個案總覽

The founders of Nantucket Nectars are trying to decide whether and how to sell their company.

By 2008, a number of the firm's early cleantech investments were showing promise, and the companies were starting to need significantly more money to create the massive scale required in the energy sector. As Khosla thought about the hundreds of millions of dollars required by his portfolio companies, he wondered how he should position his firm at this stage of development. Should Khosla develop a new fund that focused on later-stage investments? Should he seek investments from large industry players such as the major oil companies? Should he try raising money from the managers of the sovereign funds in countries such as Singapore, Kuwait and China? How should the firm work with its strategic partners? Khosla knew that lining up enough later stage funding would be challenging, as the cleantech industry was still unproven for investors. Nevertheless, he was determined to continue his pattern of making bold investments in this emerging field.

This case describes a decision confronting the founder of Nantero, a company developing a new semiconductor technology. The company needs to raise additional venture capital. Potential investors have competing visions for the company, and its business model. Some investors want the company to license its technology to semiconductor companies. Others want the company to become a "lableless" semiconductor company producing and selling its own products. The question for the team at Nantero is, what model makes sense and which investor offers the most attractive terms?

This case includes structured interviews with four serial entrepreneurs about the way in which they built and used their boards in each of their companies and what they have learned through that process. These entrepreneurs were asked similar questions, such as "How do you build a board of directors in a venture-backed start up?" "What do you expect of the board and how do you ensure those expectations are met?" "What are the most and least value-added board activities?" "How do you manage the board?" "How does board composition change over time?" "What were your biggest surprises about boards?" and "What advice would you give first-time entrepreneurs?"

Spreadsheet Supplement for case 808017

Describes Texas Pacific Group's purchase and operation of J. Crew, the catalog and specialty clothing retailer. Highlights the issues involved in financing such a transaction, and then focuses on the operational challenges of turning around the business, and of TPG's intensive involvement in the running of the business. Details the improvements in the business, and then the retrenchment, leaving the business facing a significant debt payment coming due. TPG must decide whether to sell the business and get out "whole," or whether it can develop and execute a more successful strategy going forward.

Traces the genesis and founding of Zoots, the largest chain of dry cleaning establishments in the U.S. Founded by some of the founders of the very successful Staples chain, the company raises a very large amount of capital without fully proving its business model, and by 2006 is in need of yet more funding. Pushes students to dissect the business model and current operations--and their financial performance--and figure out what went wrong initially, if the business model and operations are now on solid footing, and, assuming capital can be raised, whether it is better to take the "bird in the hand" of significant capital at an admittedly disappointing valuation, or wait for a strategic investor who would pay a higher price but will need significantly more time to complete due diligence.

Spreadsheet Supplement for case 807139

Describes a set of decisions confronting the management team of a rapidly growing online psychological testing and social networking company. They can either sell the company to a large public company, raise another round of capital from a preeminent venture capital fund, or continue to grow using existing positive cash flow.

Describes a set of issues confronting the leaders of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, an innovative cross-university effort to accelerate scientific discovery and translation in the domain of stem cells. Covers a wide range of topics, including understanding how science research gets funded, how politics affect research, how universities approach intellectual property, how countries (and states) compete for talent, and how therapies are developed.

Describes a set of financing issues confronting a rapidly growing company that uses "Word of Mouth" marketing techniques in promoting research, new products, or services. The company proposes to set the terms for a new round of venture capital it needs and to have venture capitalists bid for the right to invest on those terms by proving that they can add value to BzzAgent, Inc.

An abstract is not available for this product.

An abstract is not available for this product.

An abstract is not available for this product.

Only three short months into her new position as CEO of publicly traded golf apparel manufacturer Cutter & Buck, Fran Conley discovers accounting irregularities that call into question the reliability of this company's financial statements. Working closely with her board of directors, Conley must figure out what is really going on. She must also deal with the possibility of SEC sanctions, class action lawsuits, threat of NASDAQ delisting, loss of D&O insurance, departure of senior managers, and problems with access to credit. She is also trying to turn the company around after two years of poor performance.

The three founders of a London-based, start-up smoothie company must decide between three growth options: expansion of the existing product line into Europe, extension of the brand into other product categories, or continued organic growth within the United Kingdom.

The founder and CEO of a CRM software start-up must decide between an attractive acquisition offer and the opportunity to go public. Discusses the growth of the company--including a lengthy discussion of entrepreneurial bootstrapping--as well as an aborted IPO attempt in 2000. The central question is whether the company will create more value by staying independent or by joining a larger organization.

Petrolink's business plan looks like a winner. At present, the only available pipeline for operators in the Baltic Sea's newly developed Helmark gas field is owned and operated by the Russian oil and gas company Gazprom. Petrolink's founders believe that the company that opens a new pipeline should find ready customers among the field's numerous independent producers. The Petrolink team has been talking with two potential investors. After six weeks of due diligence, London Development Partners--a large, well-established venture capital firm with no experience in the gas business--offers a relatively small early round of investment without any tangible commitments to future rounds, far from what the team had hoped for. Polish venture capital firm BRX Capital has been in business fewer than five years, but it has already made investments in the Eastern European oil and gas industry. BRX agrees to the capital structure that Petrolink proposes, and to invest both the first- and second-round equity amounts. One of the start-up's main objectives has been to ensure that no one investor has too much clout, so the BRX arrangement suits them. But now that a four million eurodollar check is on the table, there's been an apparent breach of trust by the Polish VC. Petrolink's founders discover that an agreed-upon provision covering ownership dilution has been changed. Should they take BRX's money or go elsewhere? Commenting on this fictional case study in R0411A and R0411Z are George Brenkert of Georgetown University; Sonia Lo of Chalsys Partners; William Sahlman of Harvard Business School; and Charalambos Vlachoutsicos, adviser to 7L Capital Partners Emerging Europe.

Petrolink's business plan looks like a winner. At present, the only available pipeline for operators in the Baltic Sea's newly developed Helmark gas field is owned and operated by the Russian oil and gas company Gazprom. Petrolink's founders believe that the company that opens a new pipeline should find ready customers among the field's numerous independent producers. The Petrolink team has been talking with two potential investors. After six weeks of due diligence, London Development Partners--a large, well-established venture capital firm with no experience in the gas business--offers a relatively small early round of investment without any tangible commitments to future rounds, far from what the team had hoped for. Polish venture capital firm BRX Capital has been in business fewer than five years, but it has already made investments in the Eastern European oil and gas industry. BRX agrees to the capital structure that Petrolink proposes, and to invest both the first- and second-round equity amounts. One of the start-up's main objectives has been to ensure that no one investor has too much clout, so the BRX arrangement suits them. But now that a four million eurodollar check is on the table, there's been an apparent breach of trust by the Polish VC. Petrolink's founders discover that an agreed-upon provision covering ownership dilution has been changed. Should they take BRX's money or go elsewhere? In R0411A and R0411Z, George Brenkert of Georgetown University; Sonia Lo of Chalsys Partners; William Sahlman of Harvard Business School; and Charalambos Vlachoutsicos, adviser to 7L Capital Partners Emerging Europe, comment on this fictional case.

The Valhalla Partners venture capitial firm introduced a new approach to the due-diligence process. An internal due-diligence report analyzes Telco Exchange, a startup company in the IT software space. An extended excerpt examines the trade-offs involved in the new due-diligence process and whether Valhalla should invest in Telco Exchange.