[ad_1]
BLAW1002 – ASSESSMENT 3: LEGAL CASE STUDY – SHORT QUESTION AND ANSWER (40 MARKS)
For this assessment, students are to apply the concepts taught in the law modules for the unit (modules 9, 10 and 11) to a case study (Commonwealth Bank
of Australia: Rogue One) and answer five short answer questions. To best answer these questions, students may be required to research beyond the principles
taught in the lectures and tutorials, and will be required to reference any external material that is used to form the substance of their answers.
In breaking down the marks that are available for this assessment, each question is worth 7 marks for a total of 35 marks for the content portion of the
assignment. The remaining 5 marks are awarded for the use of referencing and the structure / presentation of assignment submissions. Students are to
integrate a completed cover page (a template is provided on blackboard) into their assignment document and submit their assignment file in soft copy format
to a turnitin link in blackboard. A hard copy version of your assignment is not required to be submitted to your lecturer or tutor.
Assessment Questions
Read the Commonwealth Bank of Australia: Rogue One case study and answer the following questions:
1. What areas of law are pertinent to this article? Describe what the identified areas of law cover, and explain how they are relevant to the issues raised
in the article. (500-600 words) (7 marks)
2. Jack Welch, Former CEO of General Electric, once stated, “Show me a company’s various compensation plans, and I’ll show you how its employees
behave” What message do you think he was trying to convey by this statement? To what extent do you think CBA’s remuneration plan influenced the
corporate culture and employee behaviour in CBA? What changes, if any, would you make to the remuneration plan? (500-600 words) (7 marks)
3. CBA had an excellent reputation amongst its customers but CFPL severely damaged it. What are the challenges faced by an organisation like CBA in
promoting ethical behaviour, compliance and good governance throughout the group? (500-600 words) (7 marks)
4. Who are the main players in the regulation of the financial industry in Australia? Outline some of the changes to the financial planning industry that
have been brought about by the recently constituted Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA)? (500-600 words) (7 marks)
5. ASIC is the corporate watchdog in Australia. Why was it criticised for its handling of the investigation into the dealings of CFPL? List three constraints,
not mentioned in the case study, which could limit the ability of this regulatory body to properly serve its function? (500-600 words) (7 marks)
Below is the marking rubric which will be used to grade your submission:
| Question 1 – Relevant areas of law |
0 – 1.5 marks Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed. Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
1.5 – 3 marks Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail. Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
3 – 4 marks Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
4 – 5.5 marks Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail. Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
5.5 – 7 marks Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
/ 7 |
| Question 2 – Effects of remuneration incentives |
0 – 1.5 marks Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed. Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply |
1.5 – 3 marks Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail. Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in |
3 – 4 marks Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply |
4 – 5.5 marks Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail. Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
5.5 – 7 marks Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
/ 7 |
| those concepts in answering the question. |
answering the question. |
those concepts in answering the question. |
||||
| Question 3 – Challenges faced by CBA to C, GG and ethical behaviour |
0 – 1.5 marks Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed. Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
1.5 – 3 marks Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail. Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
3 – 4 marks Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
4 – 5.5 marks Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail. Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
5.5 – 7 marks Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
/ 7 |
| Question 4 – Financial regulators |
0 – 1.5 marks Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed. Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or |
1.5 – 3 marks Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail. Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in |
3 – 4 marks Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a |
4 – 5.5 marks Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail. Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those |
5.5 – 7 marks Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
/ 7 |
| ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
answering the question. |
sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
concepts in answering the question. |
|||
| Question 5 – The role of ASIC |
0 – 1.5 marks Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed. Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
1.5 – 3 marks Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail. Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
3 – 4 marks Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
4 – 5.5 marks Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail. Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
5.5 – 7 marks Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. |
/ 7 |
| Referencing/Str ucture/ Presentation |
1 mark Cover page not included. Incoherent writing style with structure not appropriate to short answer format. Recurrent grammar, formatting and spelling mistakes. |
2 marks Cover page not included. Largely incoherent writing style with structure not appropriate to short answer format. Recurrent grammar, formatting and spelling mistakes. |
3 marks Cover page may / may not have been included. Good writing style with structure appropriate to short answer format. Inconsistent grammar, formatting and spelling applied. |
4 marks Cover page included. Very good writing style with structure largely appropriate to short answer format. Grammar, formatting and spelling mostly accurate. In text referencing and reference list provided that accords with Chicago referencing system. |
5 marks Cover page included. Fluent writing style with structure appropriate to short answer format. Grammar, formatting and spelling accurate (little to no mistakes). In-text referencing and reference list provided that accords with |
/ 5 |
| No in-text referencing or reference list provided. |
Either in-text referencing or reference list missing. |
In-text referencing and reference list incomplete or contains errors. |
Chicago referencing system. |
Referencing and appropriate acknowledgement of sources
Most often errors in referencing are incidental or clearly inadvertent. In the event of a level one incident of plagiarism occurring, a student may be contacted
by the University and required to undertake further training or remedial work in relation to referencing. Where the lack of correct referencing appears to
contravene the University policy on plagiarism, the student’s paper will be referred to the Unit Coordinator and dealt with according to University policy. This
may amount to academic misconduct.
An important aspect of the University Plagiarism Policy is recognition that not all plagiarism incidents are intentional or involves cheating. If students are not
learning as expected, they will be made aware of their difficulties and helped to improve. Those who deliberately choose to cheat by way of plagiarism,
however, will be identified and dealt with accordingly.
Students are strongly advised to understand their responsibilities in relation to correct referencing and should consult the unit outline and the referencing
information in the Learning Hub section of the Blackboard site.
Format of assignments
Assignments cannot be handwritten and must comply with the following format requirements. Those assignments, which do not conform to these
requirements without prior agreement of the unit coordinator, will either be returned to the student unmarked or will have marks deducted:
Document type: Word or pdf (pdf preferred).
Font: Arial or similar font – no smaller than 12 point in size.
Pages: Numbered in top or bottom margin.
Spacing: Appropriate line spacing and paragraph spacing.
Margins: At least 2.5 cm top, left, right & bottom.
Labelling of assignment file: Should include student’s Curtin ID number, their first and last names, and the title of the assignment (BLAW1002 Assessment 3
– Legal Case Study).
Presentation
A well-presented assessment will consider and meet the following criteria:
• Cover sheet (located on Blackboard under the ‘Assessment’ tab) must be completed and integrated into your assignment document (The system will
only allow you to submit one file so you won’t be able to submit your cover page and assignment document separately).
• Appropriate sentence structure.
• Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation.
• Paragraph size and breaks appropriate.
• Consistent format.
• Appropriate use of headings and sub-headings.
• Within acceptable word limit.
• Appropriate referencing and acknowledgment of sources.
Word Limit
The total assignment should be a minimum of 2,500 words and not exceed 3,000 words.
Please provide a word count on your cover sheet. A penalty of 10% will be imposed on assignments that exceed the word limit. Markers however, have the
discretion as to whether to apply the penalty for an additional 100 words, provided the discussion remains relevant. The assignment will not be assessed if it
exceeds 3,250 words and will result in a ZERO mark.
The word count does not include the following:
• cover sheet;
• in-text referencing;
• referencing list; and
• headings or sub-headings.
Submission of Assignment Document
Please read the submission process carefully. Students should understand that compliance with instructions in relation to an assessment task is critical.
Students MUST be aware that non-compliance with submission instructions can result in a mark of ZERO.
All assignments must be submitted by Friday, 5 June 2020 by 1PM (WST), unless an extension for legitimate reasons has been granted by the unit cocoordinator prior to the deadline.
Students are required to submit their assignment to Blackboard through a link provided in the ‘Assessment’ folder titled ‘Assessment 3 – Legal Case Study’.
Submission links will be set up for each mode / location in which this unit is being studied for the relevant study period (e.g. Bentley Internal, Fully Online,
Miri, Singapore etc.), so please ensure that you submit your assignment document to the correct link.
The assignment will automatically be submitted to the plagiarism detection program, Turnitin. Please ensure that the version of your assignment submitted
to the system is the final version and not an incomplete draft, as the version of your assignment that is in the system at the time the deadline passes will be
the version that is marked for assessment purposes (even if it was a draft version that was inadvertently submitted).
Feedback on Assignments
All of the teaching staff are available to assist you with your learning in this unit. You should contact your lecturer or tutor if you need help understanding the
course material or issues arising in the assignment. There is also a staffed Ed forum available for students to ask questions of the teaching team. You can also
contact the unit coordinator if you are still unable to get the answer you are seeking. Please allow 48 hours (two working days) for a response to your query.
Unfortunately, it is just not possible for the teaching staff to review draft assignments for comment before submission as it is in effect double marking that
would give some students an unfair advantage over others. If you require help with your assignment, either narrow the question or section of work to specific
questions such as “what is meant by this part of the question?” or “do the areas of law pertain to a particular part of the Module 9 lecture?” Questions such
as “have I done this part right?” or “should I include a discussion about this regulator in question 4?” will not be answered as any answer provided by the
lecturer or tutor would directly/indirectly impact the mark that the querying student would receive for the assessment, causing the unfairness referred to
above.
This assignment will be marked using a rubric, which will be provided to students ahead of time. In addition to providing the set feedback to students that is
contained in the rubric, markers will also offer individual comments on what a student had done well and what they could have done better to earn a higher
mark.
Assessments submitted early will not be marked before the due date. Please refer to the unit outline for the full procedure in relation to penalties for late
submission and requests for an extension.
[Button id=”1″]
[ad_2]
Source link
"96% of our customers have reported a 90% and above score. You might want to place an order with us."
