The recommendation of the newly appointed auditors of Paramount Projects Limited ushered in an unexpected dilemma for Sachin Menon, its Chief Financial Officer. The auditors recommended a switch from its existing output-based policy to an input-based policy for measuring the Percentage of Completion of Paramount's construction projects. Accepting the auditors' recommendation appeared a technical exercise that would not impact the company's cash flows or business prospects, hence the bank financing. However, the bank indicated that the accounting change would jeopardize the financing available to Paramount because of the decline in the qualifying assets to support the bank loans. Should Menon recommend going against the recommendation of the auditors that Paramount's board had recently appointed? While the new auditors' rationale for the recommendation to change accounting policy was sound, Paramount's existing policy also complied with accounting principles and was acceptable to the earlier auditors. Should Menon accept the recommendation to change accounting policy even if that entailed higher interest costs? Which accounting policy was conceptually sounder? How would different stakeholders respond to a voluntary change in the accounting policy? How would the change in accounting policy affect Paramount's systems and employee behavior? Menon had to present his final recommendation to the audit committee in its forthcoming meeting. This multidisciplinary case provides an experiential learning opportunity for students to understand that accounting policy decisions often affect other business functions. The case is appropriate for an MBA course in accounting in sessions on accounting policy, revenue recognition, earnings management, or flexibility in financial reporting. It can also be used in undergraduate accounting courses and executive training programs to illustrate the holistic nature of management decisions.
In November 2017, Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, the founders of Tezos, confronted a governance crisis that threatened to destroy their project and expose them to serious legal risks. All developmental activities in Tezos were stalled after Breitmans lost access to the funds raised through an initial coin offering (ICO) four months earlier. Moreover, a series of class-action lawsuits in the United States alleged that the USD 230 million ICO of July was an illegal security offering. The case provides a fascinating situation for discussions on the principles and the frameworks for governance.
This case raises contemporary issues pertaining to strategy and leadership. It helps to demonstrate that (a) sound economic rationale is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make a business strategy effective, and (b) successful implementation of a strategy is contingent on it being driven by a responsible and ethical leader. The case helps students to understand limitations of the pay-for-performance system, and appreciate negative impact of unethical business decisions. Established in 1852, Wells Fargo had earned a storied reputation for integrity and principled performance. The cornerstone of the Bank's business strategy was "cross-sell", a strategy that augmented Wells Fargo's performance and that of its stock. To implement the strategy, Wells Fargo's management instituted an incentive system that awarded significant bonuses to employees for opening customer accounts, and reprimanded employees who did not meet "quotas" of the number and types of accounts. The obsession of top management with "cross-sell" obscured the vision of the Bank to give unconditional primacy to serving customers' interests. The Bank was fined $185 million for opening over two million unauthorized checking and credit card accounts between 2011 and 2015. The Board had failed to monitor the actions of its senior management. In the aftermath of the debacle, Stumpf resigned from the CEO and Chairman of the Board positions at Wells Fargo. His successor, Tim Sloan, had the unenviable task to restore reputation of the Bank by making changes to its strategy, structure and systems. Using a holistic analysis of the episode from the perspective of corporate strategy, responsible leadership, corporate governance, business ethics and organizational culture, the case provides a platform to discuss challenges that Tim Sloan faced to set the stagecoach of Wells Fargo to start thundering again.
The game of cricket that originated in Britain thrives on passion and the following it generates in India and other South Asian countries is tremendous. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is the apex governing body that controls all cricketing events in the India. Being the richest such body, BCCI is the most powerful national body among similar organizations across countries where cricket is played. The world of cricket saw a sea change with the introduction of the Indian Premier League (IPL) due to its unprecedented commercial success. The case describes the betting scandal that hit IPL, BCCI and its promoter in the middle of 2013. The scandal involved the son-in-law of the President of BCCI. The events following the scandal saw the Supreme Court of India, the highest judicial body in the country, to indict BCCI and its President of serious misgovernance. Set in this backdrop, the case highlights governance issues in the functioning of not for profit organizations such as BCCI. The case provides an opportunity to reflect on and discuss as to how such quasi-public bodies ought to be governed.
The case describes the strategy of a large Indian Public Sector Bank (PSB) to enhance financial inclusion and financial literacy of less privileged people located in poorly accessible parts of India. While pursuing the developmental objective 'imposed' by the Central Bank/government, being a listed entity, the PSB had to be mindful of the financial viability of the strategy so as to protect the interest of its minority shareholders. The issues covered are endemic to most developing countries where public enterprises often become instrumentality of the state.
This case series provides a platform to discuss a broad range of interconnected issues relating to corporate governance, ethical reasoning and giving voice to values in a real-world decision-making context. An independent director (Neil Shah) on the board of directors of National Petroleum Corporation (NPC) is approached by a bidder, Western India Ports Limited (WIPL). Through an unwarranted last minute change in the bidding process, WIPL's bid for handling of Naphtha for NPC's upcoming refinery has been rejected. Neil learns from WIPL that its competitor, Bharat Ports Limited (BPL), may have bribed an NPC official to create a situation that would disqualify WIPL's bid. As a result, only one bidder (BPL) is left in the fray. Neil questions the process followed by NPC, without disclosing that an executive from WIPL had met him about the change in the process. Neil's questioning corrects the situation. WIPL is not only able to participate in the bid, but even wins the NPC contract. However, Neil's joy of righting the wrong is short-lived. A few months after the episode, and after stepping down from the board, Neil learns that the NPC official who had attempted to disqualify WIPL had been recruited by WIPL after his retirement from NPC. Soon after discovering this, Neil himself is approached by WIPL with a proposal to transfer 5000 shares from their holding to Neil, without any payment, as a mark of their gratitude to him. Should Neil accept the gift? Would that be akin to accepting bribe? Should Neil be disturbed by the knowledge that the concerned NPC executive had joined WIPL after retirement from NPC?
Supplement to case NA0409. This case series provides a platform to discuss a broad range of interconnected issues relating to corporate governance, ethical reasoning and giving voice to values in a real-world decision-making context. An independent director (Neil Shah) on the board of directors of National Petroleum Corporation (NPC) is approached by a bidder, Western India Ports Limited (WIPL). Through an unwarranted last minute change in the bidding process, WIPL's bid for handling of Naphtha for NPC's upcoming refinery has been rejected. Neil learns from WIPL that its competitor, Bharat Ports Limited (BPL), may have bribed an NPC official to create a situation that would disqualify WIPL's bid. As a result, only one bidder (BPL) is left in the fray. Neil questions the process followed by NPC, without disclosing that an executive from WIPL had met him about the change in the process. Neil's questioning corrects the situation. WIPL is not only able to participate in the bid, but even wins the NPC contract. However, Neil's joy of righting the wrong is short-lived. A few months after the episode, and after stepping down from the board, Neil learns that the NPC official who had attempted to disqualify WIPL had been recruited by WIPL after his retirement from NPC. Soon after discovering this, Neil himself is approached by WIPL with a proposal to transfer 5000 shares from their holding to Neil, without any payment, as a mark of their gratitude to him. Should Neil accept the gift? Would that be akin to accepting bribe? Should Neil be disturbed by the knowledge that the concerned NPC executive had joined WIPL after retirement from NPC?
Supplement to case NA0409. This case series provides a platform to discuss a broad range of interconnected issues relating to corporate governance, ethical reasoning and giving voice to values in a real-world decision-making context. An independent director (Neil Shah) on the board of directors of National Petroleum Corporation (NPC) is approached by a bidder, Western India Ports Limited (WIPL). Through an unwarranted last minute change in the bidding process, WIPL's bid for handling of Naphtha for NPC's upcoming refinery has been rejected. Neil learns from WIPL that its competitor, Bharat Ports Limited (BPL), may have bribed an NPC official to create a situation that would disqualify WIPL's bid. As a result, only one bidder (BPL) is left in the fray. Neil questions the process followed by NPC, without disclosing that an executive from WIPL had met him about the change in the process. Neil's questioning corrects the situation. WIPL is not only able to participate in the bid, but even wins the NPC contract. However, Neil's joy of righting the wrong is short-lived. A few months after the episode, and after stepping down from the board, Neil learns that the NPC official who had attempted to disqualify WIPL had been recruited by WIPL after his retirement from NPC. Soon after discovering this, Neil himself is approached by WIPL with a proposal to transfer 5000 shares from their holding to Neil, without any payment, as a mark of their gratitude to him. Should Neil accept the gift? Would that be akin to accepting bribe? Should Neil be disturbed by the knowledge that the concerned NPC executive had joined WIPL after retirement from NPC?
The case provides an opportunity to students to learn about the basic concepts in Project Management using a situation that can be easily understood by all. The case provides the instructor an opportunity to demonstrate to the students as to how precedence relationships are to be generated from assertions made about a project by the project in-charge - a feature that is generally missing in most cases on the subject. The case also provides an opportunity to develop a Linear Programming (LP) model for the project. The teaching note accompanying the case provides a simple, innovative LP formulation and outlines as to how it can be used to identify the critical path and the critical activities. The case can be taught in one session (if LP formulation is not covered). Else, since it is suitable for two sessions, the model can be developed and solved in the class in the second session.
Disinvestment of government shareholding in Public Sector Undertakings, through Public Offers, is a common occurrence in many economies. This case describes such a process of disinvestment of the government of India's stake in a large power utility, National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in India. In addition to process details, the case contains information and data that make it possible to rigorously analyze the response of market participants and the resulting changes in the prices of shares of NTPC before, during and after the public offer.