The Public Benefit of Benefit Corporations

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (01) ◽  
pp. 54-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon K. Vaughan ◽  
Shelly Arsneault
1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-203
Author(s):  
Robert Chatham

The Court of Appeals of New York held, in Council of the City of New York u. Giuliani, slip op. 02634, 1999 WL 179257 (N.Y. Mar. 30, 1999), that New York City may not privatize a public city hospital without state statutory authorization. The court found invalid a sublease of a municipal hospital operated by a public benefit corporation to a private, for-profit entity. The court reasoned that the controlling statute prescribed the operation of a municipal hospital as a government function that must be fulfilled by the public benefit corporation as long as it exists, and nothing short of legislative action could put an end to the corporation's existence.In 1969, the New York State legislature enacted the Health and Hospitals Corporation Act (HHCA), establishing the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) as an attempt to improve the New York City public health system. Thirty years later, on a renewed perception that the public health system was once again lacking, the city administration approved a sublease of Coney Island Hospital from HHC to PHS New York, Inc. (PHS), a private, for-profit entity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (66) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
م.م أحمد حامد جمعة ◽  
◽  
د. كمال فيلد البصري

This study clarifies the analysis of the reality of the financial policy in the budget of Iraq 2019, and that analysis is evaluated by tracking the elements of the public budget from public expenditures and public revenues, and the study focuses on the size of the political impact on the path of public spending, as well as the analysis of public spending and revenues in various sectors and sections of the public budget. This study also shows the size of the risks resulting from the continuation of the financial deficit, as well as the risks of public debt according to the indicators of its sustainability analysis within the financial and economic indicators that express the risks of public debt. The study emphasized that public spending is still based on the political decision and does not achieve the principles and objectives of the economic budget that achieve the public benefit. The necessity requires efficient spending and fair distribution in order to avoid future public debt risks and their impact on future generations


2020 ◽  
Vol 279 (1) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Mario Engler Pinto Junior

<p><span>The public interest of Brazilian mixed-capital company: approach to US benefit corporations</span></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p><span>RESUMO<br />O artigo faz um paralelo entre a figura da benefit corporation do direito norte-americano e a sociedade de economia mista brasileira, com o propósito de apontar semelhanças entre as duas estruturas societárias e lançar luzes sobre a racionalidade das soluções de governança adotadas em cada caso. A reflexão resgata inicialmente o conceito de interesse da companhia, destacando sua relevância como referencial jurídico para se aferir a legitimidade das decisões empresariais. Observa-se ainda que o entendimento sobre o tema varia conforme a abordagem teórica adotada, podendo se resumir na maximização dos lucros para partilha entre os sócios, ou combinar o atendimento a outros interesses não financeiros. Por sua vez, os desafios e soluções em matéria de governança corporativa também variam em função da amplitude do escopo atribuído à companhia. A benefit corporation procura combinar a consecução de algum objetivo de interesse público com a manutenção da finalidade lucrativa. A existência do escopo mais amplo permite questionar a adequação do desenho institucional para lidar com os conflitos inerentes ao novo tipo societário. Além disso, propicia uma análise comparativa com o modelo de sociedade de economia mista no direito brasileiro, que também está imbuída de uma missão pública, cuja consecução não afasta a necessidade de remunerar adequadamente o investimento acionário. Conclui-se que algumas medidas contidas na Lei nº 13.303/2016, para fortalecer o controle e gestão das empresas estatais brasileiras, guardam simetria com o tratamento aplicável às benefit corporation no direito norte-americano.</span></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p><span>ABSTRACT<br />The paper compares benefit corporations in the US with mixed-capital corporations in Brazil, in order to point the similarities and differences between both corporate structures. The paper also intends to shed light on the rationale of the governance solutions adopted in each case. The paper restates the concept of company’s interest and highlights it as a key legal reference for assessing the legitimacy of business decisions. Different readings of this concept are likely to translate into markedly different positions, from holding that the idea of interest refers solely to the purpose of profit maximization on behalf of shareholders to affirming the need to simultaneously accomplishing non-financial goals interests. The challenges and solutions concerning corporate governance also vary according to the extent of the corporation’s scope. Benefit corporations in the US seek to </span><span>simultaneously attain some goal of public interest and make profit for </span><span>its shareholders. The existence of a broader scope allows questioning </span><span>the suitability of their institutional design to deal with conflicts that are </span><span>inherent to this new corporate type. Their structure invites a comparison </span><span>to State owned enterprise (SOE) in Brazil. According to Brazilian Law, a </span><span>company controlled by the State is invested with a public mission while </span><span>needing to assure proper return to shareholders’ investment. The paper </span><span>concludes that some measures adopted by Brazilian Law No. 13.303/2016, </span><span>for strengthening the corporate governance of Brazilian SOE’s are similar </span><span>the U.S. Model Benefit Corporation Legislation (MBCL) concerning benefit </span><span>corporations.</span></p>


2006 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 395-412
Author(s):  
Dušan Nikolić

In the first part of the paper, the author has outlined some changes that have happened in the field of civil law during the history, and in the second part of the paper, the author has paid attention to the modern trends, produced by the process of globalization. By analyzing certain sectors, the author has come to the conclusion that ownership title and public office are being slightly shifted from state to non-state authorities. On the other hand, this trend of the global (re)privatization has contributed to the change of attitude toward the title. The owner is expected to ewoy his title both for his own and for the public benefit. One of the most recent judgments of the European Court of Justice speaks in favor of this and it has been mentioned in this paper. This judgment supports the view that the property is not absolute and that it has a social value. The special attention is paid to the so called new institutionalism and need to question the concept of separation of powers within the European Union.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice F. Hurley

A major urban development in Cork City entailed dewatering and very deep excavations for new basements. This revealed significant archaeology from the Viking period, which was excavated where necessary. A very successful series of public events followed, with senior politicians visiting. This paper concludes by emphasising the need to provide the public with accurate information.


2022 ◽  
pp. 000312242110677
Author(s):  
Michaela DeSoucey ◽  
Miranda R. Waggoner

This article examines perceptions of health risk when some individuals within a shared space are in heightened danger but anyone, including unaffected others, can be a vector of risk. Using the case of peanut allergy and drawing on qualitative content analysis of the public comments submitted in response to an unsuccessful 2010 U.S. Department of Transportation proposal to prohibit peanuts on airplanes, we analyze contention over the boundaries of responsibility for mitigating exposure to risk. We find three key dimensions of proximity to risk (material, social, and situational) characterizing ardent claims both for and against policy enactment. These proximity concerns underlay commenters’ sensemaking about fear, trust, rights, moral obligations, and liberty in the act of sharing space with others, while allowing them to stake positions on what we call “responsible sociality”—an ethic of discernible empathy for proximate others and of consideration for public benefit in social and communal settings. We conclude by discussing the insights our case affords several other areas of scholarship attentive to the intractable yet timely question of “for whom do we care?”


2020 ◽  
pp. 77-101
Author(s):  
Iain McDonald ◽  
Anne Street

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses charitable trusts. Charitable trusts differ from private trusts in a number of ways. A charitable trust must be: for a recognized charitable purpose; for the ‘public benefit’; and for exclusively charitable purposes. The public benefit requirement raises different issues under each head of charity. Legislation related to charities and their regulation has recently been consolidated by the Charities Act 2011. Cy-près is a power which allows failing charitable trusts to be applied to other related charities.


2019 ◽  
pp. 23-34
Author(s):  
Harvey Goldstein ◽  
Ruth Gilbert

his chapter addresses data linkage which is key to using big administrative datasets to improve efficient and equitable services and policies. These benefits need to weigh against potential harms, which have mainly focussed on privacy. In this chapter we argue for the public and researchers to be alert also to other kinds of harms. These include misuses of big administrative data through poor quality data, misleading analyses, misinterpretation or misuse of findings, and restrictions limiting what questions can be asked and by whom, resulting in research not achieved and advances not made for the public benefit. Ensuring that big administrative data are validly used for public benefit requires increased transparency about who has access and whose access is denied, how data are processed, linked and analysed, and how analyses or algorithms are used in public and private services. Public benefits and especially trust require replicable analyses by many researchers not just a few data controllers. Wider use of big data will be helped by establishing a number of safe data repositories, fully accessible to researchers and their tools, and independent of the current monopolies on data processing, linkage, enhancement and uses of data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document