學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
Eyewitness Surveillance II
內容大綱
The Eyewitness Surveillance II case tells the story of Rush Arnold and RT McCloy, friends who met while studying at Wharton, who raise a search fund under the name Channelstone Partners. In the fall of 2010, after having spent two-thirds of their search fund capital and reviewed over 200 companies, they came across Eyewitness Surveillance, a company specializing in the use of video technology to protect the assets of car dealerships. Eyewitness' cofounder, Vince Redland, was interested in selling the company to pursue other interests and Arnold and McCloy found the industry, company, and deal all compelling. Over the course of the next two months, they engaged in a due diligence process which further validated their interest in the company, but also raised several red flags. Among the issues highlighted in due diligence included widespread employee disgruntlement, particularly with Vince (who was also the top sales person), a reluctance to share detailed financial information, and an 11th hour disagreement about a contract clause stipulating that the purchase price would go down if monthly revenues declined after the close. Despite having conducted a thorough and in-depth due diligence process, Arnold and McCloy were at the end of their search capital and facing a deal that was on the brink. They were now faced with the question of whether or not they wanted to charge ahead, despite the red flags, or walk away, knowing that this could potentially be the end of the road.