In 2013-14, the Indian government issued Inflation Indexed Bonds for institutional investors and Inflation Indexed National Savings Securities for retail investors. The immediate trigger for the issue of inflation indexed securities was the coincidence of an increase in trade deficit, an increase in gold imports and a period of high inflation, leading policy makers to conclude that households were increasing their gold holdings as a hedge against inflation. It was expected that investors would use the Inflation Indexed Bonds to hedge against inflation and reduce their demand for gold. However, response to the inflation indexed securities was poor and the issue was not considered a success. The government must now decide whether this was a case of wrong policy or wrong execution.
Fruitzone India Limited is the Indian subsidiary of the multinational company Gypsy Inc., the global leader in the beverages industry. The company was contemplating launching a new flavour of fruit juice and decided to conduct a feasibility study. It hired an external market research agency, India Monitor International (IM) to conduct the market research. This case discusses the exploratory phase of the research conducted by IMI. This case is useful for participants in Business Research Methods, Market research and Qualitative research courses
Fruitzone India Limited is the Indian subsidiary of the multinational company Gypsy Inc., the global leader in the beverages industry. The company is conducting a market research to identify a new flavour of fruit juice that they could launch. The case discusses how Fruitzone India Limited conducts an exploratory research and then prepares to conduct a confirmatory research. The case can be used to discuss different exploratory research techniques, how to interpret the findings of exploratory research and questionnaire construction. This case is useful for participants in Business Research Methods, Market research and Qualitative research courses.
Supplement to case A00053. Fruitzone India Limited (FIL) is the Indian subsidiary of the multinational company Gypsy Inc., the global leader in the beverages industry. The company has conducting a market research to identify a new flavour of fruit juice that they could launch. The case discusses how the data collected in confirmatory research using a primary research is analyzed and interpreted. This case is useful for participants in Business Research Methods, Market research and Qualitative research courses.
Supplement to case A00053. Fruitzone India Limited (FIL) is the Indian subsidiary of the multinational company Gypsy Inc., the global leader in the beverages industry. The company has conducting a market research to identify a new flavour of fruit juice that they could launch. After they had completed the confirmatory research they still had some questions and they have gone for another round of validation through primary research, including simulated test marketing. This case is useful for participants in Business Research Methods, Market research and Qualitative research courses.
Near the end of 2014, Derek Belch decided to turn his master's thesis into a virtual reality athletic training company called STRIVR Labs [Sports Training in Virtual Reality]. Born out of Stanford University's famed Virtual Human Interaction Lab, STRIVR garnered immediate interest from a wide array of organizations. Having played and coached football at Stanford University, Belch had connections within several professional and collegiate football programs. Furthermore, he had tested STRIVR's revolutionary product extensively with the Stanford University Football team throughout the 2014 football season. During this testing phase, Belch made drastic improvements to the virtual reality training solution, and several national media outlets began to take notice of the innovative technology. Against this backdrop, Belch was able to secure several meetings in the beginning of 2015 with coaches, scouts, and NFL executives, with the hope of acquiring a few customers. By the end of June, STRIVR had signed contracts with two NFL teams and six colleges. By the end of August, STRIVR had added an additional four NFL teams, three college football teams, the NBA's Washington Wizards, and the NHL's Washington Capitals. As STRIVR grew its customer base, it generated significant press, which led to even more inbound interest in STRIVR's solutions. Much of the interest came from sports teams, eager to utilize STRIVR's sports training solution. However, several companies approached Belch to discuss partnership opportunities outside of sports training-some related to sports entertainment, and others in industries completely unrelated to sports. In less than a year, Belch and the STRIVR team had seemingly endless opportunities for growth. And while Belch was thrilled about the many potential avenues for STRIVR's continued expansion, he knew that the excitement needed to be tempered with caution.
In February 2015, Premier Explosives Limited (PEL) was preparing for a sudden expansion. The Indian company was the sixth-largest manufacturer of explosives in the country and also made defence products such as solid propellants and pyrogen igniters. PEL had many prominent customers in the mining industry and defence business, and exported bulk explosives to a number of countries. PEL signed a joint venture agreement with the well-regarded Kalyani Group, to manufacture additional defence products. To fund the expansion, PEL approached the Commercial Bank of India for a preferential allotment of equity shares to mobilize ?510 million and an enhancement of working capital limits from ?460 million to ?740 million. The Central Bank of India's president of the investment banking group perused the proposal, but was presented with a dilemma due to the recent slowdown in the mining and infrastructure sectors - the main industries that used PEL's products. Given the decline and the associated risks, should the banker reject the funding proposal for PEL to expand?
In April 2011, a university professor of accounting and finance was examining the financial statements of Pangang Group Steel Vanadium & Titanium Company (Pangang), a leading Chinese steel manufacturer listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. Pangang had a dramatic turnaround in its reported net income in 2010 with its share price rising over 60 per cent in a six-month period. The professor suspected that the controlling shareholder of Pangang - Anshan Iron and Steel Group Corporation (Ansteel) - had been manipulating Pangang's earnings to artificially inflate the stock price. The timing coincided with the expiry of put options awarded by Ansteel to minority shareholders as part of a restructuring. Was Pangang manipulating its earnings to influence stock prices? Was there sufficient evidence to expose the fraudulent scheme to the public or report the case to the Chinese securities regulators?
In April 2010, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Steelworks, a Singapore-based metals company recently acquired by an Indian conglomerate, embarked on a plan to realign the organization's structure and processes across its subsidiaries. However, he had difficulty getting the long-serving general manager of a plant in China to sign off on the current year’s audited financial statements. This led to a tense and bizarre confrontation between the CEO and the regional general manager. The restructuring project was taking autonomy from regional unit heads. Was that the problem? Was Steelworks mismanaging its subsidiaries? Had the general manager of the Chinese plant, a Singaporean expatriate, been seconded to China for too long? It was unclear how a member of the senior management team who had been with Steelworks for his entire career could behave this way and jeopardize his position. What could the CEO have done differently?
In July 2015, PT Trias Indra Saputra (TRIAS), Indonesia’s leading welded cable ladder producer, had just won its largest-ever tender bid. The news could get even better if it adopted alternative materials that were potentially more profitable. The production director was tasked with weighing whether TRIAS should fulfill the tender using its traditional supplier or the new materials. While more expensive, the new materials would cut out several production processes and associated costs. However, using the new suppliers presented significant risks. Only two mills, in Korea and Japan, supplied the appropriate material, and both companies presented different prices and import costs. Since TRIAS could be penalized if it did not supply the goods on time, the production manager also had to calculate the likelihood that each company could be delayed in supplying the order and how much that would reduce profits if it happened.
Solectric was a small solar power venture located in Sydney, Australia. The founder was an academic entrepreneur who was planning to return to his academic career. A new business development manager had been hired to explore and enter markets with varying degrees of uncertainty and potential profitability. The capital was running out and an unfocused strategy was exacerbating negligible sales revenues. Together, they were faced with the decision of which market(s) to focus on, how to allocate available capital, and how to consider the implications regarding distribution of equity and control.
Caesars Entertainment was a large casino operator in the United States that had been purchased in a 2008 leveraged buyout by Apollo and TPG. In January, 2015, Caesars Entertainment Operating Company (CEOC), its largest subsidiary, filed for Chapter 11. This set up a battle between the company and a set of large distressed investors. At issue was not only how to restructure the business and reduce Caesars debt, but also multiple lawsuits alleging that the company had damaged creditors in their quest to preserve equity value. Of particularly focus were a series of transactions that took place during 2013 and 2014 to sell assets from one subsidiary to another and to eliminate a valuable parent guarantee that had been granted to CEOC creditors. This case provides a good example of a variety of "defensive maneuvers" employed by companies and their private equity sponsors to protect a troubled investment.
IMAX is a provider of comprehensive testing and personalized content across mid-range and low-cost private K-10 schools in India. It aims to improve learning outcomes by providing schools with an integrated product suite including  textbooks, workbooks, assessments, feedback reports, personalized worksheets  and teaching support material. Its founders however, view their B2B strategy as a seeding strategy to eventually form a B2C education marketplace where they can collaborate with other education content companies and publishers to provide the right content to the right student in the right form at the right time. To fuel this rapid growth, IMAX has been scouting for investors. It has received an equity investment offer from a large Indian educational book publisher that has been rapidly acquiring companies to strengthen its hold in the education market. The founders must decide if they should accept the publisher's offer or continue to look for an investor who believes in their vision.
In April 2010, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Steelworks, a Singapore-based metals company recently acquired by an Indian conglomerate, embarked on a plan to realign the organization's structure and processes across its subsidiaries. However, he had difficulty getting the long-serving general manager of a plant in China to sign off on the current year's audited financial statements. This led to a tense and bizarre confrontation between the CEO and the regional general manager. The restructuring project was taking autonomy from regional unit heads. Was that the problem? Was Steelworks mismanaging its subsidiaries? Had the general manager of the Chinese plant, a Singaporean expatriate, been seconded to China for too long? It was unclear how a member of the senior management team who had been with Steelworks for his entire career could behave this way and jeopardize his position. What could the CEO have done differently?
Solectric was a small solar power venture located in Sydney, Australia. The founder was an academic entrepreneur who was planning to return to his academic career. A new business development manager had been hired to explore and enter markets with varying degrees of uncertainty and potential profitability. The capital was running out and an unfocused strategy was exacerbating negligible sales revenues. Together, they were faced with the decision of which market(s) to focus on, how to allocate available capital, and how to consider the implications regarding distribution of equity and control.
In April 2011, a university professor of accounting and finance was examining the financial statements of Pangang Group Steel Vanadium & Titanium Company (Pangang), a leading Chinese steel manufacturer listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. Pangang had a dramatic turnaround in its reported net income in 2010 with its share price rising over 60 per cent in a six-month period. The professor suspected that the controlling shareholder of Pangang - Anshan Iron and Steel Group Corporation (Ansteel) - had been manipulating Pangang's earnings to artificially inflate the stock price. The timing coincided with the expiry of put options awarded by Ansteel to minority shareholders as part of a restructuring. Was Pangang manipulating its earnings to influence stock prices? Was there sufficient evidence to expose the fraudulent scheme to the public or report the case to the Chinese securities regulators?