Search results

This case considers the buyout of Panera Bread from the perspective of a private equity fund. In early 2017, KLG Managing Director Tom Denning is considering a leveraged buyout of Panera Bread, a rapidly growing fast-casual restaurant company. A surprising Bloomberg News story signals that the deal process is broadening and KLG will have to act quickly if it hopes to buy Panera Bread. Students assume the role of Tom Denning as he prepares an investment recommendation for KLG's investment committee. In doing so, students are required to consider a very large and expensive investment. Students are challenged to create an investment recommendation by performing due diligence, determining additional questions to ask, and pricing a buyout bid that incorporates an optimal capital structure and meets KLG's return requirements. The Panera Bread case is designed to give students insight into the private equity investment process.

“Support a lawyer. go to med school” The above message on the car bumper stickers of members of the medical profession reflects their reaction to the current escalation of malpractice suits filed by attorneys against doctors and hospitals. The impact of these suits against medical personnel and institutions is not limited to patients, doctors and lawyers; the ripple‐effect reaches the entire community, because the rising incidence of malpractice suits tends to increase the cost of malpractice insurance and ultimately the total cost of health care to all members of society. Malpractice is but a small, though highly visible, part of a broader spectrum of interaction between medicine and law. “The complexities of modern society are causing law and medicine to interface with increasing frequency to the extent that contact with the legal process has become an inescapable aspect of the physician's life.” In recognition of this increasing frequency of contacts between medicine and law, a correspondingly increasing number of medicolegal reference works have been published, as exemplified by the selective list which follows this introduction. These should be of direct interest to doctors and members of allied health professions, to attorneys and paralegals and, indirectly, to all who deal with medical personnel and institutions. Traditionally, attorneys, particularly members of the trial bar, have demonstrated a continuing interest in medical literature. For example, the Merck Manual and Goldstein's Medical Trial Technique are familiar to most trial lawyers. They are expected to be well acquainted with anatomy charts, texts on internal medicine, eye, ear, nose and throat, orthopedics, obstetrics, and pediatrics, to name but a few generic medical works of interest to trial lawyers. It should be noted that the lawyer's interest in medical literature is not necessarily motivated by a desire to harass doctors, nurses and hospitals. Attorneys are bound by their Code of Professional Responsibility to represent their clients competently and zealously. In discharging this ethical obligation, the attorney frequently calls upon a physician to testify as an expert witness concerning the cause of a personal injury or death. Consequently, the attorney should be knowledgeable in medical theory and terminology. Furthermore, in pursuit of interdisciplinary competence, a significant number of individuals in the United States have earned both the medical degree and the law degree and appropriate licenses to practice, e.g., Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Director, Pittsburgh Institute of Legal Medicine, Duquesne Law School, member, Faculty of the Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Dentistry, Coroner, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Social media and their changing nature present compelling public and private dilemmas for higher education. Instructional delivery faces obstacles to effectively reaching students who often prefer online communities and spend considerable recreational time using these social networking sites. CMS has limited appeal as an inviting space for students. An effective learning environment provides a communal place for student–professor interactions and an accessible and interactive space for collaboration and global knowledge distribution. This chapter focuses on some considerations educators should take into account as they manage courses through an increasingly socially mediated landscape.

Web 2.0 technologies are resulting in great shifts: “from institutions to networks, from vertical structures to horizontal systems, from hierarchies to heterarchies, from bureaucracies to individuals, from centre to periphery, from bordered territories to virtual cyberspace” (Fraser & Dutta, 2008, p. 2). When we think about how these shifts apply to our experiences advising and mentoring our students in higher education, we do not think it is a stretch to say that when these technologies are employed thoughtfully, these eruptions likely do occur in particular ways that can, in fact, facilitate student support, development, and learning in new ways. Though we use a variety of social media applications to facilitate our practice as mentors and advisors, we acknowledge Daloz's (1999) concern about technology: “More, faster, and farther seem to be the driving values. Thus entangled in the Internet, spun about at hyperspeed, drowning in information, starved by virtual reality, should we wonder that we hunger for real reality? Can such technology nourish our need for community, intimacy, contemplative time, wisdom?” (p. xxv). Daloz sincerely questioned if technology could in fact support “good mentoring.” A mere eleven years later, we two advisors/mentors (one from a large public university in the East; one from a small private university in the West) answer with a resounding “Yes!” In fact, in our experiences, social media technologies can extend the possibilities of good educational mentoring and advising in higher education.

COVID-19 vaccinations face a backdrop of widespread mistrust in their safety and effectiveness, specifically via social media platforms which constitute major barriers for the public health sector to manage COVID-19 (and future) pandemics. This study provides a more nuanced understanding of the public's engagement behavior toward COVID-19 vaccinations.

Using Netnography, this study explores the public's interactions with vaccine communications by the WHO via Facebook. From WHO posts about the COVID-19 vaccination 23,726 public comments on Facebook were extracted and analyzed.

Building on crisis communication, health and engagement literature, this paper identifies and conceptualizes seven patterns of engagement behavior toward the COVID-19 vaccination and develops the first framework of relationships between these patterns and the extant vaccine attitudes: vaccine acceptance, hesitancy and refusal.

This paper helps policymakers identify and adapt interventions that increase vaccine confidence and tailor public health services communications accordingly.

This research offers the first typology of patterns of engagement behavior toward COVID-19 vaccinations and develops a framework of relationships between these patterns and the existing understanding in health literature. Finally, the study provides data-driven communication recommendations to public health service organizations.

A growing body of work suggests that welfare and punishment should be understood as alternative, yet interconnected ways of governing poor and marginalized populations. While there is considerable evidence of a punitive turn in welfare and penal institutions over the past half century, recent studies show that welfare and carceral institutions increasingly comanage millions of people caught at the intersection of the welfare and penal sectors. The growth of “mass supervision” and the expansion of the social services sector help explain the blurring of welfare and punishment in the United States in daily practice. We suggest that these developments complicate the idea of an institutional trade-off and contend that welfare and punishment are best understood along a continuum of state management in which poor and socially marginalized populations are subjected to varying degrees of support, surveillance, and sanction. In presenting the punishment–welfare continuum, we pay particular attention to the “murky middle” between the two spheres: an interinstitutional space that has emerged in the context of mass supervision and a social services–centric safety net. We show that people caught in the “murky middle” receive some social supports and services, but also face pervasive surveillance and control and must adapt to the tangle of obligations and requirements in ways that both extend punishment and limit their ability to successfully participate in mainstream institutions.