In May 2022, BharatPe, a startup,announced a revamp of its governance framework to address any potential risks associated with suspicious transactions in response to a prolonged dispute with its Co-founder and former Managing Director (MD), Ashneer Grover. The company, in December 2022, filed a civil case at the Delhi High Court, and a criminal complaint with the Economic Offenses Wing alleging misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and other misconduct. As the controversy unfolded, BharatPe's board, primarily comprised of multinational venture capital funds, came under scrutiny, with governance experts questioning their responsibilities and level of accountability. Did the board allow governance issues to persist for an extended period?

In May 2022, BharatPe, a startup,announced a revamp of its governance framework to address any potential risks associated with suspicious transactions in response to a prolonged dispute with its Co-founder and former Managing Director (MD), Ashneer Grover. The company, in December 2022, filed a civil case at the Delhi High Court, and a criminal complaint with the Economic Offenses Wing alleging misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and other misconduct. As the controversy unfolded, BharatPe's board, primarily comprised of multinational venture capital funds, came under scrutiny, with governance experts questioning their responsibilities and level of accountability. Did the board allow governance issues to persist for an extended period?

Incorporated in 2012, Mukunda Foods Private Limited (Mukunda) was an Indian robotics company that focused on innovative, internet-enabled smart devices for use in home and industrial kitchens. These devices could be controlled with a smartphone application. Mukunda started as the manufacturer of the DosaMatic, an automatic tabletop machine that made dosas (a popular Indian food). The machine was targeted at the industrial market. Mukunda’s chief executive officer had to design the marketing strategy for the April 2016 launch of the company’s range of ready-made batters aimed at the consumer market. Subsequently, the company planned to launch the consumer version of its DosaMatic machine. The chief executive officer was aware that the consumer market posed challenges different from the industrial market in terms of product and branding decisions, pricing, promotion, and distribution. He also knew that as a start-up, Mukunda could not match larger competitors in their distribution and promotional spending, especially given that Mukunda was simultaneously developing several new products (such as automated roti- and curry-making machines), which required consistent investments in research and development. What was the best strategy for Mukunda’s unique circumstances?

Incorporated in 2012, Mukunda Foods Private Limited (Mukunda) was an Indian robotics company that focused on innovative, internet-enabled smart devices for use in home and industrial kitchens. These devices could be controlled with a smartphone application. Mukunda started as the manufacturer of the DosaMatic, an automatic tabletop machine that made dosas (a popular Indian food). The machine was targeted at the industrial market. Mukunda's chief executive officer had to design the marketing strategy for the April 2016 launch of the company's range of ready-made batters aimed at the consumer market. Subsequently, the company planned to launch the consumer version of its DosaMatic machine. The chief executive officer was aware that the consumer market posed challenges different from the industrial market in terms of product and branding decisions, pricing, promotion, and distribution. He also knew that as a start-up, Mukunda could not match larger competitors in their distribution and promotional spending, especially given that Mukunda was simultaneously developing several new products (such as automated roti- and curry-making machines), which required consistent investments in research and development. What was the best strategy for Mukunda's unique circumstances?

Vasudev Nair, CEO of PENPOL, a medical devices company in India, was facing a financial crisis. With debt mounting and cash flow becoming increasingly problematic, he had to make some decisions about the future of the company. Incorporated in 1987 under Nair's leadership, PENPOL began as a producer of hematology products with the introduction of its innovative blood bag product. The blood bag business was expanded with the introduction of multiple types of bags and blood bag equipment. In 1993 the company entered the urology business with the introduction of urine bags and within four years the urology line was expanded to include stone management devices, leg bags and foley catheters. Growth in the urology business was met with limited success however, and by 1998 PENPOL had exited all but the urine bag product line. The failed launches resulted in huge inventories of unsold goods and problems getting payment from stockists (distributors) that contributed to the company's mounting debt and cash problems. In addition, the Urology Division's flagship product, the urine bag, faced intensified price competition. PENPOL's Blood Bag Division was also suffering due to increased competition in the Indian market. Vasudev Nair had to stop the bleeding. He considered a few alternatives. Knowing that the company had no more access to debt financing, he considered the possibility of securing private equity or the infusion of funds from some of the co-owners of PENPOL. With this infusion of funds, could he or should he save both the Blood Bag and Urology Divisions? Should he divest or sell the Urology Division in order to bring in funds to shore up the blood bag business? Divesting the Urology Division would mean sacrificing the star product, the urine bag, which after much effort was gaining acceptance in the market. Given that a competitor had expressed interest in the company, he considered establishing a joint venture with the competitor.