This case is an up-close look at the management of a large mining and smelting alliance in Australia. One partner is American, the other Australian. Although it is an equally owned venture, the Australians are the lead partners, but they are not doing a very good job. The Americans are frustrated by this, but uncertain as to how to influence their partner. The Americans also have been frustrated in their attempts to introduce a new technology to the mine and expand it. The case is an excellent vehicle for exploring the issue of management control and influence in joint ventures. Does having a lead partner make sense? What should be the role of each company vis-a-vis operating issues? Strategic issues?

GPS acquired Vision Express, but it is not going well. Two executives at GPS are proposing a revolution at Vision Express, which would change the company's business model to be more like the French model. Dean Butler, the founder of Vision Express, strongly opposes the change, arguing that it would ruin Vision Express. The business model may or may not be the problem. What should GPS management do?

In the summer of 1997, the executive team of GPS, a very successful French retailer in the one-hour photo finishing and one-hour eyewear business, is trying to decide whether to purchase Vision Express of the United Kingdom. Both companies are very entrepreneurial, fast growing, and have pioneered the one-hour service concept in their respective countries. The founder of Vision Express was Dean Butler, the American who previously founded Lens Crafters in the United States. In spite of their similarities, the formula for success of the two companies is rather different, with Vision Express relying heavily on advertisements that feature two-for-one sales and GPS competing on high service levels and repeat business. The acquisition, if made, would be GPS's first major expansion outside France.

The board of directors of the Shell/Royal Dutch Corp. decided to discontinue the Brent Spar sea disposal. Nevertheless, the scientific debate about Shell's plans and Greenpeace's protests isn't over yet.

The protest of Greenpeace against the deep sea disposal of the Brent Spar led to a major consumer boycott against Shell. Within weeks, Shell suffered a significant loss of market share in Central Europe and faced protests from the highest political leaders across Europe. Despite all this, Shell continues to tow the platform to its planned disposal site in the Atlantic. Meanwhile, strong fights are taking place at sea between Shell and Greenpeace.

In April 1995, Greenpeace boarded a Shell oil platform named Brent Spar in the North Sea to protest its scheduled disposal in the Atlantic. This action took the operator Shell Expro (a joint venture between Shell and Esso) totally by surprise, as this was the first protest of any kind that Shell management had encountered. Describes the circumstances why Shell wants the Brent Spar platform's disposal in the deep sea and why Greenpeace rejects these plans.

York River is a Canadian pulp and paper company whose major product is container material, used for making cardboard boxes. The company has three major customers. A small competitor has made a takeover bid for one of these customers. If successful, York will lose 25% of its volume. Should York make a $50 million counterbid to keep the customer? Assessment of the reaction of other customers relative to impending consolidation is critical.

Managers at Chicago Research and Trading, are at a final point in the negotiation and faced with a decision to sign the statement of intent to form a Russian-US Joint Venture. The pending decision highlights the importance of being willing to give up obtaining some additional information about the joint venture that would make MPI surer of their investment in favor of gaining the trust of their Russian partners. It also demonstrates the importance of intuition in decision making. JV Dialogue has gone on to be one of the most successful Russian-foreign joint ventures by most accounts. (A nine-minute video of the CEO answering students' key concerns about starting the joint venture can be purchased with the case, video 7A95G006.)

General Mills and Nestle were meeting to discuss the possibility of cooperation between the two companies in the breakfast cereal business. Executives from General Mills were arriving in a week's time and an executive vice-president at Nestle was charged with preparing a briefing on General Mills before their arrival. The executive vice-president had recently decided that Nestle should consider taking a partner in the breakfast cereal business and had collected some information on General Mills. The joint venture was of interest to Nestle because its European breakfast cereal business had been performing poorly. General Mills was interested because it has no significant breakfast cereal business outside of the United States. However, the fundamental issue was why Nestle had not made a success of the business in Europe, and what changes the company would need to make for the business to be a success. The balance between global strategy and local operations is central to this case.

Eighteen months after selling 75% of his company to Aer Lingus, Klaus Woerner, general manager and 25% shareholder, is proposing expansion to California. The Board thinks the move is premature, and in the wrong part of the country. This is the second in a three case series titled, Aer Lingus - ATS (A), Aer Lingus - ATS (B1) and Aer Lingus - ATS (B2) addressing minority shareholders who are also key managers.

Klaus Woerner and Aer Lingus executives have now visited the company Klaus Woerner wants to purchase in California. Opinions are divided. Klaus is adamant the move be made. Denis Hanrahan is less sure. Trust is an issue. This is the third in a three case series titled, Aer Lingus - ATS (A), Aer Lingus - ATS (B1) and Aer Lingus - ATS (B2) addressing minority shareholders who are also key managers.

This case is an up-close look at the management of a large mining and smelting alliance in Australia. One partner is American, the other Australian. Although it is an equally owned venture, the Australians are the lead partners, but they are not doing a very good job. The Americans are frustrated by this, but uncertain as to how to influence their partner. The Americans also have been frustrated in their attempts to introduce a new technology to the mine and expand it. The case is an excellent vehicle for exploring the issue of management control and influence in joint ventures. Does having a lead partner make sense? What should be the role of each company vis-a-vis operating issues? Strategic issues?

Aer Lingus, the Irish international airline, is proposing to buy ATS, a small but rapidly growing robotics firm. Negotiations have been protracted and earn out is professed. The owner appears to be getting cold feet. Should Aer Lingus continue? This is the first in a three case series titled, Aer Lingus - ATS (A), Aer Lingus - ATS (B1) and Aer Lingus - ATS (B2) addressing minority shareholders who are also key managers. (A 12-minute video, Aer Lingus - ATS (A) - Video can be purchased with this case.)

Nestle SA is the world's largest food company; its acquisition of RowntreePlc in 1988 was, at 2.5 billion British pounds, the largest ever foreign takeover of a British company. This case is the first in a three-part case series positioned before, during, and after the acquisition of Rowntree by Nestle and gives an inside look at a major international acquisition. Includes a note on the world chocolate industry and ends at the point when Nestle must decide whether to launch a hostile bid for Rowntree. Written from Nestle's point of view, it provides the opportunity to consider the benefit of various acquisition possibilities in the industry. Also raises questions as to why Rowntree became a takeover target as well as Nestle's policy of not making hostile takeovers.

The second of a three-part series on the 2.5 billion British pounds takeover of Rowntree by Nestle in 1988. Nestle has launched a hostile bid for Rowntree; this case ends at a breaking point in the process and places us in the middle of a critical negotiation session of the most senior executives of the two companies. Written from Nestle's point of view, it raises questions regarding the takeover price and the potential post-acquisition integration and organization structure.

The third of a three-part case series on the 2.5 billion British pounds takeover of Rowntree by Nestle in 1988. Nestle has acquired Rowntree; this final case raises issues about the post-acquisition integration of Rowntree and Nestle. This case setting is six months after the acquisition and is written from the point of view of the former senior Rowntree manager charged with integrating the Rowntree and Nestle chocolate businesses in Europe.

A condensed version of the Nestle-Rowntree (A) and (B) cases. Intended for use by instructors who wish to move directly to the acquisition negotiation. Ends at the same point in time as the existing (B) case. To reduce the length of the case, some data from the (A) case is eliminated.

An American project manager (with a team of 12 Americans), who is just about to conclude a week long negotiation with a team of 12 Koreans, is faced with a dilemma. He is being pushed to make a decision he is ill equipped to make; he feels it might not be in his company's best interest, but could be in the best interest of the joint venture that his firm is in the process of establishing with the Koreans.

This case presents Harlequin in 1979 at the peak of its success. The company is looking at diversification, trying to use its ever increasing cash flow. Specific issues are the type of diversification (if any) the company should engage in, and whether it should set up its own sales force in the U.S. The general issue is one of accurately identifying Harlequin's capabilities. This case should be used, although it is not strictly necessary, with the Harlequin Enterprises Limited - 1984 case 9A87M003.

The president of Petro-Canada Products Limited proposes to restructure his division of the company. His proposal is for an unusually decentralized organization, by oil industry standards, and it needs to be approved by the company's executive council. The case presents background material on the oil industry, West's division, and the specifics of his proposal. The reaction of other executives in the firm to the proposal is also presented.