個案總覽

In January 2012, Ellen Kullman, CEO and chairman of DuPont, must decide whether to retain or sell the company's Performance Coatings (DPC) division. This is an introductory case on valuing a leveraged buyout. The case focuses on a publicly listed corporation's decision to divest a large division and asks students to compare the division's value if it remains under DuPont's control or is sold to an outside party. The transaction size of approximately $4 billion is too large for potential strategic buyers in the industry, making private equity (PE) firms the most likely bidders. The case provides a base-case adjusted present value (APV) model of DPC as a stand-alone company and gives students specific assignments to adjust it to reflect the division's potential value under PE ownership (e.g., EBITDA growth, multiple arbitrage, and increased leverage). The case is designed to illustrate and discuss the differences between a public company's valuation based on unlevered free cash flows and a PE sponsor's valuation based on residual (levered) cash flows. This case has been successfully taught in a second-year elective course covering entrepreneurial finance and private equity and in an advanced undergraduate course on corporate finance. It is appropriate for use in classes on private equity, advanced corporate finance, or deal valuation.

Spreadsheet Supplement for product UV6790.

This technical note, which is based on an earlier note (UVA-F-0910), provides a student primer of firm cost of capital from a conceptual and application perspective. The note provides student intuition on the traditional theory of cost of debt, cost of equity, and weighted-average cost of capital. Moreover, it provides detail on the common approaches to estimating the cost of capital. Specific examples are provided. The note is updated with actual data through 2012.

Zeta Mining, one of the world's largest producers of metallurgical coal, operates a number of mines in the Bowen Basin, Central Queensland, Australia. The company has invested about AU$8 billion in the region. Before extracting the coal, the overburden of dirt, rock and other geological waste has to be removed, and this is usually done by draglines, which are imported from the United States and constructed on site, requiring a significant investment in time and money. In 2012, Zeta's chief financial officer tasked the Bowen Basin project evaluation director to decide whether to "walk" one of the 3,400-tonne draglines six kilometres to another mine or to employ external contractors to remove that mine's overburden. To do so, the director was required to perform an incremental comparison analysis using net present value methodology. The CFO will then use the analysis and any other relevant factors in making a final decision.

Perry Capital owns shares in King and, to facilitate approval of the merger, buys shares in Mylan, whilst hedging out its economic exposure to Mylan's share price using derivatives. The price at which Mylan proposes to merge with King is generous to King shareholders, but the merger does not look likely to be approved by Mylan shareholders, who must vote upon it. If Perry can swing the voting in favor of the deal, it will gain handsomely on its King shares without facing any corresponding losses on its Mylan holdings since those are hedged. Carl Icahn, another shareholder in Mylan, opposed the deal and sued Perry for alleged vote buying.

Set in 2013, School Specialty was a financially troubled supplier of educational products to primary and secondary schools in the United States. The company planned to file Chapter 11 in order to address its excessive debt load, but needed to arrange debtor-in-possession financing to provide liquidity while in bankruptcy. The company has received a financing proposal from its existing term loan lender that includes some aggressive and unusual features. This includes the requirement that, immediately upon filing for Chapter 11, School Specialty undertake to sell its assets under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Company must decide whether to accept this proposal, and what other options may be available.

In 2012, regulatory changes following the financial crisis mean that Barclays Bank is faced with the need to raise large amounts of capital in order to comply with increased capital requirements, tightening rules as to the "quality of capital," and increased risk weights for its capital markets assets. The bank is contemplating offering contingent capital bonds, which would act like debt during "normal times" but would convert to create capital should the bank hit a "triggering event." How should these instruments be designed? Can they be attractive for the bank and for investors?

In the summer of 2013, Whitney DeSoto had just been hired as managing director for real assets at the Overton Pension Fund (OPF). Her task was to provide recommendations to the board of trustees to introduce real estate into the fund's portfolio, which to date had been invested solely in stocks and bonds. Combining her knowledge of modern portfolio theory with her institutional expertise in real estate, DeSoto needed to decide what fraction of the fund should optimally be invested in real assets. She then faced the task of deciding whether to invest in public or private real estate. If she thought private real estate belonged in the portfolio, she would need to identify the best investment strategy, the best vehicle, and ultimately the specific investments to recommend.

As of the date of this note, financing environments varied significantly across developing economies. Differences in legal structures, operating conditions, and available capital sources created a myriad of conditions for entrepreneurs to navigate when seeking funds to develop their ventures. One systemic trend, however, did exist: entrepreneurs consistently cited access to financing as one of the top three obstacles to achieving growth. This note does not seek to provide a "one size fits all" model to addressing this challenge. Rather, this note is intended to provide entrepreneurs with a starting point to better understand the types of financing available in developing economies, the sources of this capital, and the means to locate these investors. Entrepreneurs can use the examples in this note as a springboard to craft solutions for the challenges posed by their specific financing environments.

The Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) was an ambitious $90 billion infrastructure project covering the 1483-km distance between Delhi and Mumbai. The project would create new industrial townships, high speed freight lines, six-lane expressways, airports, ports and power plants. It would also give the country a unique opportunity to plan, develop and build new cities that were economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. The DMIC could boost India's flailing manufacturing sector, increase foreign investments, augment exports, generate jobs and situate the country on a higher growth trajectory. While the project held many promises for India, there were many risks involved. Its success would depend on land acquisition and unprecedented levels of coordination across various government agencies. This case examines whether Amitabh Kant, CEO, Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor Development Corporation (DMICDC), the nodal agency for planning and implementing the project, would be able to deliver on the project's promises.

The owner/operator of Spruce Lawn Farms, a cash crop farm located near London, Ontario, was thinking of expanding his operation to include identity-preserved soybeans and a grain dryer. The farm had been in operation for 12 years and consisted of 650 acres of owned land with plans to increase this through renting neighbouring fields to 2,000 acres by 2015. Current crops included genetically modified winter wheat, corn and soybeans, but given the growing backlash against genetically modified foods in Europe and Asia, he was considering adding certified identity-preserved soybeans as well. His back-of-the-envelope calculations seemed to indicate that the venture would pay off. However, when he approached his financial institution for a loan, they were concerned about how the new venture would change the farm's financial structure.

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.

. Matthew Haertzen, a timber portfolio manager for Cogent Partners, the fund manager for Cambium Global Timberland (a UK listed timber investment fund), was tasked with the analysis of a managed teak plantation in Honduras for potential cumulative investment in the amount of $21-25 million. Matt was evaluating an opportunity from Beyond Forestry, a Honduran Company that employed a unique accelerated teak growth model. This accelerated growth model allowed for harvesting of teak wood in as few as 7-12 years, as compared to 20-30 years for traditional commercial plantations. The demand for teak was growing and the supply was dwindling due to significant restrictions regarding the harvest of native teak forests, which traditionally have a very long growth cycle of 70-80 years. The current supply/demand conditions led to a shortage of teak and created an opportunity for investment in companies who could grow teak in an ongoing, sustainable basis with manageable harvest rotations. Mr. Haertzen needed to perform a capital budgeting analysis, including deriving an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital, to use in his investment analysis. He obtained data from Beyond Forestry in Honduras including growth rates of managed teak plantations, teak pricing, and operational expenses necessary to estimate cash flows associated with the managed teak plantations. Of equal importance was an assessment of the many risks associated with the teak plantation investment, given the political and economic environment in a developing market such as Honduras.

"This case describes the challenges encountered by Nathaniel Rothschild after making a US$3 billion investment in 2010 in a family-owned business group in Asia. Scion of the Rothschild banking dynasty and private equity fund manager, Rothschild and his business associates created a LSE-listed shell company, Bumi PLC, which acquired PT Bumi Resources and Berau Coal. These were among Indonesia's largest coal mines and the largest coal exporters in the world, and were controlled by the Bakries, a powerful Indonesian family whose patriarch was a candidate for the presidency in 2014. After losing at least 70% of his investment in three years, Rothschild eventually requisitioned an extraordinary general meeting in February 2013, attempting to remove the Bakries and their associates from Bumi's management team. Despite western-style corporate governance manoeuvres, the PE investors found it challenging to control the politically connected family in Indonesia. "

After independence in 1947, the government of India founded the Industrial Finance Corporation of India as the first development financial institution to provide medium- and long-term loans to public limited companies and cooperative societies engaged in productive activities. Then in 1991, the government's New Economic Policy opened the door to liberalization, privatization and globalization of the Indian economy. The company was restructured and incorporated in 1993 but was unable to diversify its business model from project financing to other financial services. By 2004, it had almost collapsed; its profitability had become negative. Non-performing assets had reached their peak, and the company did not have money to do business. It began selling off and/or renting out its premises, going door-to-door to save its future, and employee morale hit rock bottom. The business had become unsustainable and unviable. With this as backdrop, the board of directors needs to decide on the company's future. What is their best option: liquidation, restructuring, merger or strategic partnership?