I had worked with PE firms for over 6 years from the other side where we would invest in PE funds operating primarily in emerging markets, about 50 or so during my time and reviewed another 50 more that we did not invest in. Most of them are pretty benign. We invested primarily in transportation, energy and infrastructure but also hospitality and industry. There are many many poorly run private companies out there that PE funds buy out and rehabilitate. One major segment for a couple of funds is the purchase of poorly run family businesses where the founder was successful because they had drive and energy and built something at the right time (or sometimes, they knew the right people) but lacked the interest or vision to take it to the next level. Or the founder is getting old and the family has managed to turn the once successful business into a money loser. This is a long about way of saying, the majority of PE firms are benign and have invested in many successful businesses that many of us use. There are bad actors and more so in the US where corporations are allowed to eat the weak. It is not a case of PE bad but much more so that US business laws have relatively weak protections for consumers.

> Continuing our discussion from last time

I have genuinely no idea who you are or what we were talking about.

> can you elaborate on why you think quoting Revlon is sufficient to excuse the practical differences between public and PE companies?

Revlon duties concern hostile takeovers [1]. You’re confusing orthogonal concepts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%26....