"Loeb was demanding that the Japanese firm change its financial and governance policies...to increase its value. " First, make a case for why FANUC should follow Loeb's advice. Next, make a case against following Loeb's advice. Try to make each side as convincing as possible. First, arguing that the advice of Loeb should not be followed because FANUC is a conservative Japanese company that governs strict policies that do not take petty cash lightly. According to FANUC's strict policies, they are very secretive and do not share private corporate information. By following Loeb's advice, confidential information could leak out as shareholders would possibly take advantage of and diminish the voting rights of the head owners. This would bring chaos into the company culture, and stray away from Tradition. FANUC is operating well, is debt free and has a great reputation and amount of capital to reinvest into itself, therefore Loeb's changes are indeed inadequate. Secondly, arguing that the advice of Loeb should be followed is beneficial to the company. If FANUC adjusts its strict and secretive, micromanaging operating style, it may invest crucial investors that will help the company grow exponentially in the future. FANUC just like any company needs resources and capital in order to operate successfully. The more capital a company has and invests it wisely, the better for everyone. In this way, acting rather selshly in order to increase profits, a company can provide good for society in creating products in the most efficient way possible