Hey!
On your first question, I'd say that bringing in the wider economic or geopolitical context is generally a good thing if it is clearly relevant and closely linked to your analysis. In your example, mentioning the impact of conflict on fertiliser supply chains shows good commercial awareness, but it is important that you use it correctly! Rather than focusing your discussion there, I'd treat it as a factor that informs your assessment of the deal overall. For example, you might frame it as a short-term risk to profitability, then weigh that against longer-term strategic benefits of the acquisition. This way, you are ensuring that your answer is still grounded in the facts of the case study, but still showing good commercial awareness.
Assessors are usually looking for:
- Can you identify the key legal and commercial issues in the scenario?
- Can you prioritise them appropriately?
- Can you add the commercial context where it adds value?
I wouldn't ignore things such as financing structure, debt, and risks, as these are core elements of pretty much any transaction. However, adding concise and relevant external factors (like the supply chain disruption) can show that you are thinking about the issue commercially and make your answer stronger. I would just avoid making your answer too speculative or far removed from the facts, otherwise you aren't addressing the task that you have been given.
On your second question, unfortunately I haven't encountered a 1-1 discussion before! However, I'd say it is likely to focus on how you interact with others - i.e. you might be asked to reach a joint decision, prioritise options, or discuss a scenario together. They'll likely be testing how you communicate and collaborate with others under a bit of pressure! I'd perhaps try to think of it as working with a colleague as a trainee, and focus on facilitating a good discussion rather than just pushing your own view.
Wishing you the best of luck with your AC!
