Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (Fairfax), the Canadian insurance and investment company, made an offer in 2016 for a majority stake in the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited (CSB), a regional private bank in India. Despite its initial enthusiasm for the deal, the CSB rejected the offer because of low valuation. At the behest of the Reserve Bank of India, the CSB made a counter-offer to Fairfax for a majority stake at a substantially higher valuation. Should Fairfax take the offer?
In 2016, the chief executive officer of the ibibo Group, one of the largest players in India’s online travel sector, faced a major decision. MakeMyTrip, India’s market leader in online travel, had expressed interest in acquiring the ibibo Group. Should the ibibo Group’s chief executive officer accept the offer and give up partial or total control of the company, in return for growing with the market leader? Or should he continue with the business he had launched in 2007, and rely on outside investment or the parent company to fund his efforts at growing the business? It was time to evaluate his strategic options.
In January 2007, Metro do Porto, a light rail network, entered into an interest rate swap agreement with Banco Santander Totta on a notional principal of €89 million. The intent was to reduce the interest costs that Metro do Porto was incurring. This was a complex swap agreement that brought immediate benefits to Metro do Porto but proved catastrophic in the long run. Two years after the swap commenced, a “snowball clause” in the swap agreement took effect, increasing Metro do Porto’s liability beyond 60 per cent per annum at a time when market interest rates were low and expected to drop even lower. It was unclear whether the company entered into this agreement out of ignorance, political pressure, or both, but the end result was a lawsuit. Students are expected to analyze the terms of this swap and decide whether the swap constituted good practice from a risk management perspective and whether Metro do Porto should have been able to anticipate the possible losses.
Jaguar Land Rover Automotive plc, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Indian company Tata Motors Limited, announced bond issue worth US$500 million. The proceeds of this issue were to be used to refinance costlier outstanding bonds. The company was able to raise new debt at substantially lower interest rates than its outstanding debt as a result of its sustained good performance, which led to strong company fundamentals and improved credit ratings. Students will analyze the various motivations for such a financial strategy, whether it will lead to cost savings or cash flow savings and, if so, the extent of the savings.
The Indian online retail (“e-tailing”) market had seen a flurry of activity. Success stories such as Makemytrip.com and Naukri.com in the travel and job search domains, respectively, were significant catalysts for this new breed of start-ups. Of these start-ups, Flipkart stood out as one of the most successful (and audacious) — more so because of the funding the company managed to secure over a very short period of time as compared to its competitors. The firm was celebrated for its bold stance on growth versus profitability but simultaneously had its share of critics and skeptics. The latest round of venture capital funding had valued Flipkart at US$1.6 billion, nearly eight times sales. In less than two years, the firm had attracted nearly $550 million in venture capital funds and its sales turnover had grown nearly 30-fold. Was Flipkart growing too big too soon? Were these valuations justified?