個案總覽

Supplement to case W18869

Supplement to case NTU213

Supplement for product W18559.

Supplement for product W18559.

Supplement for product W18559.

Supplement for product W18559.

Supplement for product 9B18M132.

Supplement for product 9B18M132.

Supplement for product 9B18M132.

Supplement for product 9B18M132.

This case describes how Robert Fadel, as CEO and chairman of ABC, one of Lebanon's leading retail and real estate groups, professionalized the family business amid ongoing disputes with his siblings. Robert was the second son of Maurice Fadel, who had founded the business years before and who ran it single-handedly. Growing up with three brothers, Robert and his siblings were tested by their father before they were allowed to take on managerial positions at ABC, which created competition and tension between them. Their relationship was often contentious. To prevent the business from being affected by the rivalry between his sons after his death, Maurice set up a trust in 2002 that designated Robert as his successor. A month before he died, in 2009, Maurice revised the trust, granting Robert full control of the board as well. In June 2009, Maurice passed away, and according to the provisions of the trust, Robert became the chairman and CEO of ABC for a period of five years, with the possibility of extending his term by an additional three years-on condition that he had the support of one of his brothers. In his new role, Robert had two main goals. First, he wanted to turn ABC into a professionally managed organization at all levels. Second, he wanted to invest in long-term projects that would expand the business. Actualizing his vision was not an easy task. Robert had to deal with his brothers' opposition, who focused on collecting dividends rather than making investments to grow the business. In spite of everything, Robert achieved both his goals by the end of his eighth year, in 2017, when he stepped down as ABC's CEO. Should he appoint someone from outside the Fadel family as ABC's new CEO? Should Robert Fadel step down from the chairmanship as well?

In summer 2016, four of Australia's top five banks petitioned regulators for permission to bargain collectively with Apple over the terms under which they would support its digital wallet, Apple Pay. They argued that doing so would force concessions from Apple that would improve market competitiveness, consumer choice, price transparency, and transaction security for all mobile payments in Australia. The banks stood to benefit as well. If they succeeded in their primary aim of opening the contactless payment functionality of Apple's devices to their own digital wallets-something Apple had thus far refused in any market it had entered-the banks could retain customer relationships that Apple Pay threatened to usurp and limit Apple's free-riding on the contactless payment infrastructure the banks had just spent several years building. This case supplements the (A) case, 619010.

Supplement for product 9B18B013.

The (B) case describes how AMC reacted to the threat from the subscription service MoviePass and provides AMC's second quarter fiscal year 2018 results.

Supplement to case HEC225

Supplement to case SM266A

Supplement to case NA0558

This case series charts the evolution of the hostile battle for Allergan and its ultimate sale to a white knight, Actavis. David Pyott had been the CEO of Allergan since January 1998; only the third CEO in the company's 60-year-plus history. Allergan was primarily known for Botox, the aesthetic anti-wrinkle product, but the company, which had started out in eye care, had developed Botox into a US$2 billion multipurpose drug. By 2014 the company, which enjoyed double-digit growth, had over 11,000 employees, sold its products in 100 countries and had 40 direct-selling subsidiaries. The business mix included eye care, neurosciences, medical aesthetics, medical dermatology, breast aesthetics and urologics. R&D was the backbone of the company and it had strong cash reserves. In April 2014 it came as a shock to Pyott and the Allergan board to learn that that pharma company Valeant, in partnership with Pershing Square Capital Management, had announced its intention to make a hostile takeover of Allergan. The ensuing battle was hostile, attracting media interest, hostile and supportive stories in the papers, and 'games' to force Allergan into negotiating a sale. Tricks included hacking emails in an attempt to find out information on the fight team's strategy and moves. Pyott and the board had managed to drive up the share price over several months in their attempt to keep Allergan independent. In November 2014, a Californian judge accepted Valeant/Pershing Square's demand that shareholders should be allowed to vote on its bid. Case A follows the battle from the initial announcement to the court judgement. Case B then illustrates what happened next. Pyott and the 'fight' team realised that they were not able to keep Allergan independent and looked for a white knight to make a higher bid for the company. They successfully identified and negotiated with Actavis, a fellow pharma company. The sale was announced later in November. While Allergan no longer remained an independent

Supporting material to accompany product 9B18B013.

Supporting material to accompany product 9B18B013.