Regarding Case Midwest Lighting, Inc., Chapter 13, Pages 384-393. The conflicts between Jack Peterson and David Scott are actually pretty common especially when the ownership/voting structure is equal. Ive seen this general scenario numerous times in practice. Entrepreneurial finance can include everything from figuring out how to finance a companys rapid growth, to buying-out other owners, or selling all or part of the company to an investor/strategic-partner that can help grow/finance the business to the next major level. As a follow-up to the case, lets assume that both Jack Peterson and David Scott have agreed that the best way to resolve their conflicts is for one of them to buy out the other (one will stay with the business and the other will completely leave the business). They both agreed that Jack Peterson will decide whether he will buy or sell, and they will negotiate a price later. Lets assume that you have been hired by Jack Peterson to advise him on whether to sell his shares of Midwest Lighting to David Scott, or purchase David Scotts shares of the business. Would you advise Jack Peterson to buy David Scotts shares (Jack stays with Midwest Lighting) or sell David Scott his shares (Jack leaves Midwest Lighting)? Most importantly, why (give 3-4 good reasons to support your recommendation)? Jack needs a definitive recommendation based on the available information in the case. You are Jacks trusted advisor because you can make a definitive decision, and support your recommendation with the information provided to you in the case (not merely recommending additional research or requiring additional information).