Search results

Recent dramatic increases in private equity (PE) control of publicly-traded media companies raise a number of serious concerns for communications scholars, media consumers, and active citizens. The effects of PE activities include increased concentration in an already highly concentrated communications industry, a shift of control of media from Wall Street to PE firms, and a tougher time for media workers. Furthermore, PE firms are literally private—as in secret—hence the general public remains largely uninformed about PE buyouts of media firms. Issues include the control of capital in the U.S. and globally, and the ways in which this control shapes media content and form. Finally, since PE firms do not have to file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, valuable information upon which radical political economists have traditionally relied to investigate relationships between capital and communications also has become private. This essay explores and analyzes the entry of PE into the communications system with four compelling examples.

European private regulation pre-existed European Community law and co-exists with it today, giving rise to different forms of complementarity with European legislation. While in the initial stage of jus commune, a stronger role for co-regulation characterized private law, the formation of national legal systems, and in particular the era of codifications, changed the complementarity between public and private law-making. Codifications reduced cooperative law-making but increased the role of adjudication as the vehicle through which customs and practices accessed European continental legal systems. The rise of the regulatory State and the more recent transformations of regulatory strategies have brought up new forms of co-regulation with increasing trends of negotiated rule-making, affecting legal integration through different institutions. In this article the place of private regulation in the evolution of EPL is explored. It affects, in different ways, the whole domain of private law, from contract to property, from civil liability to unfair competition. Often European harmonised private regulation has anticipated European legislation, for example in the areas of unfair commercial practices, internet, financial markets. In other cases, forms of mutual recognition of private regulations have occurred. While the modes through which private regulation has contributed to European legal integration differ, it is quite clear that it has played and will play a significant role. ; This paper has been delivered within the context of the research project: Transnational Private Regulatory Regimes: Constitutional foundations and governance design Co-financed by HiiL (Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law) www.hiil.org www.privateregulation.eu

"Private Investing: The Handbook of Private Debt and Private Equity" is a practical manual on investing in the most common alternative asset classes and provides a unique insight on how principal investors analyze investment opportunities. Unlike other textbooks available in the market, Principal Investing covers the various phases that principal investors follow when analyzing a private investment opportunity. The first section of the book covers the analytical tools: advanced accounting and financial analysis, industry and company analysis. The second section looks at the most common methods used to structure a debt facility and a private equity transaction. The last section looks at the main legal aspects of a transaction: term sheet, debt facility, security documents, investment and security purchase agreements, shareholders agreements. The reader can thus walk through the different phases of a transaction from origination to closing. Principal Investing combines academic rigor with the practical approach used by leading investors. Every chapter is filled with practical examples, Excel workbooks (downloadable on the book website), examples of legal clauses and contracts, and Q&A. Cases are referred at the end of every chapter to test the learning of the reader. Instructors will find referrals to both third party cases or cases written by the authors.

"We study collusion in repeated first-price auctions under the condition of minimal information release by the auctioneer. In each auction a bidder only learns whether or not he won the object. Bidders do not observe other bidders? bids, who participates or who wins in case they are not the winner. We show that for large enough discount factors collusion can nevertheless be supported in the infinitely repeated game. While there is a unique Nash equilibrium in public strategies, in which bidders bid competitively in every period, there are simple Nash equilibria in private strategies that support bid rotation. Equilibria that either improve on bid rotation or satisfy the requirement of Bayesian perfection, but not both, are only slightly more complex. Our main result is the construction of perfect Bayesian equilibria that improve on bid rotation. These equilibria require complicated inferences off the equilibrium path. A deviator may not know who has observed his deviation and consequently may have an incentive to use strategic experimentation to learn about the bidding behavior of his rivals." (author's abstract)

It could be easily traced a stereotype in public discourse – corruption is thought to be the biggest evil when it appears in public sector. On the contrary the private sector is being seen as an autonomic sphere in which corruption doesn't make such a big harm. Or even almost any harm at all. At the most radical point of view corruption in the private sector even could not exist. Nevertheless we may see that at least some specific corrupt acts in private sphere (such as embezzlement) are being condemned and prosecuted by means of criminal law since quite a long time ago. Still such acts as bribery and abuse of power even at the end of the 20th century were held as hardly related to private sector. Analysis provided in the study shows that qualitative and quantitative attributes of harm which is being caused by corruption in private or public sector should not be related with the specific sector itself. It is not a sector which makes corruption more or less harmful, but the specific interests which are being exposed quite randomly in the context of one or another sector. This is why corruption in a private sector could not be treated a priori as "lesser evil". At least five factors has made a global breakthrough on the perception of the harmfulness of corruption in private sector: 1) some great recent scandals related to the corruption in private sector (affair of Jerome Kerviel related to the funds of Société Générale, affair of Arthur Anderson and Enron, affair related to corrupt acts of workers union of Volkswagen etc.); 2) better understanding of links between an abstract category of corruption in private sector and specific interests being abused by such corruption; 3) origin and development of wide and influential networks of active international and local anticorruption organisations and initiatives; 4) transformation and even some constraints in understanding of the privacy in western civilisation; 5) privatisation and outsourcing of public functions which has been seen for a decades and even centuries as an integral part of public administration. In the international level the European Union and its institutions has been the pioneers in activating the fight against corruption in private sector. From 1995 they equally related the concept of corruption with both private and public sectors. And they took the bold position not to be in line with such authorities in anticorruption policy as World Bank and Transparency International which held that corruption is related only to public office and powers. In this context Lithuania could also be held as a pioneer in criminalisation of wide range of corrupt acts in the private sector: even before the above-mentioned political acts of European Union institutions the Lithuanian Parliament has adopted laws criminalising general bribery and abuse of power in private sector. Unfortunately some later developments in Lithuanian criminal law or to be more specific in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly narrowed the broad concept of the above-mentioned criminalisation. The court decided that specific harm to the public interests should be established in order to convect a person for bribery and abuse of power in private sector. The study provides two basic criterion to provide a typology of corruption in private sector: (1) who is being specifically harmed and (2) what specific harm (negative consequences) is being made. Corruption in private sector could harm: (1) clients of private businesses; (2) companies when employees commits corrupt acts on their expense; (3) owners and shareholders of affected companies; (4) employees in affected companies, their families and dependents; (5) third-parties being directly aimed or affected by bribery or other corrupt act and also those being harmed by unfair competition caused by corruption in private sector; (6) the society, i. e. unspecified or hardly specified group of individuals; (7) the state. Also corruption in private sector could bring both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.

It could be easily traced a stereotype in public discourse – corruption is thought to be the biggest evil when it appears in public sector. On the contrary the private sector is being seen as an autonomic sphere in which corruption doesn't make such a big harm. Or even almost any harm at all. At the most radical point of view corruption in the private sector even could not exist. Nevertheless we may see that at least some specific corrupt acts in private sphere (such as embezzlement) are being condemned and prosecuted by means of criminal law since quite a long time ago. Still such acts as bribery and abuse of power even at the end of the 20th century were held as hardly related to private sector. Analysis provided in the study shows that qualitative and quantitative attributes of harm which is being caused by corruption in private or public sector should not be related with the specific sector itself. It is not a sector which makes corruption more or less harmful, but the specific interests which are being exposed quite randomly in the context of one or another sector. This is why corruption in a private sector could not be treated a priori as "lesser evil". At least five factors has made a global breakthrough on the perception of the harmfulness of corruption in private sector: 1) some great recent scandals related to the corruption in private sector (affair of Jerome Kerviel related to the funds of Société Générale, affair of Arthur Anderson and Enron, affair related to corrupt acts of workers union of Volkswagen etc.); 2) better understanding of links between an abstract category of corruption in private sector and specific interests being abused by such corruption; 3) origin and development of wide and influential networks of active international and local anticorruption organisations and initiatives; 4) transformation and even some constraints in understanding of the privacy in western civilisation; 5) privatisation and outsourcing of public functions which has been seen for a decades and even centuries as an integral part of public administration. In the international level the European Union and its institutions has been the pioneers in activating the fight against corruption in private sector. From 1995 they equally related the concept of corruption with both private and public sectors. And they took the bold position not to be in line with such authorities in anticorruption policy as World Bank and Transparency International which held that corruption is related only to public office and powers. In this context Lithuania could also be held as a pioneer in criminalisation of wide range of corrupt acts in the private sector: even before the above-mentioned political acts of European Union institutions the Lithuanian Parliament has adopted laws criminalising general bribery and abuse of power in private sector. Unfortunately some later developments in Lithuanian criminal law or to be more specific in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly narrowed the broad concept of the above-mentioned criminalisation. The court decided that specific harm to the public interests should be established in order to convect a person for bribery and abuse of power in private sector. The study provides two basic criterion to provide a typology of corruption in private sector: (1) who is being specifically harmed and (2) what specific harm (negative consequences) is being made. Corruption in private sector could harm: (1) clients of private businesses; (2) companies when employees commits corrupt acts on their expense; (3) owners and shareholders of affected companies; (4) employees in affected companies, their families and dependents; (5) third-parties being directly aimed or affected by bribery or other corrupt act and also those being harmed by unfair competition caused by corruption in private sector; (6) the society, i. e. unspecified or hardly specified group of individuals; (7) the state. Also corruption in private sector could bring both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.

It could be easily traced a stereotype in public discourse – corruption is thought to be the biggest evil when it appears in public sector. On the contrary the private sector is being seen as an autonomic sphere in which corruption doesn't make such a big harm. Or even almost any harm at all. At the most radical point of view corruption in the private sector even could not exist. Nevertheless we may see that at least some specific corrupt acts in private sphere (such as embezzlement) are being condemned and prosecuted by means of criminal law since quite a long time ago. Still such acts as bribery and abuse of power even at the end of the 20th century were held as hardly related to private sector. Analysis provided in the study shows that qualitative and quantitative attributes of harm which is being caused by corruption in private or public sector should not be related with the specific sector itself. It is not a sector which makes corruption more or less harmful, but the specific interests which are being exposed quite randomly in the context of one or another sector. This is why corruption in a private sector could not be treated a priori as "lesser evil". At least five factors has made a global breakthrough on the perception of the harmfulness of corruption in private sector: 1) some great recent scandals related to the corruption in private sector (affair of Jerome Kerviel related to the funds of Société Générale, affair of Arthur Anderson and Enron, affair related to corrupt acts of workers union of Volkswagen etc.); 2) better understanding of links between an abstract category of corruption in private sector and specific interests being abused by such corruption; 3) origin and development of wide and influential networks of active international and local anticorruption organisations and initiatives; 4) transformation and even some constraints in understanding of the privacy in western civilisation; 5) privatisation and outsourcing of public functions which has been seen for a decades and even centuries as an integral part of public administration. In the international level the European Union and its institutions has been the pioneers in activating the fight against corruption in private sector. From 1995 they equally related the concept of corruption with both private and public sectors. And they took the bold position not to be in line with such authorities in anticorruption policy as World Bank and Transparency International which held that corruption is related only to public office and powers. In this context Lithuania could also be held as a pioneer in criminalisation of wide range of corrupt acts in the private sector: even before the above-mentioned political acts of European Union institutions the Lithuanian Parliament has adopted laws criminalising general bribery and abuse of power in private sector. Unfortunately some later developments in Lithuanian criminal law or to be more specific in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly narrowed the broad concept of the above-mentioned criminalisation. The court decided that specific harm to the public interests should be established in order to convect a person for bribery and abuse of power in private sector. The study provides two basic criterion to provide a typology of corruption in private sector: (1) who is being specifically harmed and (2) what specific harm (negative consequences) is being made. Corruption in private sector could harm: (1) clients of private businesses; (2) companies when employees commits corrupt acts on their expense; (3) owners and shareholders of affected companies; (4) employees in affected companies, their families and dependents; (5) third-parties being directly aimed or affected by bribery or other corrupt act and also those being harmed by unfair competition caused by corruption in private sector; (6) the society, i. e. unspecified or hardly specified group of individuals; (7) the state. Also corruption in private sector could bring both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.

It could be easily traced a stereotype in public discourse – corruption is thought to be the biggest evil when it appears in public sector. On the contrary the private sector is being seen as an autonomic sphere in which corruption doesn't make such a big harm. Or even almost any harm at all. At the most radical point of view corruption in the private sector even could not exist. Nevertheless we may see that at least some specific corrupt acts in private sphere (such as embezzlement) are being condemned and prosecuted by means of criminal law since quite a long time ago. Still such acts as bribery and abuse of power even at the end of the 20th century were held as hardly related to private sector. Analysis provided in the study shows that qualitative and quantitative attributes of harm which is being caused by corruption in private or public sector should not be related with the specific sector itself. It is not a sector which makes corruption more or less harmful, but the specific interests which are being exposed quite randomly in the context of one or another sector. This is why corruption in a private sector could not be treated a priori as "lesser evil". At least five factors has made a global breakthrough on the perception of the harmfulness of corruption in private sector: 1) some great recent scandals related to the corruption in private sector (affair of Jerome Kerviel related to the funds of Société Générale, affair of Arthur Anderson and Enron, affair related to corrupt acts of workers union of Volkswagen etc.); 2) better understanding of links between an abstract category of corruption in private sector and specific interests being abused by such corruption; 3) origin and development of wide and influential networks of active international and local anticorruption organisations and initiatives; 4) transformation and even some constraints in understanding of the privacy in western civilisation; 5) privatisation and outsourcing of public functions which has been seen for a decades and even centuries as an integral part of public administration. In the international level the European Union and its institutions has been the pioneers in activating the fight against corruption in private sector. From 1995 they equally related the concept of corruption with both private and public sectors. And they took the bold position not to be in line with such authorities in anticorruption policy as World Bank and Transparency International which held that corruption is related only to public office and powers. In this context Lithuania could also be held as a pioneer in criminalisation of wide range of corrupt acts in the private sector: even before the above-mentioned political acts of European Union institutions the Lithuanian Parliament has adopted laws criminalising general bribery and abuse of power in private sector. Unfortunately some later developments in Lithuanian criminal law or to be more specific in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly narrowed the broad concept of the above-mentioned criminalisation. The court decided that specific harm to the public interests should be established in order to convect a person for bribery and abuse of power in private sector. The study provides two basic criterion to provide a typology of corruption in private sector: (1) who is being specifically harmed and (2) what specific harm (negative consequences) is being made. Corruption in private sector could harm: (1) clients of private businesses; (2) companies when employees commits corrupt acts on their expense; (3) owners and shareholders of affected companies; (4) employees in affected companies, their families and dependents; (5) third-parties being directly aimed or affected by bribery or other corrupt act and also those being harmed by unfair competition caused by corruption in private sector; (6) the society, i. e. unspecified or hardly specified group of individuals; (7) the state. Also corruption in private sector could bring both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.

This article explores the role of the public/private divide within EU private law. It shows that although EU private law cuts across the boundaries of public and private law, the conceptual distinction between these well-established categories does matter within it and may lead to better law-making in the EU more generally. The legal grammar of a particular EU harmonisation measure - which can be more "public" or "private" - may have important implications for the position of private parties at national level, for the CJEU's likely activism in this context, and ultimately for the measure's ability to realise its policy goals. Therefore, instead of ignoring the existing differences between public and private law, EU law should explicitly adopt the public/private law language in its discourse, without, however, introducing any sharp divide between these two areas.

Drawing on the experience of Save the Children's African Family Advisory Service1David Wright discusses the public duty and private responsibility implicit in private fostering and looks forward to how the spirit and letter of the Children Act and the Guidance and Regulations on Private Fostering will be put into effect.