Publication database

The “drawbridge” is the short story of a baroness who, despite orders by her husband not to leave the castle, pays a servant so that she can leave the castle to visit a lover overnight. On her way back to the castle, she is killed by a madman after she unsuccessfully tried to get help from her lover, a boatman, and a friend. The half-page story has been circulating for more than three decades and is widely used for educational purposes throughout the world. Even though it is a classic, it has not been used as a case study in the context of management and leadership classes. It is available as a text version or comic strip.

There is an increasing interest in “responsible leadership” and “responsible business.” This case is an ideal opening for such topics. It may also be used as an introduction to leadership or general management programs, as an illustration of case work (different perspectives, no right and wrong answers, participants “doing” the work, discussion rather than lecture), as an illustration of the fuzziness of language, which we deal with in many (management) contexts (e.g. guilt vs. accountability vs. responsibility vs. fault), and/or as an illustration of how people look at the same context or phenomenon, but reach very different interpretations and judgments.

We analyze the effect of initial public offerings (IPOs) on industry competitors and provide evidence that companies experience negative stock price reactions to completed IPOs in their industry and positive stock price reactions to their withdrawal. Following a successful IPO in their industry, they show significant deterioration in their operating performance. These results are consistent with the existence of IPOrelated competitive advantages through the loosening of financial constraints, financial intermediary certification, and the presence of knowledge capital. These aspects of competitiveness are significant in explaining the cross-section of underperformance as well as survival probabilities for competing firms.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

This paper argues that empirical economic analysis in court proceedings is subject to important economic and legal restrictions, cumulating in a fundamental trade-off between accuracy and practicality. We draw lessons from two influential German court cases - the paper wholesaler cartel decision of 2007 and the cement cartel decision of 2009. We characterise the trade-offs arguing that they need to be well understood, made transparent, and that decisions on how to proceed in light of these trade-offs have to be taken upfront by the court. In this respect, we believe that the three-step procedure (design, application, and robustness checks) followed by the German court in the cement case is well suited to meet the appropriate legal standard and requirements, both with respect to accuracy and practicality.