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.

Outcome 1

Outcome 2

Outcome 3

Outcome 4

Assignment Requirements

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%).

(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.

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.

Mandatory Referencing and Research Requirements

Assignment

Iszatt-White, M. and Saunders, C. (2020) Leadership. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

‪Leadership / Marian Iszatt-White and Christopher Saunders.‎ – ‪Record details‎ – ‪EBSCO Discovery Service‎

Recommended:

Henry, A. E. (2021) Understanding Strategic Management. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press

‪Understanding strategic management / Anthony E. Henry.‎ – ‪Record details‎ – ‪EBSCO Discovery Service‎

Northouse, P.G. (2021) Leadership: Theory and Practice. 9^th edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing

‪Leadership : theory and practice / by Peter Guy Northouse.‎ – ‪Record details‎ – ‪EBSCO Discovery Service‎

Whetton, D. A. and Cameron, K. S. (2023) Developing Management Skills. 10th ed. London: Pearson

‪Developing Management Skills, Global Edition‎ – ‪Record details‎ – ‪EBSCO Discovery Service‎

Additional sources:

Antonakis, John & Day, David V. (2020) The nature of leadership. Third ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications Inc

Brooker, P. and Hayward, M. (2024) Rational leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Burnes, B. (2017) Managing Change, London: Pearson

‪Managing change / Bernard Burnes.‎ – ‪Record details‎ – ‪EBSCO Discovery Service‎

Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2024) Making Sense of Change Management. A Complete Guide to The Models and Techniques of Organizational Change. 6th Ed. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

DePamphilis, D. (2021). Mergers, Acquisitions, and Other Restructuring Activities. 12th ed. Academic Press.

Dugan, John P. (2024) Leadership Theory: Cultivating Critical Perspectives, 2^nd. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Duhaime, Irene M., Hitt, Michael A. and Lyles, Majorie A. (2021) Strategic Management: State of the Field and Its Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hayes, J. (2022) The Theory and Practice of Change Management. 6th ed. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Hayes, J. (2025). The theory and practice of change management (7th ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/theory-and-practice-of-change-management-9781350413368

Hodges, Julie (2024) People-centric Organizational Change: Engaging Employees with Business Transformation. London: Kogan Page

Iszatt-White, M. (2024) ‘Getting rid of the L-word: Are our best aspirations for “leadership” not leadership at all?’, in Knights, D., Liu, H., Smolović-Jones, O. and Wilson, S. (eds.) The Routledge Critical Companion to Leadership Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 453–466.

Jabri, M., & Jabri, E. (2022). Managing organizational change (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/managing-organizational-change-9781350302990

Johnson G. and Scholes K. (2020), Exploring corporate strategy. Prentice Hall.

‪Exploring corporate strategy‎ – ‪Search results‎ – ‪EBSCO Discovery Service‎

Schedlitzki, D. and Edwards, G. (2022) Studying leadership: traditional and critical approaches, London: Sage

‪Studying leadership : traditional and critical approaches / Doris Schedlitzki and Gareth Edwards.‎ – ‪Record details‎ – ‪EBSCO Discovery Service‎

Vullinghs, Jesse T. and Solinger, Omar and Hofmans, Joeri and Doci, Edina and Driver, Charles C. and Jansen, Paul G.W. and Judge, Timothy A. (2025) The Dance of Leadership: Studying Behavioral Interaction Scripts in Leadership Dyads. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5174445 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5174445

Whittington, R., Regnér, P., Angwin, D., Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (2023). Exploring strategy: Text & cases (13th ed.). Pearson Education.

Websites:

The Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

www.gov.uk

Bank of England: Prudential Regulation Authority

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/

Financial Conduct Authority: FCA Role in Mergers

https://www.fca.org.uk/

Hargreaves Lansdown

CVC Capital Partners

The Guardian

London Stock Exchange

Reuters

Bloomberg

Economist

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.

This assignment will be marked according to the grading descriptors for Level 5

Submission Requirements

This assignment will be subject to Anonymous Marking by lecturers therefore you should not upload any front sheets for this assignment or put any information into the assignment brief that identifies you either by name or student ID.

This assignment will be subject to Random Interview selection.  You will be asked to attend a meeting to demonstrate your knowledge of the assignment which should take no longer than 20-30 minutes. Please note that failure to attend the meeting means that the assignment will be graded zero until you have attended.

You should submit your Assignment for all deadlines earlier than 2:00pm on the date stated.

Late submissions can be accepted for Summative Submissions only up to a maximum of 2 working days after the submission deadline. This does not apply to resubmission deadlines. A 10 mark deduction will be made by CCCU for all late submissions.

Work submitted more than two working days after the deadline will not be accepted and will be recorded as a non-submission.

Assignments submitted to the Resubmissions deadlines will be capped at 40 by CCCU.

If you are affected by events which are unexpected, outside your control and short-term in nature (i.e. lasting one to two weeks), under the exceptional circumstances procedure you may be eligible for:

•       A seven day extension to your coursework (via self-certification request).

•       A 14 day extension to your coursework (via evidence-based request).

•       To defer your exam or time-constrained assessment if you have not yet submitted/attempted it (via self-certification or evidence-based request).

•       To re-take an exam/time-constrained assessment, if you feel your performance on your first attempt was negatively impacted (via impaired performance request).

Please note students are only eligible to have a maximum of 2 self-certification requests per academic year.

You can make a self-certification request up to 14 calendar days before your deadline:

•       for coursework it must be no later than 2pm on the deadline date

•       for exams and time-constrained assessments, the request must be submitted no later than the start time of the assessment.

Table of Penalties

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.

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’.

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’.

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.

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’.

The lecturer will grade as 1 and the written feedback will state ‘There are no slides present in the assignment submission’.

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

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.

The assignment will then be referred for Academic Misconduct investigation.

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’.