HOLMES INSTITUTE   FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

 

 

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester	T1 2019
Unit Code	HA3021
Unit Title	Corporations Law
Assessment Type	Group Assignment
Assessment Title	HA3021 Group Assignment
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)	The purpose of the Group Assignment is to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in solving two case problems by citing the relevant legal rules and cases and applying these to the facts of the case. In this Group Assignments, students are required to: –             Demonstrate the legal principles for managing a company in particular the company’s relationship with others. –             Critically analyse the concept of corporate internal rules and management. –             Analyse the role and responsibility of directors and members in the management of the company. –             Analyse the interaction between members’ rights, directors’ duties and corporate governance.
Weight	20% of the total assessment marks
Total Marks	20 (10% for the Group Report and 10% for the Presentation)
Word limit	Group Written Report of maximum 2,000 words and a 10 minute presentation
Due Date	Week 10
Submission Guidelines	•     All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. •     The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers. •     Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC).

 

 

 

 

                 

HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019

 

 

Assignment Specifications

 

 

Purpose: The Group Assignment aims to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in reporting on a recent Australian Corporations Law case relating to Directors Duties and Breaches of Directors Duties.

 

Students are to form groups, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 students per group. The assignment consists of 2 parts: a 2,000 word written report and a 10 minute (maximum) in-class or video presentation.

 

Instructions: Please read and re-read carefully to avoid mistakes.

 

General instructions: Research on an Australian case (ideally not more than 10 years old since the decision by the Court) involving breach of company director’s/officer’s duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). You may also refer to the list of suggested cases attached to these instructions.

 

 

 

Group report (10%)

 

 

1. Write a report with the following headings and discussing the following:

 

a. Case introduction

 

This part must give the background of the case and cite the relevant facts that led to litigation. Please cite only the substantive facts of the case and not procedural facts.

 

b. Breaches of directors’ duties under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth)

 

In this part, discuss the facts that led to charges of breaches of directors’ duties being brought against the directors of the company.

 

You must then discuss the directors duties/responsibilities breached (ex, CA sections 181 or 588G) and explain why the duties were breached. You must refer to specific facts cited in the decision.

 

In the event that the court held that the directors did not breach their duties, explain why the court made this finding. You must refer to specific facts cited by the court.

 

c. Analysis of the Court’s decision

 

In this part, you must discuss and critically analyse the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

 

Here, you may also refer to similar cases that have been decided at the High Court or Federal Court level and compare them with the case you have chosen.

 

 

 

 

 

d. Relevance and impact of the decision

 

For this part, you are expected to discuss the relevance of the decision to the development of Australian corporations law or the impact of the decision on the operation of companies in Australia.

 

All the cases listed in the list of suggested cases are famous and seminal cases. To sufficiently discuss part d, you are expected to research the writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners who have written about your chosen case.

 

2. As a minimum, the report must have the four headings listed above. Your report may have additional sections apart from the above (ex. Executive Summary, Conclusion, etc.) These, however, are not required.

 

3. The Group report must be submitted via SafeAssign on Blackboard.

 

4. The word count for the report is 2,000 word, with a 10% allowance under or over the 2,000 word limit. Please write the total word count for your report on the assignment cover sheet.

 

5. A minimum of six (6) scholarly and academic references must be cited. One of these sources must be the case that is the topic of the report. The references must be cited both in-text and in a reference list at the end of the report.

 

 

Group presentation (10%)

 

1. Present the report in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is more appropriate.

 

1. If in-class presentation, all members must present on the day. If video presentation, groups must show to the satisfaction of the lecturer that all group members made a reasonable contribution to the group work.

 

1. Non-compliance with this requirement may result in a failing mark for the entire group.

 

2. If your group is doing a video presentation, your video link must be uploaded to a publicly-viewable video sharing platform (ex. Youtube, Dropbox, Google drive) and the video link uploaded on Blackboard.

 

3. Whether in-class or video presentation, the minimum presentation length is 10 minutes and should not exceed 15 minutes.

 

 

IMPORTANT REMINDERS:

 

• You must email your lecturer your chosen case and list of group members by week 5. You must obtain approval from your lecturer of your case before starting work on it. Please note: failure to obtain lecturer approval will result in a failing mark for the entire group for the group assignment.

 

• All group report submissions must be de done online and run through SafeAssign. No hard copies are to be submitted. Only one group member needs to submit for the whole group.

 

• Please fill in the “Rubric Group Report” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates) and attach as a cover sheet to your group report and upload on Blackboard.

 

• Each team member also must also submit to their lecturer a “Peer Evaluation of Individual Participation in Group Assignment” sheet (available in Blackboard under

“Assignments and Due dates) with their presentation/video.

 

• No submission of either the group report or video presentation link on Blackboard / SafeAssign is equivalent to non-submission, which will merit a mark of 0 (zero) for the whole group for this assessment.

 

• Groups of less than 3 and more than 5 people will receive an automatic penalty of 50% of the total assessment weight (10 marks).

 

• Late submissions will be subject to Holmes Institute policy on student assessment submission and late penalties (please refer to subject outline and Student handbook).

 

• All reports are expected to observe proper referencing in accordance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC). A copy of the AGLC may be read online for free via this link:

 

https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2877782/AGLC3.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

                 

Marking criteria

Marking criteria	Weighting (%)
Group Report (see detailed marking rubric below)	10%
Presentation (see detailed marking rubric below)	10%
TOTAL Weight	20%

            

Marking Rubric

 

Written Report

 

Total marks available: 10	Excellent	Good	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
Case introduction    Identifies material facts involved in the case.   Identifies the legal issues / legal question and relevant law (i.e. specific provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)    2 marks	2 marks   Completely identifies all relevant facts of case   Correctly identifies all relevant legal issues and are stated in the form of questions.   Correctly identifies relevant and appropriate legal rules and case law, and states them in the form of statements	1.5 mark   Identifies most of the relevant facts of case   Issues correctly identified, but may contain extraneous information and are not stated in the form of questions.   Legal rules and case law correctly identified, but may contain extraneous info and are not in the form of statements.	1 mark   Identifies the basic relevant facts of the case but misses other relevant facts   Issue are not completely identified.   Legal rules and case law not correctly identified.	Below 1 mark   Does not identify relevant facts of case or cites irrelevant facts (i.e. procedural facts)   Identifies incorrect or irrelevant issues.   Identifies incorrect or irrelevant legal rules and case law.
Breaches of directors’ duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)   Discussion of the facts that led to charges of breaches of directors’ duties being brought against the directors of the company.   Identifies the specific provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that were allegedly breached by the directors.   Discussion of the directors duties / responsibilities breached (ex, CA sections 181 or 588G) and why the duties were breached or not breached, with reference to specific facts cited in the decision.   2 marks	2 marks   Complete yet succinct discussion of the facts that led to charges of breaches of directors’ duties being brought against the directors of the company.   Identifies the specific provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that were allegedly breached by the directors.   Complete yet succinct discussion of the directors duties / responsibilities breached (ex, CA	1.5 mark   Incomplete yet good discussion of the facts that led to charges of breaches of directors’ duties being brought against the directors of the company.   Identifies the specific provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that were allegedly breached by the directors.   Incomplete yet good discussion of the directors duties / responsibilities breached (ex, CA sections 181	1 mark   Incomplete and passable discussion of the facts that led to charges of breaches of directors’ duties being brought against the directors of the company.   Does not clearly identify the specific provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that were allegedly breached by the directors.   Incomplete and passable discussion of the directors duties / responsibilities	Below 1 mark   Poor or no discussion of the facts that led to charges of breaches of directors’ duties being brought against the directors of the company.   Does not identify the specific provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that were allegedly breached by the directors.   Poor or no discussion of the directors duties / responsibilities breached (ex, CA sections 181 or 588G) and why the duties were breached or not breached, with reference to specific facts cited in the decision.

 

	sections 181 or 588G) and why the duties were breached or not breached, with reference to specific facts cited in the decision.	or 588G) and why the duties were breached or not breached, with reference to specific facts cited in the decision.	breached (ex, CA sections 181 or 588G) and why the duties were breached or not breached, with reference to specific facts cited in the decision.
Analysis of the Court’s decision   Discussion and critical analysis of the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)   2 marks	2 marks   Complete and thorough discussion of the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)   Shows a superior level of critical analysis of the court’s decision.	1.5 mark   Discussion of the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is either incomplete or lacks material aspects but is otherwise good.   Shows a high level of critical analysis of the court’s decision.	1 mark   Discussion of the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is either incomplete or lacks important aspects and is merely passable.   Shows a passable level of critical analysis of the court’s decision.	Below 1 mark   Discussion of the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is incomplete, lacks important aspects and is substandard.   Shows a poor level of critical analysis of the court’s decision.
Relevance and impact of the decision   Discusses the relevance of the decision to the development of Australian corporations law or the impact of the decision on the operation of companies in Australia.   Shows research on the writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners who have written about the chosen case.   2 marks	2 marks   Superior level of discussion of the relevance of the decision to the development of Australian corporations law or the impact of the decision on the operation of companies in Australia.   Shows substantial research on the writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners who have written about the chosen case.   References these writings.	1.5 mark   Good level of discussion of the relevance of the decision to the development of Australian corporations law or the impact of the decision on the operation of companies in Australia.   Shows good research on the writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners who have written about the chosen case.   References these writings.	1 mark   Acceptable level of discussion of the relevance of the decision to the development of Australian corporations law or the impact of the decision on the operation of companies in Australia.   Shows basic research on the writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners who have written about the chosen case.   References these writings.	Below 1 mark   Sub-standard level of discussion of the relevance of the decision to the development of Australian corporations law or the impact of the decision on the operation of companies in Australia.   Shows little or no research on the writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners who have written about the chosen case.   Makes no reference to these writings.
Citation and referencing (including minimum number of references) and Presentation   2 marks	2 marks   Correctly cites minimum of 6 references, intext and in reference list.  Professional language. No grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors.	1.5 mark   Has minimum of 6 references; or has occasional errors in formatting of intext citations and reference list Some mistakes. Does not detract from understanding.	1 mark   Does not have minimum of 6 references and contains errors in formatting of intext citations and reference list   Many mistakes. Detracts from understanding. Sloppy.	Below 1 mark   No referencing either in-text or in reference list; or cites inappropriate references; or all references not cited in the correct format.   Reflects no real effort.
Deductions     Excess word count (1 mark for every 25 words over)   Under the word limit (1 mark for every 25 word under)   Lacks minimum of 6 references (1 mark for every missing reference)

 

 

 

Video Presentation

 

Total marks available: 10	Excellent	Good	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory
Group member participation and division of parts   1.5 marks	1.5 marks   All group members presented and presentation is equally divided among group members; presentation shows an excellent level of effort	1 mark    All group members presented but presentation is not equally divided among group members;  presentation shows a high level of effort	0.75 mark   Not all group members presented or presentation is not equally divided among group members; but presentation shows average effort.	Below 0.75 mark   Not all group members presented and presentation does not show real effort.
Depth of analysis and evidence of understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers   4 marks	4 marks   Displays in-depth analysis and evidence of strong understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers.	3.5 to 3.0 marks   Displays strong analysis and understanding of the issues presented and critical thinking in answers.	2.5 to 2.0 marks   Shows acceptable level of analysis and understanding of the issues.	Below 2 marks   Does not show acceptable level of analysis and understanding of the issues; merely reads from prepared answers.
Level of professionalism of presentation (including members in appropriate business attire; and use of visual aids)   3 marks	3 marks   High-level of professionalism of presentation	2 marks   Above average level of professionalism of presentation	1.5 marks   Average level of professionalism of presentation	Below 1.5 marks   Below average level of professionalism of presentation
Overall clarity of presentation   1.5 marks	1.5 marks   Extremely clear, succinct presentation	1 mark    High level of clarity and succinctness of presentation	0.75 mark   Average level of clarity and succinctness of presentation	Below 0.75 mark   Below average level of clarity and succinctness of presentation

 

 

List of suggested Corporations law cases

 

Note: these cases are only suggestions. Students are encouraged to do their own research and find other cases dealing with directors’ breaches of duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Students may show their chosen case to their lecturer for confirmation prior to commencing their group report.

 

 

1. Gore v ASIC [2017] FCAFC 13
2. Asden Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dinoris (No 3) [2016] FCA 788
3. ASIC v Cassimatis (No. 8) [2016] FCA 1023
4. ASIC v Flugge (No 2) [2017] VSC 117 (sequel to ASIC v Flugge & Geary [2016] VSC 779)
5. ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited [2016] FCA 990
6. ASIC v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (in liq) (2016)
7. ASIC v Mariner Corporation Limited [2015] FCA 589
8. Forty Two International Pty Limited v Barnes [2014] FCA 85 – delete this case as not really on directors’ duties
9. ASIC v Australian Property Custodian Holdings Limited (No 3) [2013] FCA 1342
10. ASIC v Hobbs [2012] NSWSC 1276
11. Fodare Pty Ltd v Shearn [2011] NSWSC 479
12. ASIC v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2011] FCAFC 19
13. Groeneveld Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Nolten & Ors (No 3) [2010] VSC 533
14. Jubilee Mines NL v Riley [2009] WASCA 62
15. ASIC v Narain [2008] FCAFC 120
16. ASIC v Maxwell & Ors [2006] NSWSC 1052
17. ASIC v Edwards (No. 3) [2006] 57 ACSR 209
18. ASIC v Stephen William Vizard [2005] FCA 1037
19. ASIC v Plymin [2003] 175 FLR 124 (affirmed on appeal in Elliott v ASIC [2004] 10 VR 369)
20. ASIC v Parker r [2003] 21 ACLC 888; [2003] FCA 262
21. ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) [2003] FCA 1369 (27 November 2003); 203 ALR 627; 22 ACLC 1
22. ASIC v Whitlam [2002] NSWSC 591
23. R v Rivkin [2002] NSWSC 1182; 198 ALR 400; 45 ACSR 366
24. R v Firns 51 NSWLR 548; 38 ACSR 223; [2001] NSWCCA 191
25. Kokotovich Constructions Pty Ltd v Wallington (1995) 13 ACLC 1113 (NSW Court of Appeal)

 

Page

26. R v Byrnes and Hopwood (1995) 183 CLR 501; (1995) 130 ALR 529
27. AWA Ltd v Daniels (1992) 10 ACLC 933; on appeal Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438
28. Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission [1993] 9 WAR 395 29. Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd [1987] 162 CLR 285

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment Information 3

 

Subject Code:	MAN304
Subject Name:	Issues in International Business
Assessment Title: Length:	Case Study Analysis (Individual) Slide Deck 15 slides (+/- 10% allowable range)
Weighting:	30%
Total Marks: Submission:	100 Online via Turnitin
Due Date:	Week 11

.

Assessment Description

.

The purpose of this individual assignment is to apply the principles of international market analysis to a market entry mode for a specific firm. The firm is a medium-sized Australian private company called Grants.

 

Grants is a producer of natural-ingredient-based toothpaste sold under thee brand “Grants of Australia” (www.grantsofaustralia.com.au). The firm has been selling its products in Australia since 1984, starting off as a family-produced, home-made toothpaste, growing into a well-regarded brand by 1994.

 

The firm has a focus on the niche organics and health-conscious market and now also produces vegan toothpaste. It has never been a mainstream brand and, though sold at some major supermarket outlets in Australia, is not significantly represented in consumer purchases. The market analysis of the Australian consumer landscape that Grants has almost reached all of its target audience, meaning there is likely to be insufficient room for any significant growth in its sales in the medium to long term. The major selling brand remains the global giant- Colgate. But Grants has a distinct set of differentiators that can help it develop new markets outside of Australia.

 

The management of Grants has identified that the health-conscious segment is expanding in Asia, in line with growth in incomes and the development of a broader range of consumer tastes. They are considering one of three possible countries to enter: Malaysia, Vietnam or Thailand. You have been asked to develop a market analysis for one (1) of these three possible target countries.

 

You are required to analyse the firm’s market position and propose a market entry strategy to its board of directors in the form of 15 PowerPoint slides (not including cover sheet and references). Once Grants has decided to enter a market, it will need to select a viable mode of entry, which you will also propose.

 

This case study analysis is a slide deck created in PowerPoint, converted to PDF and uploaded to the assignment submission link.

It is a culmination of the work completed in assessments 1 and 2 and represents your report to the Board of Directors of the firm as to how they will enter the destination market. The question is not whether the firm should enter the market, but rather how it will enter and which market it will enter (and why). Your slide deck to the Board of Directors, therefore addresses the items below (1 to 7).

 

The assessment does not require you to present your findings in class, but merely upload the slide deck as your submission to the assessment link.

 

There is no word-count for this assessment; only a slide count of 15 slides (not including cover sheet and reference slides). This can be plus or minus 10%. The slides can contain diagrams of your own creation if you wish to include any, but cannot link to any videos or external content. The slides need to be legible and realistically written that a person reading them could draw sufficient conclusions about the entry mode.

 

Your slide deck should contain the following content.

 

1. Whether the firm has a competitive advantage in its product or service over competitors in the new market and what that advantage may be
2. The choice of which country they should enter and why
3. Information about the destination country that you feel is pertinent to the decision of the board of directors on how to enter the market (e.g. political, economic or other factors)
4. Major risks identified in the target country and your solutions to them
5. The proposed mode of entry into the destination market
6. Reasons for this mode choice
7. The top 5 steps the firm will take to implement its strategy of entry mode

 

The slide deck should have 10 references, of which at least 5 should be academic references (such as journals or books). Non-academic sources could include corporate websites, government publications, industry reports, census data, or newspaper articles. In referencing sources, you must apply Harvard Referencing Style to your in-text citations and consequently to the reference list.

.

Assignment Submission

 

This file must be submitted as a ‘PDF’ document to avoid any technical issues that may occur from incorrect file format upload. Uploaded files with a virus will not be considered as a legitimate submission. Turnitin will notify you if there is any issue with the submitted file. In this case, you must contact your lecturer via email and provide a brief description of the issue and a screen shot of the Turnitin error message.

 

You are also encouraged to submit your work well in advance of the deadline to avoid any possible delay with the Turnitin similarity report or any other technical difficulties that may occur

          

Late assignment submission penalties

Penalties will be imposed on late assignment submissions in accordance with Kaplan Business School “late assignment submission penalties” policy.

Number of days	Penalty
1* – 9 days	5% per day for each calendar day late deducted from the total marks available
10 – 14 days	50% deducted from the total marks available.
After 14 days	Assignments that are submitted more than 14 calendar days after the due date will not be accepted and the student will receive a mark of zero for the assignment(s).
Note	Notwithstanding the above penalty rules, assignments will also be given a mark of zero if they are submitted after assignments have been returned to students

 

*Assignments submitted at any stage within the first 24 hours after deadline will be considered to be one day late and therefore subject to the associated penalty

 

For more information please read the full policy via:

https://www.kbs.edu.au/wp–content/uploads/2016/07/KBS–Assessment–Policy–v4.5_incl–SCform–and–Med–Cert_final.pdf

 

 

Important Study Information

 

Academic Integrity Policy

 

KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.

 

For details on academic integrity policies and penalties, the reassessment process, and the appeals process, please refer to http://www.kbs.edu.au/current–students/student–policies/.

 

 

Word Limits for Written Assessments

 

Submissions that exceed the word count by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded.

 

Study Assistance

 

Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Success Centre representative or refer to the study help on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. You can find this by clicking on the top page toolbar:

 

My Services>Academic Success Centre>Study Support Resources

 

MAN304 Assessment Marking Rubric –Market Entry Mode Presentation 30%

 

Criteria	NN (Fail) 0 – 49	P (Pass) 50 – 64	CR (Credit) 65 – 74	DN (Distinction) 75 – 84	HD (High Distinction) 85 – 100
Analysis of Identified Issues	Your analysis lacks depth, and your interpretation is not relevant to the assessment criteria.	You briefly analyse some of the issues and your interpretation is not always relevant to the assessment criteria.	You analyse most of the issues and your interpretation is well structured.	You analyse and interpret issues thoroughly.	You analyse and interpret the issues articulately and convincingly.
Recommendations	The quality of your recommendations is poor and/or incoherent.	You have drawn some useful recommendations although a more comprehensive analysis of the case study would have been helpful.	You have drawn mostly useful recommendations.	You have drawn varied, wellresearched and compelling recommendations.	You have drawn dynamic, comprehensive and convincing recommendations.
Research	Your research lacks focus because of an unsuitable choice of sources.	You have selected some appropriate scholarly sources. Better use of quality sources would help focus your research.	Your research is focused, drawn from an appropriate range of scholarly sources.	It is obvious that your research is focused, complemented by a quality selection and range of scholarly sources.	It is clearly obvious that your research is extensive and focused, complemented by a quality selection and range of scholarly sources.
Presentation	Spelling and/or grammar is consistently incorrect, impacting on the flow and readability of your analysis.   The format chosen for your analysis lacks thought and consideration for the intended audience.     In-text referencing and/or reference list is mostly incorrect or non-existent.	Even though grammar and spelling are an issue, they do not detract very much from the readability of your analysis.   The format chosen for your analysis is appropriate, but major improvements would enhance its presentation.     An earnest attempt at in-text referencing is obvious but there are major errors.	Mostly correct grammar and spelling are very good but with occasional errors.     The format chosen for your analysis is appropriate but some improvements would enhance its presentation.     Mostly correct in-text referencing and reference list with minor errors throughout and the occasional major error.	Errors in grammar and spelling are rare.       Your analysis is professionally presented and has been submitted in the appropriate format.     In-text referencing and the resultant reference list are correct, with only the occasional minor error.	Correct grammar and spelling throughout the analysis with no obvious errors.     Your analysis is professionally presented and exceeds expectations in what is evidently suitable for a high-grade commercial environment.   In-text referencing and the resultant reference list are correct, with no errors.
		Feedback and Grades will be released via Turnitin

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969

This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.