Behind the Money
Behind the Money
May 26, 2020
The private equity bet that coronavirus cut short
Play • 19 min

Last December executives at the Carlyle Group worked into the night to sign what they imagined would be one of the private equity firm’s most enduring deals. In 2020, however, there may be no such thing as a stable business. Carlyle is now trying to walk away from a deal with American Express Global Business Travel before any money has changed hands. Our US private capital correspondent, Mark Vandevelde, reports on the ensuing legal row, and what it could mean for dealmaking during the pandemic.  

To get free access to the FT’s Coronavirus Business Update newsletter for 30 days, visit or

A few stories for further reading:


See for privacy and opt-out information.

LSE IQ podcast
LSE IQ podcast
London School of Economics and Political Science
What’s the point of social science in a pandemic?
Contributor(s): Professor Laura Bear, Nikita Simpson, Professor Joan Roses, Dr Adam Oliver, Dr Clare Wenham, Professor Patrick Wallis | In this month’s episode of the LSE IQ podcast we ask, ‘What’s the point of social science in a pandemic?’.   On the 23rd March 2020 Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the country’s first national lockdown. In the months since, there has been a seismic shift in all our lives. As we embark on 2021 and, hopefully, the latter stages of the pandemic, now is an apt moment to reflect on how we’ve got to where we are. While the scientific community has taken centre stage in the fight to overcome the virus, how have social scientists helped us navigate – and evaluate –the UK’s response?   In this episode we talk to anthropologists Professor Laura Bear and Nikita Simpson, Economic historians Professor Patrick Wallis and Professor Joan Roses, Assistant Professor of Global Health Policy Dr Clare Wenham and behavioural economist Dr Adam Oliver.   Research   ’A good death’ during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK: a report on key findings and recommendations, by the COVID and Care Research Group  A Right to Care: The Social Foundations of Recovery from COVID-19, by the COVID and Care Research Group  The Redistributive Effects of Pandemics: Evidence of the Spanish Flu. By Sergi Basco, Jordi Domenech, and Johanne Rohses  Separating behavioural science from the herd by Adam Oliver Reciprocity and the art of behavioural public policy by Adam Oliver What is the future of UK leadership in global health security post Covid-19? By Clare Wenham A Dreadful Heritage: Interpreting Epidemic Disease at Eyam, 1666-2000, by Patrick Wallis Eyam revisited: lessons from a plague village, by Patrick Wallis   Contributors   Professor Laura Bear Nikita Simpson Professor Joan Roses Dr Adam Oliver Dr Clare Wenham Professor Patrick Wallis
45 min
The Sound of Economics
The Sound of Economics
A rushed deal or a rush to judgement?
On 30 November 2020 after over 7 years of talks, the European Union and China concluded negotiations for a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI for short). The agreement is intended to increase investment between the EU and China by establishing a legal framework and common rules on issues ranging from state-owned enterprises to subsidy transparency and rules against the forced transfer of technologies. The deal replaces more than two dozen bilateral investment treaties between the EU’s 27 member states and China, improving market access for European companies operating — or intending to operate — in China and ensuring a level playing field and reciprocity when they do. Does the agreement actually live up to the above claims and seven years of expectation? To help us find out, in this episode of the Sound of Economics Giuseppe Porcaro ( is joined by Bert Hofman ( , the director of the East Asian Institute at National University of Singapore and Bruegel’s China expert Alicia García-Herrero ( , for a in depth commentary and glance at what the detail of the deal means for Europe. Relevant publications: Demertzis, M. (2021) ‘An EU – China investment deal: a second look ( ’ 19 January García-Herrero, A. (2021) 'Europe’s disappointing investment deal with China ( ' 4 January
36 min
Economics Explored
Economics Explored
Gene Tunny, Craig Lawrence
Foreign Direct Investment & Productivity
To what extent does Foreign Direct Investment create spillovers that boost the productivity of domestic businesses? Economics Explored host Gene Tunny speaks with the authors of a recent study addressing this question: Sara McGaughey, soon to take up a position as Professor at Copenhagen Business School, and Professor Pascalis Raimondos, Head of the School of Economics and Finance at QUT Business School in Brisbane, Australia. Sara and Pascalis have taken advantage of the huge Orbis business database which has allowed them to construct a panel dataset of nearly 576,000 manufacturing firms across 20 European countries. They find evidence that controlled foreign firms can boost the productivity of other firms in the same industry (horizontal spillovers), while previous studies had only convincingly found evidence of vertical spillovers, between foreign affiliates and their domestic suppliers. The study is titled Foreign Influence, control, and indirect ownership: Implications for productivity spillovers and was published in July 2020 in the _Journal of International Business Studies_. The authors can be contacted regarding their research via To get in touch with Gene, and to ask any questions or provide any comments or suggestions, please email him via _Links relevant to the conversation_ How hiring this man gave Brisbane company an instant $100m windfall Tesla’s 100% American Owned Factory In China Is A Big Deal _Note from Pascalis and Sara on examples of indirectly controlled firms_ Below are two examples from our dataset where the foreign subsidiary is immediately owned by a firm resident in the same country, but ultimately owned (i.e. controlled with more than 50% voting equity) by a single foreign owner (i.e. the ultimate owner). In studies that look for an immediate direct foreign owner (rather than the ultimate owner) to identify a firm as ‘foreign’, our example firms will be classified as domestic – leading to significant mis-categorisation of what is a foreign firm. As you can see from our ‘egg’ figure in the paper, there are just as many of these ‘typically hidden’ foreign firms as those captured under an ‘immediate direct foreign owner’ definition. EXAMPLE 1 Name: GTS Industries ID: FR331620096 Country: France Owner ID: FR562094425 Owner Name: ARCELORMITTAL FRANCE Owner Country: France The biggest direct owner is registered in France. Hence the company would be defined as domestic under the traditional (10%, influence) definition Ultimate Owner ID: DE7290116150 Ultimate owner name: DHS DILLINGER HUETTE SAARSTAHL AG Ultimate Owner country: Germany EXAMPLE 2 Name: STE DES ACIERS D'ARMATURE POUR LE BETON (SAM) ID: FR389517061 Country: France Direct Owner: River Acier Direct Owner ID: FR344733803 Direct Owner country: France Direct owner in the same country as the company, wherefore it is defined as domestic Ultimate owner: ITMI0840952 Ultimate owner name: Riva Family (PARTECIPAZIONI INDUSTRIALI S.P.A.) Ultimate owner country: Italy
33 min
More episodes
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu