Chuck is a newly recruited CEO of a startup. He makes a presentation to the investor and they commit verbally to provide $16 million funding, impressed by the numbers in the presentation. However Chuck is informed by his Betty that the numbers are exaggerated. From his further research on this, he understood that she was correct and there was remote possibility of achieving the numbers projected. But the renewal income figure which impressed the clients most was totally incorrect. Chuck is in a dilemma how to proceed further. Characters in the case: Chuck Campbell, Betty Mars, investors, a member of the management team are the characters mentioned in this case. Adequate information: Chuck is a newly recruited CEO of the startup. The investors had verbally committed to $16 million funding impressed by the renewal income. To determine: If Chuck should go ahead with the deal and then inform later that it was the absence of the controller and because Chuck was still new to this job and did not have the required time to analyze the numbers which caused the problem.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 6, Problem 2ED

Summary Introduction

Case summary:

Chuck is a newly recruited CEO of a startup. He makes a presentation to the investor and they commit verbally to provide $16 million funding, impressed by the numbers in the presentation. However Chuck is informed by his Betty that the numbers are exaggerated. From his further research on this, he understood that she was correct and there was remote possibility of achieving the numbers projected. But the renewal income figure which impressed the clients most was totally incorrect. Chuck is in a dilemma how to proceed further.

Characters in the case:

Chuck Campbell, Betty Mars, investors, a member of the management team are the characters mentioned in this case.

Adequate information:

Chuck is a newly recruited CEO of the startup. The investors had verbally committed to $16 million funding impressed by the renewal income.

To determine:

If Chuck should go ahead with the deal and then inform later that it was the absence of the controller and because Chuck was still new to this job and did not have the required time to analyze the numbers which caused the problem.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

A female crane operator was told it was Weyland policy that crane operators urinate over the side of their cranes rather than stop work to take bathroom breaks. Management justified the policy by saying that there was a shortage of staff and that it was necessary for the cranes to operate continuously in that area of the plant. Shifts for crane operators were typically twelve hours. There was evidence that the same policy was applied to male crane operators and that they routinely urinated over the side or back of their cranes in lieu of bathroom breaks. Does the female crane operator have a valid sex discrimination claim under disparate impact? What about disparate treatment?

At the end of her shift, a 19-year-old salesperson at Weyland was questioned by two store security officers. She was questioned in a small room for three hours. One of the security officers sat behind her on the right side where she could not see him (she was blind in the right eye). She was asked to sign a document stating that she was voluntarily waiving her “rights,” including the right to remain silent. When she asked for further explanation of the document before she signed it, she was told that it “doesn’t mean anything” unless you’ve “done something wrong.” A security officer threatened to call the police and have her jailed unless she signed a confession. She was told that the interrogation could last all night and that if she signed a confession she could probably keep her job. Under these circumstances she signed. She was fired two days later. The employee claims that she is agitated and finding it increasingly difficult to sleep. Does the sales person have a claim…

Weyland became aware that a union organizing campaign was underway in one of its plants. A union supporter was called in to a meeting with plant managers. At the end of the meeting, when the employee asked what he was supposed to do if others wanted to talk with him about unionizing, he was told “[Y]ou’re to just work and not talk about the Union.” After union supporters posted material on company bulletin boards, the flyers were repeatedly taken down. The company then issued a policy requiring all employees to obtain approval before placing any material on the boards. Subsequently, the company’s practice was to refuse to post material of any kind from employees. A few months later, several off-duty employees attempted to distribute pro-union flyers in the company parking lot but were stopped by company officials. They were warned that they were in violation of company policy. Around the same time, employees passed out union buttons in the plant and left some of them near a time clock…