個案總覽

In February 2021, political turmoil had engulfed Myanmar following a military coup under which elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi was jailed after her party won a landslide victory in the elections. CEO and co-founder of Daung Capital (Daung), a microfinance institution (MFI) in Myanmar, Leon Qiu recalled the years before the coup, when inclusive finance businesses like his had just begun to flourish. Daung had offered a variety of loan products in Myanmar since its inception in 2017. Its products included short-term loans for purchasing motorbikes, short-term loans to salaried workers for purchase of everyday utility items, and educational loans to students from poorer households. In 2019, Daung had launched a new loan product for farmers. Unlike other loan products, the loan scheme for farmers did not entail regular repayments. Instead, the farmers were expected to repay the loan as a lump sum after the harvest. Careful credit risk assessment of the target customer base was a key criterion in designing a loan product for farmers. Ethical obligations and decision-making were important considerations as well. Qiu pondered over the various constraints around which the farmer loan product had been constructed and how it could be improved. How could Qiu and his team assess the credit risks associated with the farmer loan product? What strategies could they implement to control the credit risks associated with farmer loans? Could they use machine-learning algorithms to assess the credit risks? The case illustrates (1) the various challenges faced by an MFI in assessing credit risk of agricultural borrowers (mainly farmers) (2) the dynamics of the MFI sector in Myanmar (3) credit risks presented by rural lenders. The case can be used in undergraduate, postgraduate and executive education classes to teach concepts on credit risk management in microfinance for emerging markets.

In November 2020, Paul Dietrich was wrapping up his busy harvest season for the 1,100 acres of farmland he currently operated. Although the fall harvest season demanded much of Dietrich’s time and attention, he simply could not ignore an investment opportunity that had been presented to him. A local farmland owner was selling a 150-acre parcel of farmland that adjoined some land parcels already owned by Dietrich. Dietrich estimated that a competitive bid would need to be at least CA$20,000 per acre and the bid would need to be made immediately. He sat down to consider both short-term and long-term impacts on his cash flows.

Spreadsheet to accompany product W27012.

Supplement to 211016.

Supplement to 221057.

Financial restructuring for a distressed firm and its significant counterparties is the process of "recontracting." This involves significantly altering, replacing, or terminating key financial contracts for the purpose of rehabilitation. Most of these contracts, as of the date of such restructuring, typically relate to debt obligations with claim values that are known to the firm and to each of the counterparties who are involved in the restructuring process. This note examines the non-debt claims a distressed firm may face, specifically looking at (1) employee-related liabilities, such as those related to defined benefit pension obligations and retirement benefits; (2) tort-related claims, such as those related to litigation or environmental remediation; and (3) claims related to executory contracts, such as leases. The latter category is the most common, but it is also the easiest to resolve. In contrast, restructuring employee-related and tort-related claims is much more complex because the value of such claims may not be known at the time of the proposed restructuring. It is restructuring in these two areas, employee-related and tort-related claims, that are the subject of this note. The note contains three case examples for the purposes of class discussion.

China Huarong Asset Management Co., Ltd. was a majority state-owned financial asset management company in China, with a focus on distressed asset management. On 30 June 2020, Huarong had around CNY1.7tn in total assets. It missed the deadline for its 2020 annual report filing to the SEHK at the end of March 2021, and its shares were suspended from trading after 1 April 2021. A major concern the investors had about the company was a direct result of the execution of its former chair, Lai Xiaomin, in January 2021 for financial crimes involving the abuse of power to allocate credit through Huarong. In April 2021, offshore US dollar bonds issued by Huarong plunged in value, and credit agencies downgraded the company's ratings as an issuer and as a company. There was also pressure on Huarong for the repayment of around CNY143bn in Chinese corporate debt due at the end of 2021. In order to reduce the risk of the market tumbling and to assist Huarong's cash flow, Chinese regulators asked Chinese banks to provide loans to the company, in order to stabilize the banking industry. In addition, the regulators suggested Huarong had the option of restructuring.

Spreadsheet supplement to case 222064.

This case describes a fictional company, FlexShyft, as its cofounders navigate and negotiate the terms of an offer to invest in the company's Series B financing round. The cofounders review and evaluate each clause of the term sheet from the venture capital firm Storm Point Ventures to understand the implications for the company, FlexShyft's existing investors, and themselves. The case is designed to be taught as a simulated negotiation, in which students are split into two groups and asked to either roleplay as investors from Storm Point or FlexShyft cofounders. Students in both groups will be given additional information - the B1 or B2 case - and be asked to negotiate the terms to arrive at a deal.

Case Supplement for Case E774A

Case Supplement for Case E774A

Spreadsheet Supplement for Case E774A

In February 2022, nearly three years after the launch of the REDF Impact Investing Fund (RIIF), a 501(c)(3) debt fund providing financing and capacity building to grow social enterprises employing individuals overcoming barriers to work, CEO Carrie McKellogg was both humbled and hopeful. Much had been learned in her time at the helm of RIIF, both within the portfolio and in relation to the employment social enterprise (ESE) sector as a whole. Specifically, she recognized that the ESEs with whom REDF had worked for over two decades had difficulty gaining access to and were not comfortable with credit; in fact, she had identified that the traditional underwriting process and credit risk methodologies that they were using perpetuated barriers to accessing credit. Indeed, the inequitable effects of the pandemic paired with ongoing racial injustices and structural challenges highlighted the role of RIIF as an important tool to accelerate the growth of the ESE field, and their crucial work to provide a more inclusive economy for all.

In April 2019, just two months shy of his graduation from Stanford Graduate School of Business ("Stanford"), Cody Evans was looking forward to converting his professional and academic experiences to real-world impact. Having worked at both the largest private equity firm in the world and an energy infrastructure developer in Africa, Evans brought a unique blend of investment rigor and entrepreneurial spirit to Stanford. More importantly, he was driven and inspired by energy as a fundamental building block for economies. During his time at Stanford, he was drawn to new legislation meant to spur economic growth and job creation in low-income communities through tax-advantaged investment. These emerging Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZs) were the topic of multiple articles published by Evans alongside distinguished professors, specialists, and leaders in the economic and community development fields. With expertise in the area and a passion for energy infrastructure projects, Evans wondered if he could combine the social benefits of QOZs with the environmental impact of existing solar incentives. The U.S. Internal Revenue Services (IRS) had not yet written the rules on the innovative concept, so the risk levels were high while the return was uncertain. With graduation approaching, Evans would have to make some key decisions. In addition to settling on a viable investment thesis, he would have to assemble a team and think about how best to raise capital.

For five years, the private equity impact team at Nuveen led by Rekha Unnithan, CFA, had been watching Samunnati, a specialized agriculture value chain solutions provider located in Chennai, near the southeastern coast of India. Its mission was to support smallholder farmers, who comprised roughly 87 percent of Indian farm workers, by providing financing and capacity building for farmer collectives and larger, more diverse agri-enterprises. Through market linkages and working capital, Samunnati sought to raise the access, purchasing power, and connectivity for agricultural value chains in India. Launched and led by a career banker with deep expertise in rural and agricultural finance, Samunnati was poised to transform the agriculture ecosystem in India while improving the income and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of smallholder farmers. First introduced to Samunnati in 2014, the Nuveen team had followed the company's journey from a pilot project in the unbanked tiers of a single state in India to an agritech enterprise operating in 14 states and over 30 value chains across India. In early 2019, Samunnati began raising its Series D round of financing to further its growth, and the team at Nuveen was ready to take a closer look. Despite Samunnati's success to date, agriculture had historically been a risky sector with significant volatility, particularly at the value chain level. In addition, the company was in its growth stage, so its systems and processes needed to further mature-specifically its information technology strategy, impact framework and reporting, and preparations as a Systemically Important Non-Bank Finance Company, a designation assigned to Samunnati given its size and significance in the economy. Finally, given the marginalization of smallholder farmers throughout history, the Nuveen team was sensitive about safeguarding this vulnerable member of the agricultural ecosystem; specifically, they wanted to ensure that the investment would not

After completing a successful two-year pilot, the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator (LACI) was ready to launch its inaugural Debt Fund. The goal was to capitalize companies solving the greatest challenges related to climate change across three priority spaces in cleantech: transportation, clean energy, and sustainable cities. Spearheading the effort was Alex Mitchell, senior Vice President of Unlocking Innovation through the empowerment of start-ups-one of the three pillars of the organization's theory of change-in addition to Market Transformation through partnerships and pilots, and Enhancing Community through workforce development and programs. For over a decade, LACI had worked with nearly 300 start-ups through its incubator program to help sustainable start-ups, particularly those founded by and serving underrepresented individuals and communities, gain access to capital and scale their businesses. The Debt Fund would draw heavily on LACI's expertise and existing portfolio to provide loans with interest rates at or below market rates to companies that had achieved market traction but did not have the cash flow required to qualify for traditional loans. Specifically, the Debt Fund would focus on capitalizing minorities who were disproportionately affected by the cost and lack of access to equity funding. As its incubator program portfolio was nearly 33 percent women and 33 percent underrepresented founders of color, Mitchell needed a plan for preventing biases from imbuing the lending process at LACI while staying true to the organization's social mission of building a more sustainable and equitable ecosystem. In addition, while LACI had developed an impact framework for the incubator program that not only aligned with portfolio companies but underscored the importance of start-up engagement in the process, he struggled with how best to do the same with the Debt Fund. Finally, LACI would be partnering with other cleantech start-ups ("incubator partners") in the

In 2016, Stephen M. Liberatore, CFA, lead portfolio manager for and head of Nuveen's impact fixed income strategies, received a phone call from the World Bank. The call was not unusual; in fact, Nuveen had collaborated with the World Bank in the past as lead investor on a new type of Green Bond for the World Bank's private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC). While Green Bonds had been in existence for nearly a decade, the IFC Forest Bond was the first government-related credit focused on channeling private funds toward forest protections. The call that day, however, centered around an entirely new concept-a Blue Bond. Like most fixed income products, Blue Bonds were a debt instrument providing capital to issuers who repaid the debt with interest over time; however, the use of proceeds was earmarked for marine projects and ocean conservation. While the Nuveen team was familiar with and open to the more esoteric transactions presented by the World Bank, they had a series of challenging tasks ahead of them. First and somewhat simultaneously, they had to assess the security on a total return basis incorporating, among other assessments, fundamental credit analysis, an evaluation of terms, liquidity analysis, and relative value analysis, while ensuring that the investment adhered to their impact framework. This included not only direct support of measurable social and environmental impact but an emphasis on competitive, risk-adjusted return potential. This was particularly challenging given that the issuance was the first of its kind and comparable securities did not exist. Additionally, measures of impact remained immature as this was an inaugural transaction, so determining impact targets was not feasible. The team also had to determine the size of their commitment. While they could have funded the entire deal, they wondered if it made more sense to incorporate other impact investors. Finally, the team had to ensure that that the investment and

The leadership of Union Pacific Corporation (UPC), the largest public railroad transportation company in the United States, needed to decide whether the company should reestablish its share-buyback program. The freight recession of 2019 and the decline in shipping volumes caused by the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 had not been gentle on the freight industry overall, and UPC had been no exception. The company had been able to maintain its dividend policy, but suspended its share-repurchase program during the second half of 2020. By the end of 2020, UPC's management saw signs of V-shaped economic recovery. Was it time for UPC to reinstate the company's share-repurchase program? Dividends and share repurchases were important avenues through which UPC returned value to its shareholders. UPC's growth opportunities had become limited over the previous 50 years, and management had focused on efficiency, cost cutting, and generating cash flows that the company channeled back to shareholders. This case has been successfully taught at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business in the Enterprise Valuation module of the course ""Financial Management and Policies,"" which is an integral part of Darden's core curriculum for MBA students. The case integrates a variety of subjects including forecasting, financing, and investment analysis. Students are asked to calculate the implied enterprise value and share price of a corporation by building a DCF model.

Spreadsheet Supplement for Case UV8717

In early 2020, Singapore Airlines Limited (Singapore Airlines) faced severe liquidity issues as the global pandemic halted its flights and uncertainty loomed. Erstwhile massive cash reserves were quickly running out, and the airline’s executives pondered how to save the company from insolvency. Singapore Airlines’ majority shareholder, Temasek Holdings Limited, agreed to subscribe to a massive capital-raising exercise of up to S$15 billion via a proposed rights offer and mandatory convertible bonds (MCBs). Although minority shareholders were not convinced that the rights issue would be a good investment in such uncertain times, they had to decide whether to vote for it and whether to subscribe to the rights issue and MCBs.