Thursday, January 14, 2010
Private-Equity Fund-Raising at Worst Levels Since 2003 - WSJ.com
Private-Equity Fund-Raising at Worst Levels Since 2003 - WSJ.com by Nathan Becker writes:
"Private-equity fund-raising in the U.S. had its worst year since 2003, with most sectors experiencing steep drops, according to Dow Jones LP Source.
In 2009, 331 funds raised $95.8 billion, down 68% from the $299.9 billion raised by 508 funds in 2008, Dow Jones said. In the fourth quarter, firms raised $20.5 billion in 75 funds, ..."
Our intellectual property regime is absurd – a reminder from The Equity Kicker via TechDirt
Our intellectual property regime is absurd – a reminder |
The Equity Kicker writes as follows and gives us six examples:
The Equity Kicker writes as follows and gives us six examples:
"....I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on this subject but I have seen enough startups undermined by spurious patent claims and innovative young media companies stymied by copyright difficulties to convince me that the current system is wrong, wrong, wrong....Read the full article here.The point of this post is to give some examples of this waste and friction, all culled from a single days writing on Techdirt...."
1. Japanese electronics firms turn to patent fights as Korean companies take the lead in this market....
2. French copyright enforcement agency accidentally steals someone else’s font....
3. Union Square Ventures posted about the need for an independent invention defence against patent infringement lawsuits....4. Getting legal clearance for films is now painful as samples of third party copyrighted work need clearance....
5. There is a serious debate as to whether software patents should be allowed at all....
6. A company called DigiProtect is sending collection agencies after people it accuses of copyright infringement before they have been found guilty....
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Terra Firma Founder Warns Of 'Massive Transfer' Of Economic Power from West to East - WSJ.com
Terra Firma Founder Warns Of 'Massive Transfer' Of Economic Power from West to East - WSJ.com
"Guy Hands, founder of buyout firm Terra Firma Capital Partners Ltd., has questioned banker pay and warned that globalization is delivering a 'massive transfer of economic power from the West to the East' in his annual letter to investors.
Hands each year sends a topical book to investors and others, including Private Equity News. This year he picked economist Roger Bootle's 'The Trouble with Markets.' ..."
The Private Equity Top 10: Kicking Off The List - Private Equity Beat - WSJ
The Private Equity Top 10: Kicking Off The List - Private Equity Beat - WSJ: China
"nearly half of attendees at the Super Return Asia conference this fall predicted that the Asian private equity market will overtake the U.S. within 40 years."
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Do it Like the Norwegians : Prudence, Stability and Sovereign Wealth Fund Legislation in Thriving Norway are an Example for the Rest of the World
Reposted from a May 23, 2009 LawPundit posting:
Do it Like the Norwegians : Prudence, Stability and Sovereign Wealth Fund Legislation in Thriving Norway are an Example for the Rest of the World
Norway is doing something right that many of the countries in our world are doing wrong, namely running the national economy wisely.
Is Norway a model for a healthy and prudent national economics?
Landon Thomas Jr. in his May 13, 2009 New York Times article Thriving Norway Provides an Economics Lesson gives us a nice summary of the economic policies followed by a "wealthy" but "relatively frugal" country. Of course, it helps that Norway is the world's third largest exporter of oil and in 2008 counted $68 billion in oil revenue. But that is not the whole story.
As Thomas writes:
"[I]n the midst of the worst global downturn since the Depression, Norway’s economy grew last year by just under 3 percent. The government enjoys a budget surplus of 11 percent. By comparison, the United States is expected to chalk up a fiscal deficit this year equal to 12.9 percent of its gross domestic product and push its total debt to $11 trillion, or 65 percent of the size of its economy....
Norway’s relative frugality stands in stark contrast to Britain, which spent most of its North Sea oil revenue — and more — during the boom years. Government spending rose to 47 percent of G.D.P., from 42 percent in 2003. By comparison, public spending in Norway fell to 40 percent from 48 percent of G.D.P.
Do it Like the Norwegians : Prudence, Stability and Sovereign Wealth Fund Legislation in Thriving Norway are an Example for the Rest of the World
Norway is doing something right that many of the countries in our world are doing wrong, namely running the national economy wisely.
Is Norway a model for a healthy and prudent national economics?
Landon Thomas Jr. in his May 13, 2009 New York Times article Thriving Norway Provides an Economics Lesson gives us a nice summary of the economic policies followed by a "wealthy" but "relatively frugal" country. Of course, it helps that Norway is the world's third largest exporter of oil and in 2008 counted $68 billion in oil revenue. But that is not the whole story.
As Thomas writes:
"[I]n the midst of the worst global downturn since the Depression, Norway’s economy grew last year by just under 3 percent. The government enjoys a budget surplus of 11 percent. By comparison, the United States is expected to chalk up a fiscal deficit this year equal to 12.9 percent of its gross domestic product and push its total debt to $11 trillion, or 65 percent of the size of its economy....
Norway’s relative frugality stands in stark contrast to Britain, which spent most of its North Sea oil revenue — and more — during the boom years. Government spending rose to 47 percent of G.D.P., from 42 percent in 2003. By comparison, public spending in Norway fell to 40 percent from 48 percent of G.D.P.
'The U.S. and the U.K. have no sense of guilt,' said Anders Aslund, an expert on Scandinavia at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. 'But in Norway, there is instead a sense of virtue. If you are given a lot, you have a responsibility.' "
Read the full article to find out why Thomas writes:
"The global financial crisis has brought low the economies of just about every country on earth. But not Norway. "
Thursday, August 6, 2009
A Private Equity Joint Bid ("Club Deal") for Acquisition of a Target Company not per se Illegal under the Sherman Act
Reposted from a March 11, 2008 LawPundit posting:
A Private Equity Joint Bid ("Club Deal") for Acquisition of a Target Company held Not per se Illegal under the Sherman Act
We just received in the mail a Paul|Weiss article about a private equity antitrust class action collusion suit (Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Edward Borey, et al., No. C06-1737RAJ, W.D. Wa.) which was dismissed on February 21, 2008 by Judge Richard Jones in what appears to be a case of first impression, holding that a joint bid by private equity firms (a so-called "club deal") is legal under the circumstances of that case, so we pass on more links relating to that decision: a WSJ Deal Journal article by Peter Lattman, a Linklaters Technical Bulletin, the HRO Antitrust Alert, the DLA Piper Antitrust Alert and the Truth on the Market blog, which discuss the decision.
The DLA Piper summary of the decision by Paolo Morante writes:
"After initially submitting independent bids, two of the private equity bidders, Vector Capital (Vector) and Francisco Partners (FP), remained as the only bidders in the running. According to the complaint, brought on behalf of a putative class of WatchGuard shareholders, in the final stages of the bid process Vector and FP agreed that Vector would drop its bid, allowing FP to purchase WatchGuard at a reduced price, and then that Vector would fund half of FP’s acquisition in exchange for a 50 percent interest in WatchGuard after the merger. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the agreement between Vector and FP restrained competition in violation Section 1 of the Sherman Act."
Linklaters writes:
"Last week, a US federal district court became the first to conclude that an agreement by private equity funds to submit a joint takeover bid does not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. If followed by other US courts, the decision may have important implications for private equity funds considering potential joint-bidding arrangements. See Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Borey, No. C06-1737 (W.D. Wash.)."
Paul|Weiss writes:
"While this result is promising for private equity firms, it is uncertain whether other courts will uphold this decision or apply the same reasoning as the district court did in this case. There is, however, little doubt that these issues will be revisited in other antitrust class actions against private equity firms."
McDermott, Will & Emery write:
"The decision is controversial and may well turn out to be overruled on appeal or distinguished by courts that address joint bids in the future. As such, companies should not take undue comfort in this lone district court opinion. This case is of interest, however, because it is the first opinion in several cases that have been filed challenging joint bids, or “club deals,” in corporate acquisitions."
Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP write:
"The decision, although one by only a single federal district court in the Western District of Washington, is nonetheless an important ruling for the buyout industry which has been targeted with antitrust suits around the country after the Department of Justice opened an inquiry into possible anticompetitive conduct related to club deals in 2006."
Truth on the Market writes:
"Private equity deals have been the subject of a good deal of speculation in antitrust circles in the past several years as bidding arrangements are the subject of pending litigation and have come under the scrutiny of the Department of Justice. It's just one decision, but this one seems pretty dismal for plaintiffs in these private equity collusion suits."
A Private Equity Joint Bid ("Club Deal") for Acquisition of a Target Company held Not per se Illegal under the Sherman Act
We just received in the mail a Paul|Weiss article about a private equity antitrust class action collusion suit (Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Edward Borey, et al., No. C06-1737RAJ, W.D. Wa.) which was dismissed on February 21, 2008 by Judge Richard Jones in what appears to be a case of first impression, holding that a joint bid by private equity firms (a so-called "club deal") is legal under the circumstances of that case, so we pass on more links relating to that decision: a WSJ Deal Journal article by Peter Lattman, a Linklaters Technical Bulletin, the HRO Antitrust Alert, the DLA Piper Antitrust Alert and the Truth on the Market blog, which discuss the decision.
The DLA Piper summary of the decision by Paolo Morante writes:
"After initially submitting independent bids, two of the private equity bidders, Vector Capital (Vector) and Francisco Partners (FP), remained as the only bidders in the running. According to the complaint, brought on behalf of a putative class of WatchGuard shareholders, in the final stages of the bid process Vector and FP agreed that Vector would drop its bid, allowing FP to purchase WatchGuard at a reduced price, and then that Vector would fund half of FP’s acquisition in exchange for a 50 percent interest in WatchGuard after the merger. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the agreement between Vector and FP restrained competition in violation Section 1 of the Sherman Act."
Linklaters writes:
"Last week, a US federal district court became the first to conclude that an agreement by private equity funds to submit a joint takeover bid does not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. If followed by other US courts, the decision may have important implications for private equity funds considering potential joint-bidding arrangements. See Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Borey, No. C06-1737 (W.D. Wash.)."
Paul|Weiss writes:
"While this result is promising for private equity firms, it is uncertain whether other courts will uphold this decision or apply the same reasoning as the district court did in this case. There is, however, little doubt that these issues will be revisited in other antitrust class actions against private equity firms."
McDermott, Will & Emery write:
"The decision is controversial and may well turn out to be overruled on appeal or distinguished by courts that address joint bids in the future. As such, companies should not take undue comfort in this lone district court opinion. This case is of interest, however, because it is the first opinion in several cases that have been filed challenging joint bids, or “club deals,” in corporate acquisitions."
Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP write:
"The decision, although one by only a single federal district court in the Western District of Washington, is nonetheless an important ruling for the buyout industry which has been targeted with antitrust suits around the country after the Department of Justice opened an inquiry into possible anticompetitive conduct related to club deals in 2006."
Truth on the Market writes:
"Private equity deals have been the subject of a good deal of speculation in antitrust circles in the past several years as bidding arrangements are the subject of pending litigation and have come under the scrutiny of the Department of Justice. It's just one decision, but this one seems pretty dismal for plaintiffs in these private equity collusion suits."
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Law Firms as Investments under the UK 2007 Legal Services Act : Private Equity Funds Consider Investing in the Legal "Business" Starting 2011
The mass of law firm layoffs in the current recession, putting profits before principles, indicates that the practice of law as a profession in the modern era has become more and more a typical "business" and is less and less a noble legal profession conforming to the faulty image of professionally ethical attorneys nostalgically portrayed by the monopolistic bar associations. When push comes to shove in law firms across the nation and the world, attorney colleagues are coldly put out on to the streets to find their sustenance elsewhere under the motto that "someone else can take care of them". Ours is a hard world which shows no quarter.
Fitting in with this trend is the UK 2007 Legal Services Act which permits investment in law firms. Private equity funds, knowing a good "business" when they see one (as opposed to a "professional" deal), are already considering investing in BigLaw starting 2011, something which is already permissible in Australia.
Lindsay Fortado at Bloomberg.com in Private Equity Considers Investing in U.K. Law Firms (Update1) reports:
Some law firms are understandably resisting this development, but the march of time is against them.
Hat tip to Martha Neil at the ABA Journal and
Private Equity Funds Ponder Purchase of Up to 20% Interest in UK Law Firms
Crossposted to LawPundit.
Fitting in with this trend is the UK 2007 Legal Services Act which permits investment in law firms. Private equity funds, knowing a good "business" when they see one (as opposed to a "professional" deal), are already considering investing in BigLaw starting 2011, something which is already permissible in Australia.
Lindsay Fortado at Bloomberg.com in Private Equity Considers Investing in U.K. Law Firms (Update1) reports:
"Slater & Gordon Ltd., based in Melbourne, became the world’s first law firm to sell shares on a stock exchange two years ago after a similar bill was passed in Australia. The personal-injury firm raised A$35 million ($29 million) from the listing and acquired two law firms....'Read the details about the UK here.
Some law firms are understandably resisting this development, but the march of time is against them.
Hat tip to Martha Neil at the ABA Journal and
Private Equity Funds Ponder Purchase of Up to 20% Interest in UK Law Firms
Crossposted to LawPundit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
