你知道ACCA会员有哪些好处？年费高也要变会员？

正确答案：
(a) To: Ramon Silva
From:
Value innovation in La Familia Amable hotel chain
In strategic terms you are looking to create a competitive advantage over existing hotels based on a cost focus strategy. The
success of this niche marketing strategy will depend on your ability to attract customers from the existing providers but there
does seem a gap to exploit. In many ways you have an advantage in that you are not constrained by previous experience in
the hotel industry and this has enabled you to look to deliver a significantly different value proposition to your customers and
not simply look to marginally improve on what currently is on offer. One particular study on innovation drew attention to five
dimensions of strategy where innovators can significantly outperform. existing companies. This is important, as the industry
does not look particularly attractive with low growth and overcapacity – a recipe for low profitability.
Industry assumptions – here existing companies take the competitive conditions as given whereas innovators are looking to
influence and change those conditions.
Strategic focus – simply benchmarking against the current hotel providers may not create any real advantage, innovators are
seeking to provide a step change in the experience given to the customer.
Customers – the route to success may not be through ever increasing segmentation and customisation but by actually looking
to focus on the shared attributes of the service that customers value – a good night’s sleep for a low price being a prime
example.
Assets and capabilities – rather than looking to leverage existing assets and capabilities the innovator looks to ask what would
we do if we were starting a new business.
Product and service offering – existing competitors may again be constrained in their thinking by the existing boundaries of
the industry and the innovator by identifying new customers and services that take them outside this boundary may offer a
‘total solution’ that transforms the industry. The ‘no frills’, low cost budget airlines are a good example of such thinking.
In the hotel business ‘location, location, location’ is argued to be at the heart of a successful strategy. Clearly this will be your
choice and is affected by the customer groups you are looking to attract. Establishing a brand name and reputation is an
important marketing strategy and this will be facilitated by growing the chain rapidly and giving customers easy access to
your hotels. In value chain terms the company infrastructure looks to be lean with a reliance on trained husband and wife
teams to deliver the service. Franchising would also seem to be a route to grow the business that will place reduced strain
on company headquarters. The creation of a chain should lend itself to significant buying and procurement advantages, right
from the design of the hotels which will focus on the core value you are providing – namely quiet and cost. One French hotel
chain was able to cut in half the average cost of building a room, its ‘no frills’ service cut staff costs from between 25% and
35% of sales – the industry average – to between 20% and 23%.
Good design will therefore affect the quality of service that the operations side of the value chain delivers to the customer.
This may be a simpler service to that provided by its competitors – simpler, more basic rooms, no expensive restaurants or
lounge areas all impact on the cost of operations and consequently the price charged. Marketing, as previously referred to
above, is much more effectively done through satisfied customers’ recommendations than by expensive advertising. Many
hotel chains have used technology to create customer loyalty schemes of questionable benefit to the customer. You will
certainly have to seriously consider the value of such an after sales service. The established competitors often make
assumptions as to what a customer wants and typically this is offering more and more services that are expensive to provide.
Your entry into a ‘mature’ industry such as this, allows you to really challenge these assumptions and deliver a price/value
combination that is hard to beat.
Yours,

正确答案：

The Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) 1986 was introduced to control individuals who persistently abused the various privileges that accompany incorporation, most particularly the privilege of limited liability. The Act applies to more than just directors and the court may make an order preventing any person (without leave of the court) from being:
(i) a director of a company;
(ii) a liquidator or administrator of a company;
(iii) a receiver or manager of a company’s property; or
(iv) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned with or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company.
The CDDA 1986 identifies three distinct categories of conduct, which may, and in some circumstances must, lead the court to disqualify certain persons from being involved in the management of companies.
(a) General misconduct in connection with companies
This first category involves the following:
(i) A conviction for an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company or with the receivership or management of a company’s property (s.2 of the CDDA 1986). The maximum period for disqualification under s.2 is five years where the order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and 15 years in any other case.

(ii) Persistent breaches of companies legislation in relation to provisions which require any return, account or other document to be filed with, or notice of any matter to be given to, the registrar (s.3 of the CDDA 1986). Section 3 provides that a person is conclusively proved to be persistently in default where it is shown that, in the five years ending with the date of the application, he has been adjudged guilty of three or more defaults (s.3(2) of the CDDA 1986). This is without prejudice to proof of persistent default in any other manner. The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.
(iii) Fraud in connection with winding up (s.4 of the CDDA 1986). A court may make a disqualification order if, in the course of the winding up of a company, it appears that a person:
(1) has been guilty of an offence for which he is liable under s.993 of the CA 2006, that is, that he has knowingly been a party to the carrying on of the business of the company either with the intention of defrauding the company’s creditors or any other person or for any other fraudulent purpose; or
(2) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer or liquidator of the company or receiver or manager of the property of the company, of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such officer, liquidator, receiver or manager (s.4(1)(b) of the CDDA 1986).
The maximum period of disqualification under this category is 15 years.(b) Disqualification for unfitness
The second category covers:
(i) disqualification of directors of companies which have become insolvent, who are found by the court to be unfit to be directors (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Under s. 6, the minimum period of disqualification is two years, up to a maximum of 15 years;
(ii) disqualification after investigation of a company under Pt XIV of the CA 1985 (it should be noted that this part of the previous Act still sets out the procedures for company investigations) (s.8 of the CDDA 1986). Once again, the maximum period of disqualification is 15 years.
Schedule 1 to the CDDA 1986 sets out certain particulars to which the court is to have regard in deciding whether a person’s conduct as a director makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. In addition, the courts have given indications as to what sort of behaviour will render a person liable to be considered unfit to act as a company director. Thus, in Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd (1988), it was stated that:
‘Ordinary commercial misjudgment is in itself not sufficient to justify disqualification. In the normal case, the conduct complained of must display a lack of commercial probity, although . . . in an extreme case of gross negligence or total incompetence, disqualification could be appropriate.’

(c) Other cases for disqualification
This third category relates to:
(i) participation in fraudulent or wrongful trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986 (s.10 of the CDDA 1986);
(ii) undischarged bankrupts acting as directors (s.11 of the CDDA 1986); and
(iii) failure to pay under a county court administration order (s.12 of the CDDA 1986).
For the purposes of most of the CDDA 1986, the court has discretion to make a disqualification order. Where, however, a person has been found to be an unfit director of an insolvent company, the court has a duty to make a disqualification order (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Anyone who acts in contravention of a disqualification order is liable:
(i) to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine, on conviction on indictment; or
(ii) to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, on conviction summarily (s.13 of the CDDA 1986).

正确答案：
(b) Matters to be considered (before accepting the engagement)
Tutorial note: Although candidates may approach this part from a rote-learned list of ‘matters to consider’ it is important
that answer points be tailored, in so far as the information given in the scenario permits, to the specifics of Plaza and MCM.
It is critical that answer points should not contradict the scenario (e.g. assuming that it is Plaza’s auditor who has been
asked to undertake the assignment).
■ Information about Duncan Seymour – What is the relationship of the chief finance officer to Plaza (e.g. is he on the
management board)? By what authority is he approaching Andando to undertake this assignment?
■ The purpose of the assignment must be clarified. Duncan’s approach to Andando is ‘to advise on a bid’. However,
Andando cannot make executive decisions for a client but only provide the facts of material interest. Plaza’s
management must decide whether or not to bid and, if so, how much to bid.
■ The scope of the due diligence review. It seems likely that Plaza will be interested in acquiring all of MCM’s business
as its areas of operation coincide with Plaza’s. However it must be confirmed that Plaza is not merely interested in
acquiring only the National or International business of MCM.
■ Andando’s competence and experience – Andando should not accept the engagement unless the firm has experience in
undertaking due diligence assignments. Even then, the firm must have sufficient knowledge of the territories in which
the businesses operate to evaluate whether all facts of material interest to Plaza have been identified.
Tutorial note: Candidates should be querying their competence and experience in the fields of retailing and training
as though they were dealing with highly regulated or specialist industries such as banking or insurance.
■ Whether Andando has sufficient resources (e.g. representative/associated offices), if any, in Europe and Asia to
investigate MCM’s International business.
■ Any factors which might impair Andando’s objectivity in reporting to Plaza the facts uncovered by the due diligence
review. For example, if Duncan is closely connected with a partner in Andando or if Andando is the auditor of Frontiers.
Tutorial note: Candidates will not be awarded marks for going into ‘autopilot’ on independence issues. For example,
this is a one-off assignment so size of fee is not relevant. Andando holding shares in MCM is not possible (since whollyowned).
■ Plaza’s rationale for wishing to acquire MCM. Presumably it is significant that MCM operates in the same territories as
Plaza. Plaza may be wanting to provide extensive training programs in management, communications and marketing
to its workforce.
■ The relationship, if any, between Plaza and MCM in any of the territories. Plaza may be a major client of MCM. That
is, Plaza is currently out-sourcing training to MCM. Acquiring MCM would bring training in-house.
Tutorial note: Ascertaining what a purchaser hopes to gain from an acquisition before the assignment is accepted is
important. The facts to be uncovered for a merger from which synergy is expected will be different from those relevant
to acquiring an investment opportunity.
■ Time available – Andando must have sufficient time to find all facts that would be of material interest to Plaza before
disclosing their findings.
■ The acceptability of any limitations – whether there will be restrictions on Andando’s access to information held by MCM
(e.g. if there will not be access to board minutes) and personnel.
■ The degree of secrecy required – this may go beyond the normal duties of confidentiality not to disclose information to
outsiders (e.g. if unannounced staff redundancies could arise).
■ Why Plaza’s current auditors have not been asked to conduct the due diligence review – especially as they are
responsible for (and therefore capable of undertaking) the group audit covering the relevant countries.
■ Andando should be allowed to communicate with Plaza’s current auditor:
– to inform. them of the nature of the work they have been asked to undertake; and
– to enquire if there is any reason why they should not accept this assignment.
■ In taking on Plaza as a new client Andando may have a later opportunity to offer external audit and other services to
Plaza (e.g. internal audit).