Search results

This case serves as a foundation for student discussion of the estimation of required rates of return (ROR) on investments in emerging markets. An associate in J.P. Morgan's Latin America M&A department (mergers and acquisitions) is assigned the task of valuing the telephone directory operations (“paginas amarelas” means “yellow pages”) of a large Brazilian conglomerate. All cash flows have been converted to U.S. dollars, and present values computed for various discount rates. The remaining step is to determine the appropriate target rate of returns for dollar flows originating in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is used along with a political risk premium and country beta. The necessary figure work is comparatively light, leaving the student time to reflect on the need for various adjustments in estimating crossborder rates of return.

This case examines the formation of an alliance between Fiat and Chrysler during the height of the financial crisis as a mechanism to save Chrysler from liquidation. The case traces the events leading up to the alliance, discusses the early stage issues with which the partners have to deal, addresses some of the governance issues, and examines the past merger between Chrysler and Daimler that ended in a failure. The case presents a normative approach to alliance management and conjectures about the success of the Fiat-Chrysler alliance. We address whether Chrysler is a suitable partner and whether there is a strong enough rationale for the alliance and whether the two partners are compatible. Finally, the case explores the lessons learned and the cautions that might derail the alliance.

Gary Parr, deputy chairman of Lazard Freres & Co. and Kellogg class of 1980, could not believe his ears. “You can't mean that,” he said, reacting to the lowered bid given by Doug Braunstein, JP Morgan head of investment banking, for Parr's client, legendary investment bank Bear Stearns. Less than eighteen months after trading at an all-time high of $172.61 a share, Bear now had little choice but to accept Morgan's humiliating $2-per-share, Federal Reserve-sanctioned bailout offer. “I'll have to get back to you.” Hanging up the phone, Parr leaned back and gave an exhausted sigh. Rumors had swirled around Bear ever since two of its hedge funds imploded as a result of the subprime housing crisis, but time and again, the scrappy Bear appeared to have weathered the storm. Parr's efforts to find a capital infusion for the bank had resulted in lengthy discussions and marathon due diligence sessions, but one after another, potential investors had backed away, scared off in part by Bear's sizable mortgage holdings at a time when every bank on Wall Street was reducing its positions and taking massive write-downs in the asset class. In the past week, those rumors had reached a fever pitch, with financial analysts openly questioning Bear's ability to continue operations and its clients running for the exits. Now Sunday afternoon, it had already been a long weekend, and it would almost certainly be a long night, as the Fed-backed bailout of Bear would require onerous negotiations before Monday's market open. By morning, the eighty-five-year-old investment bank, which had survived the Great Depression, the savings and loan crisis, and the dot-com implosion, would cease to exist as an independent firm. Pausing briefly before calling CEO Alan Schwartz and the rest of Bear's board, Parr allowed himself a moment of reflection. How had it all happened?

An analysis of the fall of Bear Stearns facilitates an understanding of the difficulties affecting the entire investment banking industry: high leverage, overreliance on short-term financing, excessive risk taking on proprietary trading and asset management desks, and myopic senior management all contributed to the massive losses and loss of confidence. The impact on the global economy was of epic proportions.

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.

Set in September 1992, this exercise provides teams of students the opportunity to negotiate terms of a merger between AT&T and McCaw Cellular. AT&T, one of the largest U.S. corporations, was the dominant competitor in long-distance telephone communications in the United States. McCaw was the largest competitor in the rapidly growing cellular-telephone communications industry. Prior to the negotiations, AT&T had no position in cellular communications. This case and its companion (F-1143) are designed to allow students to be assigned roles to play. The case may pursue some or all of the following teaching objectives: exercising valuation skills, practicing strategic analysis, exercising bargaining skills, and illustrating practical aspects of mergers and acquisitions.

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.

This case may be taught singly or used as a merger-negotiation exercise with “Daimler-Benz A. G.: Negotiations between Daimler and Chrysler” (UVA-F-1241). Set in February 1998, the case places students in the position of negotiators for the company; their task is to value both firms, assess the potential earnings dilution of a combination, and negotiate a detailed agreement with their counterpart. The case can be used to explore such interesting negotiation issues as determination of a share-exchange ratio, treatment of major stockholders, and structuring a deal. Also, the case and exercise can be used to spark a discussion of acquisition in comparison with strategic alliance, or other less formal models of combination.

Key State Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plan (a disguised case of an actual BCBS Plan) is the merged product of three state plans. Initially burdened with a reputation of poor customer service, Key State's executives decided to invest heavily in service improvement, eventually achieving superior levels. Key State's high-quality customer service emerged as a true competitive advantage for its customers, who were primarily businesses and health benefits consultants who influenced corporate purchasers of health insurance. The Key State brand came to be synonymous with personal service, security, choice, and dependability. But the health care insurance market was changing under Key State's feet. Spiraling costs meant that high-quality service became less of a competitive advantage as employers were lured by low-cost, low-service providers. Many employers cut or dropped health care benefits entirely, swelling the ranks of the under- and uninsured, who in turn were extremely price-sensitive when shopping for health insurance on their own. Finally, the health care insurance market was being revolutionized by financial institutions willing to hold health benefit accounts and pay providers directly, thereby eliminating the need for Key State as a mediator. Key State executives were aware of these changes but were challenged by the mindset, culture, and organizational design custom-fit to their business accounts. The case asks the reader to consider whether Key State has the right number of target markets, whether it should have one brand or several for its different target markets, what it should do for the uninsured, and how it should improve its brand experience in light of the industry's changing landscape. All of these decisions will have significant implications for the organizational design of Key State.

To better understand the challenges involved in a successful health insurance company to cope with a rapidly changing and unpredictable environment; to formulate a new strategy and a new organizational design to accomplish this adaptation.

In January 2008, Citi and Merrill Lynch are trying to steer their ships back to calm waters. The new CEOs, Vikram Pandit (Citi) and John Thain (Merrill), have been at the helm of their companies for less than three months. This case focuses on their steps to counteract the massive losses resulting from their firms' investments in subprime-mortgage structures. What actions have these leaders taken thus far and what actions should they consider going forward? See also “Warren E. Buffett, 2008” (UVA-F-1550).

Strategic marketing/marketing management.

Undergraduate and post graduate courses in the principles of marketing, strategic marketing, strategic management, services marketing and hospitability management.

This case focuses on the critical success factors of “Scandic” hotel chain by highlighting its road to becoming the leading hotel chain in the Baltic region. This case covers a wide range of situations in which strategic marketing decisions were made, for example, the Scandic Sustainability Fund, supporting initiatives to promote sustainable social development. Special attention is devoted to how the case company's business philosophy is implemented to identify and differentiate its customers, in order to sustain a customer centric strategy and develop long lasting relationships.

Following analysis of the case students should be able to: first, understand how marketing strategies can be utilized to effectively differentiate organizations from their competitors by capitalising on distinctive strengths, leading to the delivery of better value to stakeholders; second, understand how marketing strategy deals with the interplay of “the strategic three Cs” (customer, competition and corporation) in better satisfying customer needs; third, appreciate how companies operate within a given environment and the benefits of developing an environmental strategy.

Teaching note including lecture plan.