個案總覽

This case covers the discussions and events that took place in 2004 at the family, board, and executive levels at Molson Inc. (Molson). At that time, there was a debate between two strategic orientations: the merger of Molson with A. Coors & Co. (Coors) or the outright sale of Molson to a competitor. The case focuses on the interactions between key governance actors, including the chair, Eric Molson, the deputy chair, Ian Molson, the chief executive officer, Dan O'Neill, and other members of Molson's board of directors. Molson's status as a publicly traded family-controlled firm raises issues such as the importance of family support, the name of the entity resulting from any transaction, and the extent of family involvement in its governance.

On July 21, 2004, Molson's board approved a merger of equals between Molson and Coors. For Eric Molson, chair of the board since 1988, and also head of the Molson family and controlling shareholder, this merger with a strategic partner of similar size would make the merged company - Molson Coors - the fifth-largest brewer in the world. Before this could happen, however, Molson shareholders had to be convinced that this merger would be fair to everyone, not just to the Molson family members who held Class B shares (with voting rights). The merger would require the approval of two-thirds of both the voting and non-voting classes of Molson shareholders. This was far from a done deal since a merger of equals is a zero-premium deal for shareholders. The case explains how Eric and other stakeholders managed to convince Molson shareholders to approve the merger of equals with Coors.

In 1992, Florent Bélanger purchased Maison Orphée, a company founded in 1983 by a French immigrant who had settled in Quebec City. Recognized as Quebec's first artisanal oil producer, Maison Orphée pioneered the production of organic products and superior quality conventional products. Over the years, combining the art of artisanal oil production with sophisticated manufacturing techniques, the firm fine-tuned its expertise, building a reputation as a master oil maker and a specialist in first cold-pressed oils. In 2010, Florent passed the torch to his two daughters, Elisabeth and Élaine, marking the culmination of a gradual, multi-step succession process spread over several years. Working in tandem, the Bélanger sisters would go on to reinvent Maison Orphée's business model.

Royal Enfield, the motorcycle division of Eicher Motors Limited, saw its unit sales increase a multiple of 16 times from 2008 to 2018. By 2019, the company controlled 96 per cent of the 250-750 cc motorcycle market segment in India. However, sales growth slowed considerably in financial year 2018-19, when the first three quarters seemed to indicate continuing slow growth for the company. Year-to-date sales for the first nine months dropped 15 per cent compared to the same period the year before. Two major new competitors were having a considerable impact of Royal Enfield's ability to retain market dominance: Mahindra & Mahindra's successful Jawa motorcycle line and US motorcycle giant Harley-Davidson, which was contemplating extending its portfolio in India into the 250-750 cc motorcycle segment. Having reached the pinnacle of the market, Royal Enfield was eager to retain its position in the 250-750 cc motorcycle segment. What strategic choices and growth options did it have to maintain market dominance, and what competitive advantage was its most viable growth option?

The Clínica Ricardo Palma is looking for a strategic partner. It has contracted the services of a financial advisor (Apoyo Consultoría) to help with the process. The consultancy firm undertook a valuation of the Clínica Ricardo Palma in July 2013 as part of their responsibilities in the sales mandate process. One month later, in August 2013, when the sale was made public, the Nexus Group investment fund (financial branch of Intercorp)[1] made a USD 70 million offer for 100% of the company's shares. This was the first offer the clinic received. During the same month, a minority group of shareholders in the clinic met to analyze the offer. One faction of this group, led by Dr. Jacobo Blufstein, was not in agreement with the offer or the valuation of the clinic carried out by the financial advisor. However, a second faction, led by Dr. Elio Quirós, was. The economic issue had become this group's main worry as they provided services to the clinic as well as being partners. Therefore, they decided to postpone the analysis of including this type of strategic partner for the second session and spend the first meeting concentrating on the valuation of the clinic. They needed to know how much they could ask for the shares before looking for a partner.

In April of 2020, an Ivey Business School HBA graduate, and chief executive officer of automobile parts manufacturer MJD Manufacturing (MJD), recognized the potential opportunity to invest in new machinery and retool some of MJD's operations to produce COVID-19-related supplies. Specifically, she was considering whether or not MJD should produce personal protective equipment. Aside from analyzing the financial viability of the potential investments, she had to consider three factors: First, how long the COVID-19 pandemic might last, as the timeline of the pandemic underpinned the potential investment decision; second, how an investment would be financed; and third, the qualitative aspect of the decision. Specifically, she had to consider how she could help her community at a time when many businesses were shrinking and furloughing employees.

Plug and Play, a Silicon Valley-based investor in start-ups including PayPal and Dropbox, introduces a match-making model to engage corporates with start-ups. The case discusses the rationale behind the model and the challenges involved in simultaneously facilitating start-up development and corporate entrepreneurship. It looks at the expansion of the model beyond the US and describes how its match-making efforts fared in France and Italy.

This case contains two briefs, one for each person in a two-party negotiation. They are relatively short in length and can be read in class just prior to a mock negotiation. This learning activity is appropriate for teaching negotiations skills to a broad audience, including undergraduate and graduate business school students, adult learners in a variety of settings, and in a corporate university.

By 2021, the mindfulness app wars reached their apex. Over 2,000 meditation apps were available to consumers, but two apps, Headspace and Calm, dominated the space, jointly holding about 70% of the total market. Headspace had established itself as the approachable educator for novice meditators. Headspace also invested heavily in athletics partnerships, business-to-business services, and in creating Headspace Health, which they hoped would gain FDA approval and become the first prescription meditation app. Meanwhile, Calm had earned a reputation as the soothing sleep app. Calm was also known for its numerous partnerships with A-list celebrities such as Matthew McConaughey, Harry Styles, and Idris Elba. Indeed, Calm was focused on becoming the leader in "calmtainment" and making a home for itself in Hollywood. What does the future hold for the rivalry between Calm and Headspace? Will both brands continue to co-dominate the mindfulness and meditation space or will one ultimately prevail? What should the brands do to maintain their co-dominance or edge out the other and claim the number one spot?

The director of the INSEAD Virtual Reality Immersive Learning Initiative, Daniel Landau, must decide what brand of VR headsets to buy for the school and its four campuses. It comes down to a choice between VR devices made by Oculus or PICO Interactive: which is better suited for his small team to create content and deploy it from their hub? Since each brand is embedded in a unique ecosystem, Daniel must evaluate their respective roles and contributions to the goal of delivering an optimal immersive learning experience.

The case provides an alternative view of the antitrust dilemma facing Lina Khan, newly appointed commissioner of the US Federal Trade Commission. Her nomination to the FTC by President Biden sent a clear signal to tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google that their enormous power would be reined in by his administration. Khan takes up an antitrust complaint filed against Facebook by her predecessor that its acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014 violated antitrust regulations. This offers an opportunity to review current thinking about the acquisition of start-ups by large technology platforms and discuss the controversy over the privacy practices of social networking platforms. Beyond the legal dimensions, the case examines the growing competitive forces that could pose a threat to WhatsApp and its longstanding domination of the instant messaging market.

After a tsunami hits his island nation, Sahan Kumara believes that his family's business--one of the largest conglomerates in the region--should help with the country's recovery. He, his father, and his brother agree on the need to contribute financially. But Sahan wonders if that's enough. The Kumara Group has the resources and expertise to oversee the country's rebuilding program--which is faltering under the direction of the government and NGOs. As Sahan wrestles with the question of how involved Kumara should get, he weighs conflicting advice from his brother, others in the company, and an old friend at a different firm. This fictional case study by Christopher J. Malloy features expert commentary by Nirvana Chaudhary and Margaret Schuler.

After a tsunami hits his island nation, Sahan Kumara believes that his family's business--one of the largest conglomerates in the region--should help with the country's recovery. He, his father, and his brother agree on the need to contribute financially. But Sahan wonders if that's enough. The Kumara Group has the resources and expertise to oversee the country's rebuilding program--which is faltering under the direction of the government and NGOs. As Sahan wrestles with the question of how involved Kumara should get, he weighs conflicting advice from his brother, others in the company, and an old friend at a different firm. This fictional case study by Christopher J. Malloy features expert commentary by Nirvana Chaudhary and Margaret Schuler.

After a tsunami hits his island nation, Sahan Kumara believes that his family's business--one of the largest conglomerates in the region--should help with the country's recovery. He, his father, and his brother agree on the need to contribute financially. But Sahan wonders if that's enough. The Kumara Group has the resources and expertise to oversee the country's rebuilding program--which is faltering under the direction of the government and NGOs. As Sahan wrestles with the question of how involved Kumara should get, he weighs conflicting advice from his brother, others in the company, and an old friend at a different firm. This fictional case study by Christopher J. Malloy features expert commentary by Nirvana Chaudhary and Margaret Schuler.

In 2020, the chief executive officer of Abelana Game Reserve in South Africa was considering the arrangement between the game reserve and the Mashishimale community, who owned the land. He had promised to provide added value to the land by highlighting four pillars of focus: land, community, business, and investors. Two lodges were formally opened to guests in March 2020, but the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic stopped all business activities-until September 2020, when the government began easing lockdown restrictions and the shareholders met to discuss tourist bookings and expansion plans. The management team had an ambitious and exciting overall vision for the game reserve, but there were more pressing challenges to consider, including a collaborative cross-sector partnership, training and developing workers, creating jobs in the community, and supporting local businesses. Were there other shared value ideas to consider for more employment opportunities and growth within the community?

Deborah Lovich, Partner at the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), has been given the opportunity of a lifetime: to join the firm's Executive Committee as its youngest member and only current woman, as well as just the second woman in its history. Encouraged by her mentors, she saw this role as an important platform to help shape BCG's future. Yet, she had family to consider. Taking up the opportunity would add an additional five to six weeks of travel per year, on top of an already hectic schedule that kept her from home and her four children most days of the week. Her husband Mark, who had finished a grueling 12-year MD-PhD program one year earlier, decided to put his career on hold to be a stay-at-home dad because of her many commitments. Now, with the possibility of even further time away from the family looming, and the kids wanting more time with her, Mark made a serious demand: that she not only decline the Executive Committee role, but also scale back her commitments so that he could relaunch his career. Lovich must weigh how to balance her responsibilities to her family without sacrificing the career she had worked so hard to build.

This public-sourced case describes the lapses in board oversight that led to the dramatic rise and fall of collaborative office space company WeWork and its charismatic leader, Adam Neumann. The case is set in September 2019 and follows board member Mark Schwartz into a critical board meeting to discuss many of the issues facing the company as it tries to raise billions through an IPO: lapses in governance oversight and fiscal discipline, CEO Neumann's erratic behavior, and perhaps even fraud. The case offers an opportunity to evaluate WeWork's strategy and path to future profitability; the board and other stakeholders' role in WeWork's hypergrowth and rapid fall from grace; differences in corporate governance in private versus public companies; and the governance changes that occur in preparation for an IPO. With WeWork on the brink, students are put in Schwartz's shoes in the board meeting and challenged to answer the question: What would you do and why?

Julia Madeline-Coho has decided to start a business-Uptown Hound-that will entertain pets while their owners are away from their homes in the medium-sized mid-Atlantic city of Greenwood. Madeline-Coho's dog Louis (or Lou, as she preferred to call him) was her motivation, along with a dinner guest, Tara Holmes, who she met in her family's house. Holmes was a Darden School of Business graduate concerned about her dog, Winnie, being home alone all day while she was working. Madeline-Coho has been doing research for her potential business and has some decisions to make, such as what services to offer these dogs and what to charge for them, and if and when she should hire any employees. Another decision was whether to expand her services to include cats as well as dogs.

In October 2020, Google LLC (Google) found itself involved in a controversy with both the Indian government and the country's developers of mobile applications (apps). Google announced that it would be enforcing its global policy that required app developers to pay a 30 per cent commission on all in-app purchases of digital goods bought on Google Play, the company's digital distribution platform for app purchases. Google's announcement drew particular opposition in India. With 500 million smartphone users in India, of which 95.85 per cent operated on Google's Android operating system, the app market was heavily skewed in favour of Google. In its goal to dominate the Indian app market, Google had to resolve several key issues. What advantages to users and developers could the company emphasize to justify imposing what India's start-ups and app developers were calling a Google tax? Could a new competitor, such as the proposed platform from India's government or from the technology start-ups, replicate those same advantages? How should Google respond to the complaints against the policy and the threats of antitrust action against the company?

In 2016, Reliance Jio Infocomm (R-Jio) was a late entrant in India's overcrowded but growing telecommunications (telecom) market. By 2019-20, the wholly owned subsidiary of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) was India's number-one telecom company in terms of both profits and market capitalization. The industry's incumbents were expected to retaliate against the new entrant; however, they could not compete against R-Jio's heavily discounted offerings. Within six months, R-Jio had achieved its goal of attracting a subscriber base of 100 million. Although R-Jio intended to remain a leading player in India's digital future, could it sustain its run of success? Would R-Jio be able to leverage its present and future investments and manage risk sufficiently to achieve its optimistic objectives? India's telecom industry faced a dynamically changing and technology-driven future. How could R-Jio ensure it continued to play a leading role in India's telecom industry?