A three party, multiple-issue negotiation exercise dealing with a potential merger between two leading department stores, called for by an activist investor hedge fund in a letter to both companies. Company management will now attempt to navigate next moves, which are complicated by weak takeover defenses of their corporate boards, hedge fund ownership stake within both companies, and potential anti-trust risk. Meanwhile, the third party, the activist hedge fund, is turning up the heat in planning their next move.

A three party, multiple-issue negotiation exercise dealing with a potential merger between two leading department stores, called for by an activist investor hedge fund in a letter to both companies. Company management will now attempt to navigate next moves, which are complicated by weak takeover defenses of their corporate boards, hedge fund ownership stake within both companies, and potential anti-trust risk. Meanwhile, the third party, the activist hedge fund, is turning up the heat in planning their next move.

A three party, multiple-issue negotiation exercise dealing with a potential merger between two leading department stores, called for by an activist investor hedge fund in a letter to both companies. Company management will now attempt to navigate next moves, which are complicated by weak takeover defenses of their corporate boards, hedge fund ownership stake within both companies, and potential anti-trust risk. Meanwhile, the third party, the activist hedge fund, is turning up the heat in planning their next move.

A three party, multiple-issue negotiation exercise dealing with a potential merger between two leading department stores, called for by an activist investor hedge fund in a letter to both companies. Company management will now attempt to navigate next moves, which are complicated by weak takeover defenses of their corporate boards, hedge fund ownership stake within both companies, and potential anti-trust risk. Meanwhile, the third party, the activist hedge fund, is turning up the heat in planning their next move.

Xi Jinping assumed his position as head of China's fifth generation of leaders in 2012. Xi was head of both the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, which had ruled China since 1949. Xi inherited a country far more unequal than the one that Mao Zedong, Communist China's first leader, had left behind in 1978. The growth of markets had made China much wealthier, but also generated many social problems, including inequality, corruption, and social protests. This case discusses China's political and economic development in the 20th century to situate Xi's-and China's-contemporary challenges.

In 2010, Pfizer established four small research units in New York, Boston, San Francisco, and San Diego located close to several premier Academic Medical Centers (AMCs), or hospitals with adjoining medical schools. The goal of these units was to redesign collaboration with Pfizer and academic medical researchers with the purpose of developing new, innovative drugs candidates for testing in patients. Project teams consisted of Pfizer scientists and academics working side-by-side to reduce the time needed to bring a therapeutic drug from the lab to a patient's bedside. This case explores the academic collaboration model developed by Pfizer. What were the strengths of and challenges facing this model? How would the model evolve in the future? And how would new, similar collaboration models surfacing at other major pharmaceutical companies pose a threat to the Pfizer model?

This case is a sequel to Dana Hall: Funding a Mission (A), (B) and (C) cases. It focuses on the causes of recent fund-raising success and the complex resource allocation problems the School faces as it tries to deliver on its mission. In conjunction with the (A), (B) & (C) cases, it is a rich story of how mission and finance can play out over a very long period.