Case studies

The case delves into the significant factors contributing to the steep decline of Sintex shares, examining both external and internal factors. Internally, the primary drivers were the expansion plan, the demerger decision, financial mismanagement and the delayed and inadequate integration of Information Technology (IT) into the business.

Sintex, a prominent private sector company listed in the Indian stock markets, operated in the textile and plastics sectors. However, in 2017, Sintex underwent a demerger into two separate entities: Sintex Industries Limited (SIL) and Sintex Plastics Technology Limited (SPTL). While SIL focused on textiles, SPTL dealt with plastics. However, soon after the demerger, the share prices of both companies began plummeting, leading to significant losses for investors. This case investigates the reasons behind this decline through a step-by-step analysis.

This case is suitable for postgraduate students pursuing an MBA, MMS and executive programs such as PGDBM and PGDM, with a specialization in business strategy. It is also beneficial for participants in management development programs (MDPs) designed for higher level executives. Additionally, the case can serve as training material for executives undergoing strategic role training within an organization. It is recommended to teach the case toward the end of the course, where the instructor can provide a summary of the previous classes’ teachings.

CCS7: Management Science

Steel Corp has a large production capacity but a shrinking steel market in Europe. Reaching growing markets like China and U.A.E will be important to sustaining and growing revenue but is tough due to higher transportation costs. In this case, users must identify and use logistics data; logistics customer segmentation and related cost analysis.

The COO for Suape Container Terminal, the largest deep–water port in Brazil's Northeast must consider a proposal presented by the users' council that calls for the establishment of a reservation scheme that minimizes the risk of docking delays. Under this proposal, ocean carriers, on the one hand, agree to pay a reservation fee that significantly increases revenue for Tecon Suape. On the other hand, they expect Tecon Suape to compensate them financially when a berth is not available upon vessel arrival. Tecon Suape's management team must evaluate that suggestion, as the team prepares to enter contractual negotiations with the users.

This case was designed to facilitate discussion of how a cyberattack was remediated by a major public university. Students are challenged to think through how to best manage the remediation project, including the application of best practices such as risk management, stakeholder management, communication plans, outsourcing/procurement management, and cyberattack remediation. The Phoenix Project was a success from multiple perspectives, and as such provides a useful example of how to manage an unplanned, mission-critical project well.

Communication Solutions (CS), a woman-owned business, experienced fast growth at its inception, and then found itself slowing after the mid-2000s recession. The firm provides consulting services, primarily to government agencies. The owners have brought the business to sales of about $10.5 million in 2012, but revenues declined following that peak year because of cutbacks in government spending and founder Jennifer Madison’s detachment from the business. Even though they recognize that it may not be an ideal time to sell, they are tired of running the business and want to sell now, as long as they can pay off their debts.

This case was researched through multiple interviews with Mark and Jennifer, who provided all of the financial data and background. All financial statements given in the case provide actual CS numbers. The name of the company and the names of the owners have been changed, at their request to disguise the company. At the time this case was written, the owners were in negotiation with a potential bidder, and did not want their names or their company name to be used. Market information and information about comparable companies was researched using publicly available financial data bases.

This case has the potential to be used in a variety of classes, depending on what the instructor wishes to emphasize. The author uses the case as a valuation case in a corporate finance class (suitable for undergraduates or MBAs), allowing students practice in discounted cash flow valuation and comparable multiples valuation. It could be used in an investments class which teaches business valuation, particularly in teaching valuation using market multiples. The case could be used in an entrepreneurial finance class. The author uses this case to illustrate the difficulties of business valuation with messy (but real) data.

This case explores small business valuation and exit strategies for founders. Students can put themselves in the position of small business owners who are ready to exit. Students should value the firm using discounted cash flow and multiples valuation, which includes making assumptions about the future growth of the firm. While there is likely to be reasonable agreement on the “as is” valuation, there may be great variation concerning the assumptions and valuations of the company as it could be. Students can discuss (and implement) adjustments made when using large company comparables to value a much smaller company.

This case traces through a 20-year history of a Chinese high-tech company, Maipu Communications Technology Company. Throughout the company’s growth, Maipu adjusted its innovation models in order to ensure that they remained compatible with corporate strategies, resources and external environments. However, as the company grew bigger, it was finding it more and more difficult to meet its innovation goals. Its current innovation model is a market-driven platform + distributed innovation. While Maipu has achieved some success under this model, it is faced with a myriad of challenges during the execution of the model. The key questions raised by this case are whether Maipu’s current innovation model is suitable for the company at this stage and how the innovation model should be adjusted to propel new innovation and growth opportunities for Maipu in this increasingly competitive market.

This case was a field research case. The authors paid three visits to Maipu Communications Technology Company, during which the authors conducted in-depth interviews with Mr Zhao, the Head of Maipu’s R&D and Innovation group, and several senior and functional managers of the company. Follow-up communication via telephone and e-mail was conducted to verify the accuracy of the written case.

This case is well suited for courses in the areas of strategic management, innovation management, high-tech management, entrepreneurship, and international business. The target audiences of the case are primarily MBA students, although this case can also be used in upper-level undergraduate business courses.

The theoretical basis for this case includes the following management theories: strategy formulation and strategy implementation, business-level and corporate-level strategies, enterprise life-cycle, corporate strategies at various stages of growth, patterns of innovation and applications, and implementation of innovation strategies.

At three o'clock in the morning on September 10, 2001, Thierry Hautillac, a risk arbitrageur, learns of the final agreement between Pinault-Printemps-Redoute SA (“PPR”) and LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA (“LVMH”). After a contest for control of Gucci lasting over two years, PPR has emerged as the winner. PPR and LVMH have agreed for PPR to buy about half of LVMH's stock in Gucci for $94 per share, for Gucci to pay an extraordinary dividend of $7 per share, and for PPR to give a two and a half year put option with a strike price of $101.50 to the public shareholders in Gucci. The primary task for the student in this case is to recommend a course of action for Hautillac: should he sell his 2% holding of Gucci shares when the market opens, continue to hold his shares, or buy more shares? The student must estimate the risky arbitrage returns from each of these choices. As a basis for this decision, the student must value the terms of payment and consider what the Gucci stock price will do upon the market's open. The student must determine the intrinsic value of Gucci using a DCF model as well as information on peer firms and transactions. The student must consider potential synergies between Gucci and PPR and between Gucci and LVMH. The student must assess the likelihood of a higher bid, using analysis of price changes at earlier events in the contest for clues.

In early 2012, an equity analyst, was examining the jet fuel hedging strategy of JetBlue Airways for the coming year. Because airlines cross-hedged their jet fuel price risk using derivatives contracts on other oil products such as WTI and Brent crude oil, they were exposed to basis risk. In 2011, dislocations in the oil market led to a Brent-WTI premium wherein jet fuel started to move with Brent instead of WTI, as it traditionally did. Faced with hedging losses, several U.S. airlines started to change their hedging strategies, moving away from WTI. But others worried that the Brent-WTI premium might be a temporary phenomenon. For 2012, would JetBlue continue using WTI for its hedges, or would it switch to an alternative such as Brent?

This case could be used in entrepreneurship, strategy, and small-business courses. It presents classic issues regarding successful start-ups such as how to choose from a multitude of growth opportunities; how to pace growth so as not to dilute quality control and financial risk tolerance; and how to choose a strategic focus.

The first across-the-table negotiation between Google and China concluded successfully in 2006, when Google received a license to establish a local domain (google.cn) targeted at Chinese Internet users and not subject to the “Great Firewall.” During these negotiations both Google and the Chinese government struggled to reach an outcome that would be acceptable to their constituents. Google was caught between pleasing its shareholders and preserving its reputation for free access to information, while China was balancing the desire for cutting-edge search technology and the concern that liberal access to information would undermine its political-economic model. In the end, the negotiation resulted in Google operating two domains in China: Google.com and Google.cn. In early 2010, Google announced that its corporate infrastructure had been the target of a series of China-based cyber attacks and accused the Chinese government of attempting to further limit free speech on the web. These incidents led to a public conflict and private negotiations between Google and the Chinese government, which culminated in July 2010 when the Chinese government renewed the google.cn license knowing that Google was redirecting all Chinese customers search to its google.hk.com site This case concerns the changes in Google and the Chinese government's environment that led to Google withdrawing services from google.cn and the Chinese government saving face by renewing the google.cn license. The case is based on the publicly reported events surrounding two series of negotiations between the U.S. technology giant Google and the Chinese Government regarding Google's license in China.