-cultural issues in negotiation process as one of the events took place in emerging economy (India) and other one in a developed economy (USA). The case gives insight for individuals on how handle communication process during the course of negotiation.

Supplements the (A) case.

Learning objectives are as follows: Analyze the reasons for the implementation of retrospective taxation by the Government of India; infer the dynamics of international tax laws and the settlement process of international taxation disputes; critically analyze the factors that led to the Indian Government’s decision to scrap the retrospective tax; and infer the relationship between a country’s taxation system and its potential to attract foreign direct investment.

This case is an analysis of the Indian Government’s decision to scrap the retrospective taxation amendment. The case discusses the underlying factors that led the incumbent government to take this sudden decision. The case discusses in detail the causes for the introduction of the retrospective taxation amendment and the tax terror unleashed by this draconian law. The case also discusses the embarrassment faced by the Indian Government because of a series of adverse decisions against it and in favor of Cairn Energy and Vodafone in the international courts. It also discusses the adverse effect on Indian banks in case of ailing telecom conglomerate Vodafone Idea Ltd failure.

The case is best suited for postgraduate and executive students studying Taxation subjects in Commerce and Business Management streams.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

Entrepreneurship, family business.

MBA, executive MBA

PN Rao Fine Suits, famously known as the “best tailors” for men's suits and groom wear, started with their first shop in 1923 as a small business of a tailoring shop catering to the needs of the British ladies in Bangalore, India, and by 2013, had four showrooms spread across Bangalore and Chennai, with an annual turnover of INR360 million. Over the years, the patrons of PN Rao have grown not only in Bangalore but across the globe, from countries such as the USA, the UK, Germany, Japan, Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands. The PN group had three business arms: the PN Rao showrooms, Rupasi and PN Rao Creations. This family business has survived nine decades in business, with the third generation of family now actively involved in the operations and expansion of the business. Chandramohan Pishe and Machender Pishe, the second-generation brothers in the business, believe in a conservative growth path for their brand, compared to the third-generation cousins, Naveen Pishe and Ketan Pishe. Naveen and Ketan are aware of the market opportunities and the competition and often look for the differentiator that their brand can offer. They are very enthusiastic about their future expansion plans and would like to open 100 showrooms by 2023, their centennial year. The market indicators are favourable and, if leveraged strategically, do offer opportunities to fulfil their expansion plans. Naveen and Ketan firmly believe in the need of instituting a family constitution as they move forward with their expansion plans. The second generation is not very confident of this idea, however, as they believe the family values to be strong enough to continue in the same fashion.

Understand the challenges of a small business and the importance of re-inventing by leveraging a mix of market opportunities to grow and sustain; to evaluate the need and importance of family constitution at the PN Rao Group to sustain, scale and govern in a manner so as to avoid any kind of future family business conflicts.

teaching notes are available for educators only. please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

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.

This case examines the ethical issues raised when businesses contract for the military during time of war. Dow Chemical Company was a military contractor during the Vietnam War and the primary producer of Agent Orange - a defoliant used to clear vegetation. Agent Orange has been linked to a number of serious medical conditions in war veterans and Vietnamese civilians. In 2004, Vietnamese citizens filed suit against Dow for illnesses they believe were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. Dow thought the issue should have been addressed through political and social policy, while Vietnamese citizens and U.S. Vietnam war veterans believed Dow was ethically responsible. As the case moved through the U.S. judicial system, some of Dow's investors grew uncomfortable with how it was handled. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris was left to wonder what his company could have done differently and what they could learn from the Agent Orange episode that might prevent similar problems in the future. This incident appeared to be a relatively distinct case, but in July of 2007 it was reported that the number of private contract employees in Iraq exceeded that of U.S. military personnel. Consequently, it is likely that companies and their stakeholders will have to address similar issues.

This is an illustrative case analyzing shareholder and accounting outcomes and legal issues resulting from a merger of two major publicly traded companies. In today's business world, the “urge to merge” is tempered by heightened shareholder activism. In response to this activism, boards must proceed with care when negotiating mergers. Challenges to mergers that appear to be in the shareholders' best interest occur often. As is the case here, shareholders and their well funded legal representatives, seek damages for alleged bad decisions. Conoco Oil and Phillips Petroleum announced their intention to merge in November 2001. At that time the cost of gasoline spiraled ever upward and large oil firms put heavy competitive pressure on smaller oil producer/refiners. The merger described as a “merger of equals”, intimated that neither Conoco nor Phillips shareholders would receive a financial advantage (or disadvantage) over other merging shareholders following the completion of the merger. Immediately following the announcement, Michael Iorio, a Conoco shareholder, filed a lawsuit, claiming damages to Conoco shareholders from the merger of the two firms.

This case study draws on interviews conducted with officials from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), City of Woonsocket and Town of North Smithfield. Additionally, it pulls from relevant legal documents, recordings and minutes from meetings of the Woonsocket City Council and North Smithfield Town Council, City Council resolutions, state legislation and local press coverage.

From 2012–2017, the communities of Woonsocket and North Smithfield engaged in a protracted dispute concerning wastewater disposal. For 30 years, the two jurisdictions had maintained a signed service agreement. Following its expiration; however, Woonsocket imposed a new host fee on North Smithfield. Woonsocket needed to upgrade the facility to comply with mandates from the RI DEM. Over the next five years, leaders from both jurisdictions vociferously fought over the new fee. At the same time, leaders within communities experienced their own divisions. This case study highlights the challenges that decision-makers faced in both communities.

This case is appropriate for graduate and executive level courses in environmental policy, communication and leadership.

The objectives of the case study are to provide an overview of intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights in Indian context; understand the intellectual property rights implementation and challenges for implementing it in emerging economies; understand what would be the best approach that companies can adopt when the companies face backlash in such circumstances; and explore the scope for redefining the intellectual property rights in the changing global environment.

In December 2021, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA) in India revoked the plant variety protection (PVP) certificate granted to PepsiCo India Holding (PHI) for its Lays variety potato (FL-2027, known as FC-5). The FC-5 variety possessed low moisture content which made it suitable for making potato chips. The controversy started with Pepsi suing the small and marginal farmers of Gujarat for alleged patent infringement and cultivating the patented variety. Pepsi’s legal suit against nine marginal potato farmers in Gujarat initiated the dispute over how intellectual property (IP) rights are used to intimidate small, marginal farmers and its infringement of farmers’ rights. But, on the other side, the interesting aspect was how IP infringement could be a setback for the companies that made the capital investment to develop the variety. The case study discusses the backlash Pepsi faced due to this IP rights legal suit and the punitive aspects of IP rights (IPR) law. Moreover, in the context of the global pandemic, the case study helped discuss the need to redefine the intellectual property rights regime keeping in mind global welfare.

The case is intended for use in postgraduate-level management courses in agricultural marketing, agribusiness, international business and economics. This study can help management students understand how IPR is defined, the apparent complexities associated with it and the adverse effect of it on small and marginal farmers in emerging economies.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 5: International business.