AFM5CGL Level 5 Corporate Governance and leadership Case Study Assignment 1 Brief | CCCU

Module Assignment Brief

Module learning outcomes of AFM5CGL:

1. Identify, describe and critically evaluate current strategic management and corporate governance concepts, theories and models.
2. Explain and critically evaluate the link between strategy, corporate governance, and leadership.
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.
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.

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%).

AFM5CGL 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.

AFM5CGL 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.

Format of your submission and how your assignment will be assessed

The format of your submission must be in word format only. Any other formats e.g. pdf, ppt etc. will not be accepted.

Your work will be assessed to the extent to which it demonstrates your achievement of the stated learning outcomes for this assignment (see above) and against other key criteria, as defined in the University’s institutional grading descriptors. If it is appropriate to the format of your assignment and your subject area, a proportion of your marks will also depend upon your use of academic referencing conventions.

AFM5CGL Marking Scheme / Rubric 

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