Postgraduate LLM Coursework Assignment 2020/21
Comparative Company Law
Assessment Type Percentage (%) counting towards overall module mark Assignment Deadline (where appropriate) Word Limit
Return date of any individual feedback
Coursework
15 4,000 words 20 WORKING DAYS FROM SUBMISSION
Assignment title:
“Corporate creditors face a unique risk of debtor opportunism in all jurisdictions. This is why all legal systems provide mechanisms designed to protect corporate creditors through a mix of regulatory strategies that reflects different styles of adjudication and enforcement, as well as diversity in insolvency proceedings. Nevertheless, it can be said, that we are witnessing a convergence of the legal strategies boosting creditor protection, which is to be welcomed.”
Using your own creditor protection coding, and comparing it to (at least) one of the countries already coded of your choice, critically analyse this statement and question showing good evidence of wider reading and clear evidence of a comparative study.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Respond to this coursework with your own leximetric coding in mind. In order to assist the examiners, you will need to provide a copy of your leximetric coding. This does NOT form part of the word count for this assignment. Please ensure this is attached as an appendix to your coursework when submitting electronically.
Format
Font Size: 12 Point
Font Type: Times New Roman
Line Spacing: 1.5
Left and right hand margins: 1.25”
Top and bottom margins: 1”
Coursework Assessment Criteria
Your work will be assessed according to the Law School’s Postgraduate Assessment Criteria, printed at the end of this document with generic marking Guidelines.
To reflect the particular aims and learning objectives of this module, the following additional criteria will be taken into account:
Referencing
Your coursework should clearly distinguish between your original words and ideas, and those of others. When referring to the work of others, from books, journals or any other source (including the internet), it is essential that you make this clear by acknowledging your source and referencing correctly. Failure to reference correctly will lose you marks and may constitute plagiarism or collusion.
You should make use of the Oxford system of referencing, OSCOLA. Full details of its requirements can be found here: http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/publications/oscola.php . A useful short guide is here: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012quickreferenceguide.pdf
University Policy on Plagiarism and Collusion
It is important that all students familiarise themselves with the rules and regulations regarding plagiarism and collusion. Understanding these rules will help you to avoid plagiarism, and to maintain the quality of your academic work.
UEA’s current policy on plagiarism and collusion can be found at:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/calendar/section3/regs(gen)/plagandcoll
You may find the following link helpful:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/plagiarism/awareness_overview
Individual study skills support and advice on referencing is also provided by the Learning Enhancement Service at the Dean of Students Office.
You may be requested to provide a digital copy of your coursework (after an initial examination of the hard copy by the coursework assessors) for use with plagiarism detection software. Instances where plagiarism is suspected will be investigated. Students who are found to have plagiarised will be penalised.
In proven cases offenders will be punished and the punishment may extend to degree failure, temporary suspension or expulsion from further study if the case comes before a Discipline Committee of the University.
Word limit
4,000
One of the assessment criteria for this coursework is a requirement to write to a specified word length (see below) as it is an important professional skill for any aspiring lawyer. Students should declare the word count on the first page (or cover page) of their assessed work. Note that footnotes are NOT included in the word count. Footnotes should only be used for referencing purposes and not for substantive comments or argument, and footnotes containing any additional information or discussion will not be read. The word count also does NOT include the required front sheet, contents page, the bibliography or any appendices.
For the avoidance of doubt, your bibliography should list/collate only the material you refer to in your substantive piece (i.e. your references); it is NOT a list of all the material you have read in order to construct your answer.
Learning and Teaching Service Staff may check the accuracy of your stated word count.
Students are permitted to go up to 10% over the word limit without penalty. However, the ability to write concisely is considered a key legal skill. Where a student exceeds the word limit by more than 10%, there will be a deduction of 10 marks off the original mark. In addition, the marker is only obliged to read up to the 10% limit but is not obliged to read beyond it. There shall be no deduction of marks or other penalty where an item of coursework otherwise does not meet the expected word length. However, it is important to remember that failing to provide sufficient material, producing material that lacks focus or including material that is irrelevant will probably result in a lower mark on the basis of the lack of academic merit of the work submitted.
Coursework Deadlines
All coursework must be submitted by 15:00 on the specified date. Failure to submit on time without an approved (or where relevant and applicable self-certified) extension will result in a penalty for late submission.
Submission will be managed via Blackboard.
All coursework must be submitted electronically unless otherwise instructed.
Work submitted after the deadline must also be made electronically. Students can view their submissions date / time on the portal.
Please note that the deadline represents the last time that a piece of work can be submitted, and not a target. You are advised to plan ahead, and submit work well in advance of the deadline. This will help to ensure that any last minute delays do not result in late submission.
The University has a strict policy and clear procedures for obtaining an extension to a deadline for the submission of coursework. You can find details of the policy here https://www.uea.ac.uk/learningandteaching/documents/student/Extenuating+Circumstances+Regulation+-+Taught+Programmes+V2+Sept+2014 and the relevant form is here https://www.uea.ac.uk/learningandteaching/students/studying/extenuating-circumstances
You should plan your work so that minor delays do not prevent submission on time. In all cases, you should ensure that you make regular backup copies of all coursework in progress.
Where extenuating circumstances prevented you from applying for an extension in advance of the deadline, work submitted after the deadline should be accompanied by a completed University Extension Request Form. Allowance will be given for acceptable extenuating circumstances and in such cases penalties for late submission will not be applied.
Penalties for late submission
If you submit coursework after the published deadline, without an approved extension or (where relevant, self-certification), the following penalties will apply:
Work submitted Marks deducted
After 15:00 on the due date or on the day following the due date 10 marks
On either the 2nd or 3rd day after the due date 20 marks
on the 4th day after the due date and before the 20th day after the due date.
all the marks the work merits if submitted on time (i.e. no marks awarded)
After 20 working days work will not be marked and a mark of zero will be entered
Saturdays & Sundays will not be taken into account for the purposes of calculating marks deducted
Assessment Criteria and Marking Guidelines for Taught Postgraduate (LLM) Programmes
The UEA Law School uses a variety of assessment methods, thus allowing students to perform at their best and thereby to maximise their opportunities for progression and successful completion. A mark of 70 or above denotes a distinction; a mark below 50 is a fail; and a mark of between 60% and 69% is a merit.
You should be aware that your work will be assessed and classified by reference to the extent to which your answer meets the following assessment criteria:
1. The attainment of learning outcomes and a high level of scholarship;
2. Understanding of the subject, identification of relevant issues and the application of substantive subject knowledge to the question asked;
3. Capacity to critically analyse and formulate logical and sustained arguments;
4. Ability to illustrate and justify arguments and conclusions by reference to appropriately chosen source material;
5. Clear and accurate expression. In the case of coursework, writing concisely to the word limit, with the use of appropriate and consistent referencing.
6. Clear and logical standard of presentation, demonstrating an ability to structure and organise work in a coherent way.
To determine the mark to be awarded in coursework, the Law School follows the University Senate Scale for PG Taught programmes which can be found here https://www.uea.ac.uk/learningandteaching/documents/assessment/Senate+Marking+Scale+-+Masters+Level+-+Coursework+.
The following provides a short summary only of what work in each marking band should demonstrate.
Distinction
Mark 90 – 100% indicates work that is exemplary in all areas, in terms of both demonstrating attainment of learning objectives and the standards of scholarship to be expected of a Master’s student.
• Presentation will be almost flawless: exemplary referencing, with an outstanding bibliography, and standard of written English
• Highly effective and sustained argument, demonstrating exemplary level of understanding
• Exemplary level of critical reflection and analysis, and originality and creativity and where relevant of critical application of doctrinal rules and principles to problem fact scenarios
• Deeply impressive command of literature, drawing on an exemplary range of material/evidence and/or examining the topic in considerable detail.
Mark 80 – 89% indicates work of a very high in all areas, in terms of both demonstrating attainment of learning objectives and the standards of scholarship to be expected of a Master’s student. Small potential improvements can be readily identified.
• Very high standard of presentation, of referencing and of written English
• Coherent, articulate and resourcefully constructed arguments, demonstrating a very high level of understanding of the topic and associated issues /debates
• Very high level of critical reflection and analysis, and originality and creativity and where relevant of critical application of doctrinal rules and principles to problem fact scenarios
• Very strong command of data or literature, drawing on a broad range of material and/or examining the topic in some detail.
Mark 70-79% indicates work of a high standard in terms of both demonstrating attainment of learning objectives and the standards of scholarship to be expected of a Master’s student, though with scope for improvement in a number of areas.
• High standard of presentation, of referencing and written English
• Coherent and articulate arguments, demonstrating a high level of understanding of the topic and associated issues /debates
• High level of critical reflection and analysis, and originality and creativity and where relevant of critical application of doctrinal rules and principles to problem fact scenarios
• Strong command of data or literature, drawing on a broad range of material and/or examining the topic in some detail.
Merit
Mark of 60-69% indicates work that is good (High Merit – 65-69%), or mostly good (Merit – 60-64%) in all areas, including both demonstrating attainment of learning objectives and the standards of scholarship to be expected of a Master’s student.
• A good standard of presentation, referencing and written English. mostly logical, and errors are mostly very minor
• Shows a thorough grasp of the subject and contains evidence of insight, addressing all (or most) aspects of the assignment,. Though it may lack finesse, it is thorough, clear and shows an understanding of the subject/topic
• Contains some good examples of critical analysis but limited originality and creativity in use of ideas, concepts and, where relevant, good critical application of doctrinal rules and principles to problem fact scenarios
• Draws on a good range of material but lacks breadth of engagement with the secondary literature required for a distinction. Judicious use of sources and evidence appropriate to the discipline. Topics are mostly addressed but not always examined in sufficient detail.
Pass
Mark of 55-59% indicates work that is competent/satisfactory in all areas and possibly good in some (55-59%) or satisfactory/barely satisfactory in all areas (50-54%) including both demonstrating attainment of learning objectives and the standards of scholarship to be expected of a Master’s student.
• Demonstration of satisfactory or barely satisfactory understanding of the subject
• Presentation and written English is satisfactory: mostly clear, some evidence of logical progression. Marks in the lower range are likely to contain inaccuracies that are greater in number and more significant or serious and flaws in structure that are more fundamental in nature. Marks at the lower end may contain a greater number of inconsistencies in citation practice and the bibliography some more serious weaknesses in composition.
• Some evidence of engagement in the relevant issues, but little originality and only occasional insight. Gaps in understanding and knowledge; may not have addressed all aspects of the assignment. Marks at the lower range may be rather crude in its interpretation and argumentative purpose/focus. Conscientious work and attentive to subject matter and/or task set, but balanced more towards a descriptive rather than a critical, analytical treatment. Marks in the lower range are more likely to offer insights that are more limited in scope and sophistication.
• Draws on a satisfactory or barely satisfactory but limited range of sources. Some assessment of evidence, but the latter may be simplistic and partial. Topics are mostly addressed but not always examined in sufficient detail. Some use of examples, but for marks in the lower range these are not necessarily well-chosen or employed.
Fail
A mark of 45 – 49% is a borderline fail and indicates work which demonstrates some degree of awareness, knowledge, and understanding but not to the levels required to secure a pass mark and is barely satisfactory in a few areas and weak in most others. The paper lacks a coherent, informative discussion by reference to the tasks set; problems may relate to material content, level of argument, vagueness or inconsistency.
A mark of 40 – 44% indicates work which fails to demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes and the standards of scholarship to be expected of a Master’s student.
• Presentation is poor, and some errors likely to be serious, poor referencing, inadequate bibliography with some serious errors; poorly structured and poor command of written English
• Poorly constructed arguments that lack sophistication. The work is only a partial response to the question, showing some understanding of the topic and some relevant knowledge, but its treatment is basic, unimaginative, and superficial. Grasp of key concepts is weak. Arguments employed are poorly evidenced and/or contain flaws.
• Limited critical analysis: some evidence of reflection but it is partial and lacks insight. Critical application of doctrinal rules and principles to problem fact scenarios is poor.
• Range of material and literature relied on is very limited and little attempt to assess evidence. Poorly chosen or poorly employed examples. Lacking in sophistication or finesse. The work reflects a limited level of engagement in wider reading.
A mark of 30 – 39% provides insufficient demonstration of learning outcomes to justify a pass grade and the standard of scholarship is insufficient for a pass. There will be weaknesses in several areas and limited evidence of reflection.
• Presentation is poor, lacking sufficient clarity, and a logical progression, with serious errors/inaccuracies. Written English is of an unsatisfactory standard with too many serious errors present. Its weaknesses undermine clarity of meaning and the text may occasionally be incomprehensible. It will display significant flaws in spelling, grammar, and basic sentence/paragraph composition. Citations and references are present but very limited and very poor. Bibliography is omitted, partial or poorly structured.
• The argument presented is poor, containing some material of merit, but is only a partial attempt to address the question and fails to answer the question fully or in a robust manner, with few (and mostly unsuccessful) attempts to construct argument(s). Poor understanding of key issues or concepts. The treatment is mostly descriptive.
• Whilst the work contains some evidence of criticality or analysis, it is too limited or partial or lacking in depth to justify a pass. It will draw on a very limited range of sources. No real attempt to assess evidence. Examples are occasionally provided but are poorly chosen and employed. Entirely lacking in sophistication or finesse. The submission reflects a very limited level of engagement in wider reading and a limited confidence/ability in the choice and use of evidence.
• A mark below 29% will show that few, if any, of the learning outcomes have been met in, at best, a limited way. The standard of scholarship is insufficient for a pass, with weaknesses in many or all areas. The work reflects at best a very limited level of engagement in study on a more general level, with limited or no evidence of reflection.
• Presentation will be very poor, lacking clarity and logical progression, with many serious or wholesale inaccuracies. The standard of English will be very poor, with many serious flaws. Referencing will be very poor, with citations almost or entirely absent.
• The work will contain little or no material of merit or relevance, revealing a paucity of – or no – understanding of key issues or concepts. It will fail to address most or all aspects of the task or question set, and lacks any sustained argument(s).
• The treatment is almost wholly descriptive and contains little or no evidence of a critical or analytical engagement in the topic. The work will draw on a minimal range of sources and rarely goes beyond paraphrasing bits of lecture notes or easily accessible web sources. There is no attempt to assess evidence. Examples are very rarely provided, or not provided at all, and those that are are very poorly employed.
