Case-study structure

[Jai C.]

I was wondering what would be the structure of a written task where I will need to advise on which company out of the 2 the client should acquire. I am just confused how to go about it. For example (TCLA case study 2) where you have to write a short report picking which company should the client merge/acquire.

Would it be like this

Intro: The client is looking to buy a company in sector X, and there are two possible options. This report will showcase that Company 2 is a better fit as opposed to Company 1

Then would I go through like Company 1 - what pros it has - what cons it has - a conclusion (stating that company 1 is not good fit etc)

Then go through Company 2 - pros - cons - conclusion


I am unsure with the structure of the case studies in general - I can pick out key bits but I am just unsure how to put it all together in an organised manner


Link for case study 2: https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/forum/threads/case-study-2-m-a-analysis.78/


PS: I have seen Jacob's case study structure which is brilliant but that is for due diligence (sort of case study) - but was wondering if anyone had insights how you normally go about structure your reports for case studies?

Thank you !!

 

[p9b]

Just adding to this, how would we approach a case study where as a law firm, we must pick between two options/strategies - and then we are quizzed as to how to approach a client if they disagree with the decision you have made? I would initially say that you would explain the reasons behinds your decision to the client, but that it is ultimately their decision? But I don't know if I'm missing something and this is too simple of an answer

 

[Alice G]

I was wondering what would be the structure of a written task where I will need to advise on which company out of the 2 the client should acquire. I am just confused how to go about it. For example (TCLA case study 2) where you have to write a short report picking which company should the client merge/acquire.

Would it be like this

Intro: The client is looking to buy a company in sector X, and there are two possible options. This report will showcase that Company 2 is a better fit as opposed to Company 1

Then would I go through like Company 1 - what pros it has - what cons it has - a conclusion (stating that company 1 is not good fit etc)

Then go through Company 2 - pros - cons - conclusion


I am unsure with the structure of the case studies in general - I can pick out key bits but I am just unsure how to put it all together in an organised manner


Link for case study 2: https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/forum/threads/case-study-2-m-a-analysis.78/


PS: I have seen Jacob's case study structure which is brilliant but that is for due diligence (sort of case study) - but was wondering if anyone had insights how you normally go about structure your reports for case studies?

Thank you !!

So I personally would tend to outline my opinion in an executive summary and then my analysis would be thematic. I know some people like SWOT and PESTLE for this type of thing but I used to just like selecting the themes which were pertinent (but I used to be guided by PESTLE so I knew I wasn’t missing anything so would keep this in my mind.

themes can be:
Finance/price
Assets of the two businesses
Outstanding litigation
Antitrust concerns
Market/social considerations (consumer appetite)
Reputation

I would then assess the two against each other, always concluding after each paragraph to show my thoughts.

also try to use headings etc and format clearly

I hope this helps, any follow ups please tag me

 

[Alice G]

Just adding to this, how would we approach a case study where as a law firm, we must pick between two options/strategies - and then we are quizzed as to how to approach a client if they disagree with the decision you have made? I would initially say that you would explain the reasons behinds your decision to the client, but that it is ultimately their decision? But I don't know if I'm missing something and this is too simple of an answer

So the client is supreme which you show an appreciation for here. I think you’d need to navigate it fairly carefully and ask the client if they would mind maybe just ten mins to state your thoughts and opinions but make clear it is ultimately their choice. You’d want to emphasise to the client that you only want what’s best for them and to ensure they have all the necessary information available but it is ultimately their choice and you’d always support them in their final decision.

I think the test here is basically making really clear to the client that you have their interests in your mind but you respect their decision either way and will continue to offer your professional support. But you also want to ensure the client makes the right choice so you do want to try and state your case, even if it’s brief. It’s also important though to not patronise the client or suggest they have neglected information so word choice and the way you present this would need to be delicate. Also, it’s important to remember, commercial lawyers are commercially minded but big clients will have consultants and people whose sole job is to consider these very strategic choices so it might be an idea to ask for them to share their thoughts with you too in order to show that reciprocity

I have never had this so this is the best advice I have off the top of my head!

 

[ar2r]

Hi! I. have an AC with Ashurst coming up and part of the AC is writing a report. It's a 'commercial scenario' rather than legal and will need to write up my recommendations.
I'm struggling to prep for how to structure this beyond a summary at the start and a conclusion. If anyone has any suggestions that would be really helpful

 

[Jaysen]

I was wondering what would be the structure of a written task where I will need to advise on which company out of the 2 the client should acquire. I am just confused how to go about it. For example (TCLA case study 2) where you have to write a short report picking which company should the client merge/acquire.

Would it be like this

Intro: The client is looking to buy a company in sector X, and there are two possible options. This report will showcase that Company 2 is a better fit as opposed to Company 1

Then would I go through like Company 1 - what pros it has - what cons it has - a conclusion (stating that company 1 is not good fit etc)

Then go through Company 2 - pros - cons - conclusion


I am unsure with the structure of the case studies in general - I can pick out key bits but I am just unsure how to put it all together in an organised manner


Link for case study 2: https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/forum/threads/case-study-2-m-a-analysis.78/


PS: I have seen Jacob's case study structure which is brilliant but that is for due diligence (sort of case study) - but was wondering if anyone had insights how you normally go about structure your reports for case studies?

Thank you !!

Apologies - I know you messaged me about this.

Generally, there isn't a set structure, and back when we used to review answers for this case study, I used to see quite a range of approaches. The key is to make sure you can communicate the most important information in an accessible way for the reader.

I like your introduction - it's good to be clear about the company which you have identified. I think the rest of your approach sounds fine. You can either cover the pros and cons of each company, or compare both companies based on different 'themes' (although I think the latter is harder).

Personally, if you are choosing Company 2, I would prefer to see an answer that leads with their justification for Company 2 (just so I don't have to read about Company 1 first). I would also suggest spending more time discussing the pros and cons of Company 2, rather than Company 1 - so the weighting doesn't have to be equal.

When discussing the cons of Company 2, a strong answer would indicate why you would still choose to go ahead with this company, despite the cons you have identified.

If you are taking the pros and cons approach, I would also try to be evaluative when discussing Company 2, rather than simply listing out the pros and cons. For example, some issues are more important than others, and this is important to flag.

Finally, if you take this approach, I think the strongest answers are evaluative. In other words, you aren't just talking about the pros and cons of each company in isolation, but you are keeping in mind that the question wants you to choose one company over another (so a justification is necessary).

I'm a little wary of people going into case studies like this with 'frameworks' in mind (like Pestle). While they are useful to keep in mind, applying this too rigidly can lead to answers that aren't actually answering the question.

 

[Dheepa]

Hi! I. have an AC with Ashurst coming up and part of the AC is writing a report. It's a 'commercial scenario' rather than legal and will need to write up my recommendations.
I'm struggling to prep for how to structure this beyond a summary at the start and a conclusion. If anyone has any suggestions that would be really helpful

Hi, I think Alice's comments above are very applicable to a "commercial scenario" case study. The thematic approach she outlined is something which I did myself.

Something that I found particularly helpful for non-legal case studies is using the Porter's Five Forces framework to kick off my thought process. There's quite a lot of helpful information about this online already, but I'm setting out some of my own thoughts anyway especially in the context of deciding between two companies.

1. Barriers to Entry

Does any one company have high R&D costs, is any one company stronger in a particular region that is more difficult to enter because of local regulations/politics, experience - are the company's key executives staying on or are they looking to leave (does this mean you'd have to find more experienced hires post-acquisition)

2. Bargaining Power of Buyers

Does the product one company make have a USP over another (product differentiation means buyers are more likely to buy your product if it's something they cannot get anywhere else)? Does one company have brand loyalty programs in place that would/would not sway customers? How strong is the economic spending power of your target market? Are consumer habits/tastes changing in this particular area, how are each of the companies keeping up with that?

3. Bargaining power of suppliers

Is one company more horizontally integrated than the other (i.e. does it have it's own in house supplier capabilities), what are the range of supplier options available to each company (does one company have more distribution/supplier networks), are there any technological innovations that could be used to undercut high supplier costs?

4. Threat of substitute products

This ties in slightly to deciding which company has a product with a stronger USP but other things to consider include the price of the substitute and the quality of the substitute (does one company's product have an advantage over the other's in these respects)

5. Competition

Are there many competitors, relative size of the competitors and competitive positioning (are the companies a smaller competitor like an Aldi or Lidl or a large one like a Tesco or Sainsbury's - how would that affect your choice of company), potential for the industry to grow (is it a highly stagnant industry with many fixed long term players or is it a growing one with high investment interest and market interest - particularly important if the your client i.e. the company buying wants an exit strategy), is there room to undercut your competitors - if so how?

As I've said there's a lot more out there on this but I hope what I've set out gives you some pointers. I also really like the framework because there's a lot of scope for you to bring in your own topical commercial awareness.

The only other thing I'd advise @Jai C. is to avoid the pros and cons structure you mentioned. It can be a far too simplistic way of analysing a case study and if you think about it, most people can pick out the pros and cons themselves pretty easily. What you'd need to demonstrate is the ability to tie those pros and cons into your wider reasons for choosing that particular company (i.e. the key themes for your choice - as Jaysen has said this is harder to do but shows more analytical ability I think) and ideally balance out any cons within your choice with some additional arguments or solutions that makes that choice the right one anyway.

 

[ar2r]

Hi, I think Alice's comments above are very applicable to a "commercial scenario" case study. The thematic approach she outlined is something which I did myself.

Something that I found particularly helpful for non-legal case studies is using the Porter's Five Forces framework to kick off my thought process. There's quite a lot of helpful information about this online already, but I'm setting out some of my own thoughts anyway especially in the context of deciding between two companies.

1. Barriers to Entry

Does any one company have high R&D costs, is any one company stronger in a particular region that is more difficult to enter because of local regulations/politics, experience - are the company's key executives staying on or are they looking to leave (does this mean you'd have to find more experienced hires acquisition)

2. Bargaining Power of Buyers

Does the product one company make have a USP over another (product differentiation means buyers are more likely to buy your product if it's something they cannot get anywhere else)? Does one company have brand loyalty programs in place that would/would not sway customers? How strong is the economic spending power of your target market? Are consumer habits/tastes changing in this particular area, how are each of the companies keeping up with that?

3. Bargaining power of suppliers

Is one company more horizontally integrated than the other (i.e. does it have it's own in house supplier capabilities), what are the range of supplier options available to each company (does one company have more distribution/supplier networks), are there any technological innovations that could be used to undercut high supplier costs?

4. Threat of substitute products

This ties in slightly to deciding which company has a product with a stronger USP but other things to consider include the price of the substitute and the quality of the substitute (does one company's product have an advantage over the other's in these respects)

5. Competition

Are there many competitors, relative size of the competitors and competitive positioning (are the companies a smaller competitor like an Aldi or Lidl or a large one like a Tesco or Sainsbury's - how would that affect your choice of company), potential for the industry to grow (is it a highly stagnant industry with many fixed long term players or is it a growing one with high investment interest and market interest - particularly important if the your client i.e. the company buying wants an exit strategy), is there room to undercut your competitors - if so how?

As I've said there's a lot more out there on this but I hope what I've set out gives you some pointers. I also really like the framework because there's a lot of scope for you to bring in your own topical commercial awareness.

The only other thing I'd advise @Jai C. is to avoid the pros and cons structure you mentioned. It can be a far too simplistic way of analysing a case study and if you think about it, most people can pick out the pros and cons themselves pretty easily. What you'd need to demonstrate is the ability to tie those pros and cons into your wider reasons for choosing that particular company (i.e. the key themes for your choice - as Jaysen has said this is harder to do but shows more analytical ability I think) and ideally balance out any cons within your choice with some additional arguments or solutions that makes that choice the right one anyway.

This is so helpful, thank you very much

 

[kb99]

Guys for the thematic approach to work, you have to pick out themes that are relevant to both companies.

However, my only question is how will this approach work when normally the information we are given about the two companies differs and cannot be organised into themes because they both have different problems/issues and different strengths - and one 'theme' cannot neatly be used to compare?

I am not entirely sure if I have put my question in a way that is clear - Please let me know if the above does not make sense

Tagging @Alice G and @Dheepa -

Thank you

 

[Dheepa]

Guys for the thematic approach to work, you have to pick out themes that are relevant to both companies.

However, my only question is how will this approach work when normally the information we are given about the two companies differs and cannot be organised into themes because they both have different problems/issues and different strengths - and one 'theme' cannot neatly be used to compare?

I am not entirely sure if I have put my question in a way that is clear - Please let me know if the above does not make sense

Tagging @Alice G and @Dheepa -

Thank you

I wouldn’t think of the thematic approach as involving a direct comparison on similar issues between the two companies. (In fact I think no firm would create a case study where direct comparison is possible because it would simply be too easy)

It’s more about categorising your reasons for preferring one option over the other within those broad themes and then addressing the issues which are either directly or indirectly related to that theme. You also don’t necessarily have to spend as much time thinking about the rejected option’s issues because since the exercise is asking you to make a recommendation, you’d want to focus more on the reasons behind the accepted option and any solutions you might have to that particular option’s issues.

Hope that clarifies it!

 

[kb99]

I think I get it ..I think

would it be possible for you to give an example of what you mean? - I think I have confused myself by overthinking

I apologise - It is just that case studies are my Achilles heel and I have been spending a lot of time trying to understand them and want to fully understand before the TC cycle starts soon.

 

[Elle W]

Hello, I was just wondering if there's a guide anywhere that outlines the key points that should be included in Case Study 2?

 

[Alice G]

I think I get it ..I think

would it be possible for you to give an example of what you mean? - I think I have confused myself by overthinking

I apologise - It is just that case studies are my Achilles heel and I have been spending a lot of time trying to understand them and want to fully understand before the TC cycle starts soon.

Hi there, I think this is why you are best to keep the themes sufficiently broad. This is why I quite liked my law firm department technique (deriving my themes by law firm department) because I could compare and contrast issues and strengths through a less restrictive way by taking themes like 'finance', 'employment' and then discussing in that way. I also like PESTLE as this too is broad enough to allow scope for the different nuances etc whilst still offering a structure. Does that help a little? I guess these types of themes mean you are not directly comparing like @Dheepa says but they give you enough of a framework for structure and fluidity.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

I wouldn’t think of the thematic approach as involving a direct comparison on similar issues between the two companies. (In fact I think no firm would create a case study where direct comparison is possible because it would simply be too easy)

It’s more about categorising your reasons for preferring one option over the other within those broad themes and then addressing the issues which are either directly or indirectly related to that theme. You also don’t necessarily have to spend as much time thinking about the rejected option’s issues because since the exercise is asking you to make a recommendation, you’d want to focus more on the reasons behind the accepted option and any solutions you might have to that particular option’s issues.

Hope that clarifies it!

Hello @AvniD @James Carrabino @George Maxwell , could you guys please explain this response? Basically, how to tie the pros and cons into the wider thematic reasons, I kind of understand what it means but an example would really make it a lot simpler.

Thanks

 

[AvniD]

Hello @AvniD @James Carrabino @George Maxwell , could you guys please explain this response? Basically, how to tie the pros and cons into the wider thematic reasons, I kind of understand what it means but an example would really make it a lot simpler.

Thanks

Hi! Tagging @Dheepa here as she seems best placed to answer your question!

 

[vacschemeapss]

Hi! Tagging @Dheepa here as she seems best placed to answer your question!

Hi @Dheepa - wondering if this has been clarified on some other thread! Kindly let me know- thanks a ton!

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

Hi @Dheepa - wondering if this has been clarified on some other thread! Kindly let me know- thanks a ton!

It hasn't been clarified. I think that Dheepa has not been active on the forums of late.

 

[Jessica Booker]

It hasn't been clarified. I think that Dheepa has not been active on the forums of late.

@Dheepa is still part of the TCLA forum team and so will be able to respond in time.

 

[futuretraineesolicitor]

@Dheepa is still part of the TCLA forum team and so will be able to respond in time.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Dheepa]

Hi @futuretraineesolicitor and @vacschemeapss - my apologies for the delayed response and thank you for your patience. I've been on a short break from TCLA over the past few weeks.

First let me re-clarify what I meant by tying pros and cons into broader themes. My approach to these case studies was always to focus on answering the question first. Since the central question is "Which company would you choose", organising the structure of my answer based on my overall reasons/justifications for choosing the company made more sense to me.

I think it would be very difficult to provide you with a meaningful example without having to write a full blown case study scenario but I've tried anyway. The example that follows is obviously very simplistic but I hope it illustrates the point anyway.

So let's say Company A is an established market player, has strong financials, and their product has great customer loyalty. They are currently expanding outside the UK where they are based. Where else Company B, is a new entrant and haven't actually been able to turn a profit. Their product is being hailed as highly innovative but they lack the funds to scale up production. Company A have seen a decline in sales lately as consumers shift to purchasing Company B's product.

Again, it's a very bare bones example but there are two approaches you could take. You could separate the competition issue from the financial issue from the operational issue (i.e. the difficulty in scaling vs the expansion to other markets).

Or you could consider the issues together and think about your argument/reason/justification for picking a company. If I was picking Company B I'd probably discuss all three issues under the theme/justification "Growth potential" or something to that effect. When I expand on why I think Company B has a stronger growth potential (pros: innovative, consumer preference for their product), I'd be justifying why we should still choose Company B despite the cons too (cons: yet to turn a profit, scaling production - I'd maybe argue that both these issues seem resolvable through the influx of cash an acquisition would provide and the expertise our client could bring on scaling up etc.). I would then also frame an argument against Company A by arguing that despite stronger financial returns, they could see problems down the line from continuing declining sales. Choosing to expand off the strength of one product while there are already shifts in consumer preference to a competitor also means they may never recover the sunk costs from aggressive international expansion etc.

I hope that somewhat illustrates what I'm talking about. Obviously an actual case study will have way more complex issues and completely different kinds of issues for each company, but that's why connecting the dots into wider justifications/reasons for your choice becomes more important. You want to discuss the core issues but the point is to provide a balanced answer to the client based on pros and cons from both companies. My approach was generally to provide that answer by comparing the companies as I went along while explaining my choice in relation to the overall justifications/reasons/themes in favour of the company.

I keep stressing that this was just my approach because evidently you can choose to approach/structure your answer any way you want. I preferred doing it this way because I felt it more clearly demonstrated my reasoning and the extra analysis and thinking time taken to compare different issues vs just descriptively listing and talking through each pro and con for both companies.

I hope that helps!