CCCU and GBS have provided guidance on how students can use Generative AI to support their knowledge and education. Please see the link below that provides further guidance on the topic and also includes some case studies that students should familiarise themselves with.

The use of an artificial intelligence tool/source/programme/platform, such as ChatGPT or any other GenAI software, to generate material which is submitted as if it is the student’s own work without clear referencing is not permitted.

Generative AI should not be used to produce the original text required in summative assessments. This includes:

Students can make use of a spelling and grammar checker to correct misspelled words and to correct grammatical errors. However, if the GenAI offers to rewrite sentences or create sentences this may be seen as an unacceptable use of GenAI.

Students must understand the sentences created including the overall meaning as well as the meaning of specific words

Students might choose to get support from their peers when preparing assessments, such as discussing the subject of the assessment, exchanging ideas, and receiving suggestions for improving the work. This is peer-support, and the University accepts this as a reasonable expectation when completing assessments. However, peers must not make any changes to anyone’s assessments as such actions could lead to allegations of academic misconduct.

Students cannot write an assessment in another language and subsequently translate their work into English or have it translated by any form of third-party. Use of translation software or third-party translators is a form of academic misconduct.

Students can make use of Microsoft Word’s grammar and spell-checking functions but the use of Grammarly is not allowed as it uses AI text generation. If student’s use third-party proofreaders, these cannot make any changes that alter the assessment in anyway including correcting language or citation format errors. Third-party alterations to the assessment are a form of academic misconduct.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism can be defined as incorporating another person’s material from books, journals, the internet, another student’s work, or any other source into assessment material without acknowledgement. It includes:

Collusion:

If students submit work for assessment that is falsely presented as the student’s own work but was jointly written with somebody else; this is a form of academic misconduct.

Generative AI

The inclusion in assessments of a significant amount of identical or substantially similar material to that already submitted for assessment by the student and graded for the same course or any other course or module at this University or elsewhere is classed as self-plagiarism. It does not include a resubmission of the same piece of work allowed by the examiners in an improved or revised form for reassessment purposes. Self-plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct.

Further clarification of the above can be found in CCCU’s Academic Misconduct documents below

Related Questions

University	canterbury christ church university (CCCU)
Subject	AFM5CGL: Corporate Governance and leadership

Programme:	Accounting & Financial Management
Level:	Level 5	Module Title:	Corporate Governance and leadership
Module code:	AFM5CGL	Module leader/s:	Dr Farhad Gohardani
Assignment No:	1	Assignment Type:	Case Study
Assignment weighting %:	100%	Assignment Word Count: (or equivalent)	4,000 words
Penalties	All penalties that are listed at the end of this document in the Table of Penalties.

	Submission Dates and Times (Day: Date & Time)
1^st submission & Summative Link	The deadline is Monday, 27 October 2025 by 14:00 Submission Link: AFM5CGL_SEP23: Written Local Exam – First Submission \| Global Banking School
Late Submission	The deadline is Wednesday, 29 October 2025 by 14:00
Resubmission 1	The deadline is Friday 26 December 2025 14:00
Resubmission 2	The deadline is Friday 20 March 2026, 2:00 PM
Grade & Feedback release Dates	All Grade and Feeback release dates are 21 days after the submission date. If an assignment deadline is Monday 1^st 2:00pm then the grade release date will be Monday 22^nd 2:00pm

This assignment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of the following module learning outcomes:
Module Outcome 1	Identify, describe and critically evaluate current strategic management and corporate governance concepts, theories and models.
Module Outcome 2	Explain and critically evaluate the link between strategy, corporate governance, and leadership.
Module Outcome 3	Demonstrate critical awareness of how corporate governance can be used as a means for ensuring that management action is aligned with the corporate vision and strategy defined as agreed by key stakeholders.
Module Outcome 4	Critically evaluate the benefit of corporate governance as a means for ensuring that management action is aligned with the corporate vision and strategy defined as agreed by key stakeholders.

	Assignment Requirements
Overview	A Case study is used as evidence to demonstrate an in-depth understanding, critical evaluation and creative application of concepts, models, and theories applicable to organisational governance and leadership styles. The focus of this case study is to weave the subjects of corporate governance, change management, strategic management, and leadership together to form a meaningful, insightful and cohesive report. The case study will require you to develop a solid knowledge and critically-examined understanding of the strategic and operational importance of corporate governance, strategy, change management and leadership styles in organisations. (Recommended word count for this case study is 4,000 words ± 10%).
Assignment task/s to be completed	The assignment requires that you demonstrate an in-depth understanding and critical evaluation of contemporary issues that focus on the role of the corporate governance, strategic management, and leadership in enhancing organisational success through organisational changes in a global context. You will be required to have a good knowledge and understanding of the strategic and operational importance of change in organisations using a wide variety of research materials. (Do not attempt the assignment without the assignment brief. Please follow the guidance provided below) DESCRIPTION OF THE TASK – WHAT YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DO? Case Study: The Takeover of Hargreaves Lansdown by a CVC-led Consortium: The £5.4 billion acquisition of Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) by a consortium comprising Citicorp Venture Capital (CVC) Capital Partners, Nordic Capital, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) represents a pivotal moment for the UK’s wealth management sector. Completed in March 2025, the deal saw the UK’s largest and most influential retail investment platform transition from public market ownership to private equity control, highlighting a perceived value gap in the London market and private capital’s appetite for transformative investments in financial services. Founded in 1981 by Peter Hargreaves and Stephen Lansdown from a spare bedroom in Bristol, HL revolutionized the UK’s personal investment landscape. Its growth was monumental, rising from a startup to a FTSE 100 constituent by 2011. By 2024, it served over 1.8 million clients with approximately £142 billion in assets under administration (AUA) (Hargreaves Lansdown, 2024; Financial Times, 2024). HL’s significance and innovation lay in its direct-to-consumer model, which dismantled the traditional, advisor-led barriers to investing. Before HL, accessing funds and shares was often complex, expensive, and dominated by high-street banks and commission-driven financial advisors. HL’s innovative services included: -The Fund Platform: HL’s core innovation was creating a centralized, accessible “fund supermarket.” This allowed retail investors to easily compare, buy, and hold thousands of funds from various providers in one place, dramatically simplifying diversification and portfolio management (MoneyWeek, 2024). -Tax-Efficient Wrappers: It was a pioneer in making Self-Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs) and Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) accessible to the mass market. These wrappers allowed investors to shelter their investments from capital gains and income tax, with HL providing the intuitive platform to manage them. -Discounts and Transparency: By negotiating volume discounts on fund management fees and passing some savings to customers, HL offered better value than many traditional avenues. Its focus on transparent, upfront pricing and extensive research materials empowered a new generation of self-directed investors (The Guardian, 2014). -Client-Centric Technology: Long before fintech became a trend, HL invested heavily in user-friendly technology, providing clients with 24/7 access to their portfolios, clear reporting, and streamlined dealing. This built immense customer loyalty and a powerful, trusted brand. This innovative approach allowed HL to capture a dominant market share, creating a highly profitable business with a sticky customer base and recurring revenue streams. It wasn’t just a broker; it was the gateway to the markets for a significant portion of the UK’s investing public. Despite its dominant position, HL faced significant modern headwinds by the 2020s. The very market it helped create became crowded with low-cost, digitally-native rivals like Vanguard and iShares. The ongoing need for substantial investment in its technology platform to keep pace with these competitors pressured its margins and growth prospects, leading to a period of share price stagnation. This made it a target for acquirers who believed its immense value was not fully realised in the public markets (MoneyWeek, 2024). The bidding consortium comprised three major financial powerhouses: – Citicorp Venture Capital (CVC) Capital Partners: A leading global private equity and investment advisory firm with a proven track record in financial services investments. -Nordic Capital: A prominent European private equity investor with specific expertise in financial services and technology, notably through its investment in the Nordic platform Nordnet. -Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA): One of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, providing deep, long-term capital and stability to the consortium. In August 2024, the consortium announced a recommended final offer of £11.40 per share in cash, valuing HL at approximately £5.4 billion. The HL Board, citing the “certainty and value” offered to shareholders in the face of these costly required investments, unanimously recommended the offer. The strategic rationale for the consortium was clear: to acquire a legendary brand with a loyal customer base and accelerate its technology-led transformation away from the short-term earnings pressures of the public market (Hargreaves Lansdown, 2024; Reuters, 2024). Dan Olley, the CEO of Hargreaves Lansdown, played a central role in navigating the company through the offer period. Appointed in 2022, Olley was in the midst of a multi-year technology transformation program. He supported the board’s recommendation, stating the deal would provide the capital and patience needed to execute this strategy effectively (Financial Times, 2024a). Co-founders Peter Hargreaves and Stephen Lansdown, still major shareholders, were pivotal. Hargreaves, retaining a 20% stake, publicly supported the deal. Lansdown, with a 5.6% stake, also agreed, providing crucial momentum for shareholder approval (The Guardian, 2024). On the acquirer’s side, the leadership of the consortium firms drove the strategic rationale. They viewed HL as a quintessential “public-to-private” opportunity: a high-quality business with a strong brand and loyal customer base, whose transformation could be accelerated away from the quarterly earnings pressure of public markets (CVC Capital Partners, 2025). The deal’s size and the global reach of the private equity firms involved necessitated approval from regulators across multiple jurisdictions: 1. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)- UK: As the conduct regulator, the FCA’s critical role was to approve the “change of control” of this systemically important financial entity, ensuring the new owners were fit and proper and that consumer protection would be upheld. The FCA granted formal approval on 27 February 2025 (FX News Group, 2025). 2. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)- UK: The CMA reviewed the transaction for any potential substantial lessening of competition and concluded no further investigation was required. 3. International Regulators (EU, China, Switzerland): The European Commission, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), and the Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) all cleared the deal. Their role was solely to assess anti-competitive implications in their respective jurisdictions, which they found to be non-existent (Morningstar, 2024; International Adviser, 2024). The involvement of the High Court was a standard procedural step. The acquisition was executed via a “scheme of arrangement” under the UK Companies Act 2006. This court-supervised mechanism requires: 1. Shareholder Vote: Approval from 75% in value and a majority in number of voting shareholders (achieved in October 2024 with 87% in favour). 2. Court Sanction: The Court’s role was not to judge the deal’s merits but to ensure the process was fair, shareholders were properly informed, and all legal requirements were met. Its sanction on 18 March 2025 was the final legal step before completion (London Stock Exchange, 2025). Despite the high approval rate, the process faced significant dissent. A substantial 13% of shareholders voted against the deal, arguing that the offer significantly undervalued the company’s iconic brand and its long-term potential once its transformation was complete (Private Equity News, 2024). Critics contended the board chose a short-term payout over future value creation, with one fund manager calling HL “a fantastic business being sold on the cheap” (The Guardian, 2024). There were also client concerns about HL’s customer-centric culture being eroded under profit-focused private equity ownership. With all clearances obtained, the acquisition was completed on 25 March 2025, and HL was delisted from the London Stock Exchange. CEO Dan Olley stepped down, replaced by former CEO Richard Flint on an interim basis. Co-founder Peter Hargreaves rejoined the board, signalling the consortium’s intent to leverage his deep institutional knowledge (Financial Times, 2025; The Times, 2025). Overall, the takeover of Hargreaves Lansdown was more than a financial transaction; it was the transfer of a foundational piece of the UK’s investing infrastructure. The deal set the certainty of a cash exit against the belief in the company’s enduring innovative potential. Its future now hinges on the consortium’s ability to steward the brand, invest wisely in the platform that revolutionized investing, and balance financial returns with the needs of the millions of retail clients who placed their trust in it. Some of the references used to prepare this summary were as follows: Hargreaves Lansdown, CVC Capital Partners, Private Equity News, London Stock Exchange, Financial Times, Reuters, The Guardian, The Times, MoneyWeek, FX News Group, International Adviser, Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) (GOV.UK), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), among others. In a 4,000-word case study, critically discuss the corporate governance and leadership issues of Hargreaves Lansdown takeover case. As part of your discussion, your case study needs to include the following: 1. Introduction: Introduce the subject and different sections of your case study and briefly define and critically evaluate the interconnected roles of corporate governance and strategic leadership in the process of change management and risk management. (400 words). 2. Provide a brief description and critical evaluation of the vision, mission, core values and strategic goals of the CVC-led Consortium by using relevant theories and models alongside quantitative and qualitative data and statistics. (400 words). 3. By deploying relevant definitions, theories, and models, provide a critical discussion of what you understand by takeover in the context of corporate governance of an organisation. (400 words). 4. Critically discuss and evaluate whether the takeover of Hargreaves Lansdown by the CVC-led Consortium was acceptable from a corporate governance standpoint, deploying relevant theories and models (e.g., agency theory, stakeholder theory, shareholder model, etc.). By using academic, company and industry sources and data, demonstrate who benefited or lost out from the takeover? Explain the divergence or convergence of interests for different stakeholder groups and individuals, considering the stakeholder grid. (800 words). 5. Critically evaluate the roles of the regulatory bodies (Uk regulators, international regulators and the High Court of England and Wales) in this takeover case. Based on relevant theories and models, and by deploying reliable academic, company and industry sources and qualitative and quantitative data, critically evaluate their exact logic for approving this takeover. Explore whether there has been any possibility of regulatory failure in this case, based on the past regulatory failures covered in the literature. (600 words) 6. Apply Lewin’s 3-Stage Model to assess how the takeover change was managed and whether the unfreeze–change–refreeze process was handled effectively by using relevant empirical evidence. (600 words) 7. Recommendations (600 words): As part of your recommendations to the leadership of the CVC-led Consortium and Hargreaves Lansdown: I. You should suggest approaches to which the CVC-led Consortium and Hargreaves Lansdown should have considered and could optimally integrate into the overall strategy, corporate governance, and leadership framework of their newly merged entity. II. The way change could be communicated to minimise resistance within an organisation, using literature to support your recommendations. 8. Conclusion: Critically evaluate the key findings and provide overall insightful conclusion remarks (200 words). Word count: Your word count margin should not be more or less than 10% of the 4,000-word count.

Additional Information required to support completing the tasks above	The case study must: 1. Give the full Harvard reference within the reference page for each item used, and the correct Harvard intext ‘shortened’ reference as known as in-text citation within the case study. 2. Include references from a wide variety of sources. Include a minimum of 20 references. 3. Make use, alongside further reading, the relevant core texts, and research items from within the module. No Front Sheet is to be submitted or student name or student ID is to appear anywhere in your assignment submission as it will be anonymously marked. This Assignment will be Anonymously marked. This Assignment will have assignments selected for a Random Interview.

UK Writing Services

UK's DIPLOMA AND DEGREES

SUBJECTIVE ASSIGNMENT HELP

AFM5CGL Level 5 Corporate Governance and leadership Assignment Case Study

Module Assignment Brief

Assignment Requirements

DESCRIPTION OF THE TASK – WHAT YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DO?

The case study must:

Mandatory Referencing and Research Requirements

Format of your submission and how your assignment will be assessed

Marking Scheme / Rubric – The Marking Scheme (otherwise known as a rubric) is available on the Module Assessment Tab on Moodle.

Submission Requirements

Table of Penalties

Generative AI

Plagiarism

Collusion:

Generative AI

Do You Need Assignment of This Question

Table of Penalties
Issue with the Assignment	Penalty to be Applied
Suspected Academic Misconduct or Breach of Academic integrity	The Assignment will be graded zero. Written feedback will be ‘This assignment has been identified as potential Academic Misconduct/Breach of Academic Integrity. You will be invited to a meeting to discuss’. You will be invited to a meeting with an academic Misconduct reviewer. When you attend the meeting if Academic Misconduct or the breach of Academic Integrity is upheld you will be asked to rewrite the section of the assignment it applies to and re-submit the assignment. Do not upload any assignments to the AMC submission links before the meeting otherwise it will be removed. Failure to attend the meeting means the assignment will remain graded at zero and you will be unable to pass the module until you have attended the meeting.
The assignment is more than 10% over the prescribed wordcount i.e. for 3,000 words, if 3,400 is submitted excluding the cover page, table of contents, references and appendices.	A 10-mark deduction applied to the overall grade that is manually entered by the Lecturer. This deduction is capped at 40%, which means an assignment cannot get less than 40% if a deduction has to be made. For example, if the mark for the assignment was 60. The lecturer would deduct 10 marks and the mark will be 50. Written feedback will also state ‘This assignment is 10% over the wordcount and 10 marks have been deducted’.
Where assignments are more than 10% less than the prescribed wordcount and lecturers cannot identify if the learning outcomes have been met.	This assignment will be graded below 40.
Where a student submits a .pdf instead of a word document.	This assignment will be graded a Fail. The lecturer will grade as 1 and the written feedback will state ‘This is a pdf submission and is not allowed. All submissions should be in Microsoft Word format’.
Students not working in their groups as agreed by the lecturer.	This assignment will be graded a Fail. The lecturer will grade as 1 and the written feedback will state ‘This submission was not completed in the designated group’. *Please note: Where a student has asked the lecturer to move from their original group and the lecturer has agreed this does not apply.*
For a presentation assignment that requires oral delivery, and the student does not present in person.	The Oral rubric criteria is not moved, and the oral criteria will remain at zero.
For a presentation assignment and the student does not upload a converted PPT To Word File with speaker notes.	The communication rubric criteria is not moved, and the communication criteria will remain at zero.
For a presentation assignment that requires oral delivery, and the student did not present on the day or upload the presentation to a Word document with speaker Notes.	This assignment will be graded a Fail. The lecturer will grade as 1 and the written feedback will state ‘There was no Oral presentation in class and the submission was not converted to Microsoft Word’.
For a presentation assignment the student uploads a file that contains no slides and is simply continuous text.	This assignment will be graded a Fail. The lecturer will grade as 1 and the written feedback will state ‘There are no slides present in the assignment submission’.
If the assignment is group work and the resubmission is not changed to individual work.	This assignment will be graded a Fail. The lecturer will grade as 1 and the written feedback will state ‘This resubmission should be individual and a minimum of 25% of the assignment
If a group assignment is failed then the resubmitted work must be changed by a minimum of 25% to make it an individual piece of work. This means if a Group Presentation is 12 slides a minimum of 3 must be different to the group submission. If the assignment is a Group Poster with 6 text boxes then a minimum of 2 of them must be different to the Group Poster.	has not changed’.
Where a written assignment has text that is unable to be read by Turnitin because it is either a graphical image (excluding Presentations & Posters); for example, a screenshot or the assignment is written within text boxes on each page.	This assignment will be graded 0 and the written feedback should state ‘This assignment is unreadable by Turnitin and cannot be checked for Academic Misconduct. It has been referred for an AMC meeting’. The assignment will then be referred for Academic Misconduct investigation.
An assignment that does not make use of any Mandatory references provided in the assignment brief/Module Handbook.	The reference rubric criteria is not moved and that criteria will remain at zero
An assignment has a reference list, but no citations.	The reference rubric criteria is not moved and that criteria will remain at zero. Written feedback should state ’The reference criteria has been graded Zero as no citations have been used. Please include citations in your assignment to support the academic points being made’.
An assignment has no citations and no reference list.	Foundation & Level 4 – The reference rubric criteria is not moved and that criteria will remain at zero. The written feedback will state ‘Please ensure that you use citations and references to support your assignment submission’. At Level 5 and Level 6 this would be graded as a Fail. The lecturer will grade as 1 and written feedback will also show ‘This assignment has no citations and no reference list’.
Where False references are included in an assignment.	This will be referred for Academic Misconduct. This assignment will be graded 0 and the written feedback should state ‘This assignment contains false references and has been referred for Academic Misconduct. You will be invited to attend an Academic Misconduct meeting’.
Assignment is submitted after the Late Deadline or if it is a Resubmission, after the Resubmission deadline	This assignment will be graded a Fail. The lecturer will grade as 1 and written feedback should state ‘This assignment was submitted after the deadline. Please resubmit at the next resubmission opportunity.’