Shareholder loans, Private Equity and Distressed Investing - change needed

Some call Private Equity and their close cousin, distressed debt investors, nothing but locusts that are out to make a fast buck. This judgment may be overly harsh, but given the short time between investment and exit that is the hallmark of some deals it may be difficult to disprove this judgment.
One are of possible abuse, however, is the treatment of shareholder loans when an investment hits the buffers. Loans from major or especially controlling shareholders should be treated as subordinate to all other claims, pensions, wages, trade creditors and tax authorities.
In the case of Private Equity 'Funds' it should also not be possible that the Fund washes its hands of an investment that had gone sour. The Fund should be treated as a going concern, much like a Conglomerate. This would instill a much higher level of commitment from the PE investors and prevent overly risky investments on the basis of 'heads we win, tails you loose'. (22-Oct-2017)
Sunday Times (Paywall)

Socially Responsible Investing - Just a Fig Leaf?

While it may hurt investors in the pocket, are they not the ultimate responsible party on the way to socially responsible business practises? If yes, can they stay aside when a company tries to squeeze the last dollar out of its product, however reasonable the may be following simplistic principles of capitalism? Or should there be some restraint based on ethical consideration even if it if against full-out profit maximization? What would one say if doctors create a monopoly in heart operations and use every possible legalistic trick to prevent competition thus being able to increase their fees to some astronomical level?

Acquisitions, M+A need more supervision by Shareholders

Another desastrous Acquisition, another fine - but for the wrong victims, i.e. the shareholders. M+A merchants, aka 'Investment Bankers', auditors and possibly management should pay for such failures.

In defense of private equity

Well argued - by a Private Equity Insider. But why don't owners/shareholders not just change the management in underperforming businesses? It would be much cheaper. And why does Private Equity get treated as a fund when it is actually a conglomerate business and should be incorporated as such? (17-Oct-2017)
In defense of private equity

More votes for long-term shareowners?

Something can be said in favor of limiting voting rights for short-term shareholders. It feels intuitively right to exclude those who see shares just as gambling chips. But as always, the devil is in the detail! In particular, what is the right cut-off period?  (17-Oct-2017)
The Long-Term Stock Exchange Is Worth a Shot

Never-ending Debate about dual-class Shares

If the main purpose of dual-class shares is the sheltering of a business from raiders (now calling themselves 'Activists') this can easily achieved by setting a limit to the voting rights of each shareholder. (17-Oct-2017)
Financial Times (Pay Wall)

Procter & Gamble: Who should sit on a Board?

Should a so-called 'Activist' investor with less than 1% of the outstanding shares be allowed to get a seat on the board? On what principles should boards be nominated?

Join the debate or decisions will be made for you while you have to pay for these expensive proxy 'battles'.

Frightening: the games that can be played with our companies

Not enough that companies from what is basically nothing but a dictatorship can roam through our corporate universe, outfits where large and maybe even controlling stakes can be 'parked' with friends make any clear link to good governance less than practicable. Which local community, employee or customer representation will be able to hold these firms to account, not mentioning governments that usually sing from the hymnbook of unaccountable lobbyists.