Mediaboss Marketing

Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- The name Cisneros is synonymous with business acumen and opulence in the minds of Venezuelans old enough to remember the pre-Hugo Chavez years.Over generations, the billionaire family brought the Studebaker, Pepsi-Cola and department stores to the oil-rich country. It launched DirecTV in Latin America, ran beauty pageants, produced soap operas and owned banks, TV stations, ice-cream makers and brewers.Now, decades after having moved most of the family and its assets to the U.S. as Chavez was ramping up his socialist revolution, a new generation of Cisneros is scouring the ravaged economy for assets to buy on the cheap.Eduardo Cisneros, the grandson of patriarch Diego Cisneros, co-founded a private-equity fund in Florida that has raised over $200 million from investors, according to a filing with the SEC. The fund, called 3B1 Guacamaya Fund LP, has already used about $60 million of that cash to snap up Venezuelan businesses, including a paint maker, over the past year, according to several people with knowledge of the deals who asked not to be named because they werent authorized to speak publicly about the matter.In making the plunge, Eduardo and his partner -- Rodrigo Bitar, the head of a boutique New York-based M&A shop -- are positioning themselves as early arrivals in what could prove to be a scramble to acquire choice assets in the once-wealthy nation at deeply discounted prices. After years of mismanagement that triggered a 70% decline in the size of the economy and drove millions of Venezuelans to flee, Chavezs hand-picked successor, Nicolas Maduro, is slowly embracing free-market reforms to alleviate the crisis and consolidate his hold on power.Some local analysts are actually predicting the economy will grow in 2021 as Maduro loosens Covid restrictions. An expansion, no matter how tepid, would halt a string of seven straight years of economic contraction.The opportunities for profit are immensely high in the first phase of economic recovery, said Peter West, an economic adviser at Londons EM Funding. But you also have to be an investor with high appetite for risk, willing to dip your toes in the water.The 3B1 Guacamaya fund operates in the same Coral Gables, Florida, headquarters as Cisneros Corporation, a consulting service with young, modern and creative professional leadership founded by brothers Eduardo, Andres and Henrique, according to its website.The fund acquired a majority stake in publicly-listed paint maker Corimon CA. The company hasnt reported results since 2015. Back then, it had 1,300 employees working in 190 stores in Venezuela and several other countries in Latin America.Calls and messages seeking comment from Eduardo Cisneros, Cisneros Corp. General Counsel Mark Lopez and Bitar werent returned. Corimons chief executive officer Esteban Szekely also didnt respond to calls and messages seeking comment.As limited as the deals have been so far -- names of the other businesses acquired besides Corimon werent ascertainable -- Cisneros and Bitar have quickly become the talk of the small, tight-knit community of dealmakers and financiers in leafy eastern Caracas. Two-hundred million dollars may not go far in most financial capitals in the world, but in Venezuelas atrophied M&A market, it makes the duo an immediate force.And their arrival has some of the locals speculating that the proverbial bottom to the economy and market that theyve been waiting on for decades -- spanning all the way back to the collapse that followed the oil boom of the 1970s -- may finally be approaching.Hemmed in by U.S. sanctions, Maduro is overseeing a reform push that includes an ad-hoc dollarization of the economy following years of hyperinflation and stifling government controls. His regime has also begun to offload dozens of key state enterprises to private investors in exchange for a share of the revenue or products.While Chavez seized thousands of private companies, the Cisneros family managed to retain control of the businesses they kept in the country. Today, Venezuelans still drink the familys Regional beer, use phone and data plans from its wireless provider Digitel and watch its TV station Venevision.Diego Cisneros, a Cuban immigrant who settled in Venezuela, started the business empire in the 1930s.His sons Gustavo and Ricardo -- whos Eduardos father -- took control of the organization in 1970, and in the 1980s, the clan began an expansion outside of its home market, buying up U.S.-based sports equipment and baby product maker Spalding & Evenflo and a stake in the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision.In 2000, the family made Florida its base for the Cisneros Group and kept expanding across the Americas, first under the leadership of Gustavo and then his daughter Adriana Cisneros. There is no link between Cisneros Group and Cisneros Corp. or 3B1 Guacamaya, Miguel Dvorak, the COO of Cisneros Group, said in a statement.Back in Caracas, a newly-formed local association for private capital named Venecapital held an event earlier this month entitled: Venezuela, back on the radar of international investors.In it, speakers heralded Venezuela as the frontier market with the greatest potential, saying those who seize opportunities in the nation arent sitting around waiting for the regime change that never seems to come. They pointed to telecom, real estate and the gas and oil service sectors as attractive targets for foreign investors.Maduros government approved a so-called anti-blockade law in October, opening a path to increased foreign investment in the energy industry, which was nationalized in the 1970s.Last year, Scale Capital, a Chilean investment and management firm, reached a deal to acquire DirecTVs operations in Venezuela for an undisclosed amount.Last year an international fund called Phoenix Global Investment bought food-producer Cargills assets in Venezuela, where it had operated for 34 years. In August 2019, a Chilean investor group bought the local branch of U.S.-based insurer Liberty Mutual Holding Co.The main risk is to enter too early, before the right conditions are set, EM Fundings West said. Its not hard to imagine a scenario in which things get worse, at least in the short term.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.2021 Bloomberg L.P.

Read the original post:
Hacker Of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Apple Twitter Accounts To Spend 3 Years In Prison - Yahoo Finance

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Westmoreland County commissioners will approve a resolution to support gun rights this week.

Republican commissioners Sean Kertes and Doug Chew, along with Democrat Gina Cerilli Thrasher, said they will declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County, a move they concede has no teeth but shows support for gun owners.

There are bills seeking to take away our Second Amendment rights in the Legislature, and we want to work with our local law enforcement agencies, our sheriff, to protect our Second Amendment rights, Kertes said We want to protect our ability to own rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Commissioners did not disclose the text of the resolution they will consider at their meeting Thursday but said it is based on a similar resolution approved this month in Washington County. That resolution, according to Washington County commissioners, would enable nonenforcement of gun control laws prohibiting ownership of certain weapons if officials believe the law to be unconstitutional.

Kertes said Westmorelands proposed resolution will carry no specific policy directives.

Our powers are limited, but we want the public to know we are standing with them, Kertes said.

Thrasher called the resolution silly but said she will vote for its passage.

I am pro-Second Amendment, but I dont really understand the purpose of this resolution. We dont have any jurisdiction over the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment, Thrasher said.

In addition to Washington, commissioners in Greene and Fayette counties approved similar resolutions, and Westmorelands leaders said Thursdays vote is part of an effort to unify the region in support of gun rights.

Josh Fleitman, the Western Pennsylvania manager for the gun-control advocacy group Ceasefire PA, said resolutions such as the one under consideration in Westmoreland are unenforceable.

It does nothing to make the county safer and, in fact, makes counties less safe and creates confusion about how and when gun laws will be enforced, Fleitman said. Its kind a solution in search of a problem.

Chew said he will support the Second Amendment resolution, which he described as no different than other proclamations on key issues.

We are limited in jurisdiction, but governments all over pass resolutions in favor of key issues, Chew said. The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania sends out resolutions they suggest we adopt annually. This isnt one sent by CCAP, but its the same: our support for the full Second Amendment rights granted in both the commonwealth and federal constitutions.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, rcholodofsky@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Categories:Local | Top Stories | Westmoreland

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Westmoreland Stories

Read the rest here:
Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a 'Second Amendment County' in favor of gun rights - TribLIVE

I feel like its time we had a discussion about a now very topical subject. Our rights. Specifically as laid out in the Bill of Rights. Beautiful, God-given rights that would have been lost long ago without the Second Amendment.

Our founders put the right to bear arms in the number two spot for a very good reason. It was their way of saying, Here are your top five God-given rights, and here is how you defend them.

With very serious enemies of those rights and specifically the right to bear arms, in the White House the Second Amendment is once again a very hot topic of conversation. As such, it needs to be understood as thoroughly as possibly. What does it mean sentence by sentence? Lets find out:

A well-regulated militia: This has been interpreted to mean different things depending on the view of the interpreter. The Left wants it to mean the National Guard or similar force. The Right says it means the people. George Mason of Virginia famously said, What is the militia? It is the whole of the people. Those words are used to support the people argument.

However, if you read the Federalist Papers and the letters of the Founders you come to a slightly different meaning.

In essays 27 through 29 of the Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton), you clearly see that the term, a well-regulated militia, means a standing professional army. An army in the control of the central or federal government.

It is important to know that the citizens of the new United States of America had a very strong aversion to the government having a professional army. Such armies have been used throughout history to subjugate societies everywhere. The people of the USA did not want that.

This desire creates a problem because a nation, any nation, absolutely needs a military to remain free and sovereign.

That brings us to the second portion of the sentence, being necessary to the security of a free state,

Hamilton and Madison were attempting to convince the people of the necessity and assure them it could be done without threat of subjugation.

If it were to be written in the common speech of today, we might say it like this: A professional military, including a Navy, is necessary for the security of a free nation; however, because it is a danger to allow the government to have that military and navy, every citizen must be armed and trained if possible.

They wrote it as a constitutional right.

Far too often these days, we tend to use the term self-defense and that allows the enemies of the Constitution to claim its not necessary, because the police protect us. The police and that very military.

As citizens of our country, we are always ready to respond in a minute, (Minute men and women) are the militia in waiting. We are not a well-regulated militia. We are armed because of the inherent danger of that very necessary well-regulated militia. It really is very simple and straight forward.

I read one book of letters from the Revolutionary War period and do not remember the name of the writer, but he stated The Second Amendment allowed the average citizen to remain armed in a fashion equal to or in excess of the common soldier. A fairly high percentage of the people that owned their own firearms had rifles.

Today we call them Kentucky rifles, though most were made in Pennsylvania. Accurate to sometimes 300 or 400 yards. The weapon used by military was a musket, unrifled, and very inaccurate.

When Biden says we dont need AR-15s for self-defense, hes right. We do, however, need them to remain armed equal to or in excess of the common soldier, or as close as possible on a budget. We need them to prevent the subjugation of ourselves.

When we speak of the Second Amendment we need to speak of it in those terms, the ability to defend our freedom. Stopping a burglar or killing a trophy elk are just very nice bonuses.

In the future when you hear Biden or Harris say that you dont need an AR-15 to hunt deer understand its a distraction. Dont fall for it.

Rusty Rogers is a resident of Saratoga who pens a weekly article for the Rawlins Times.

Read more:
The Second Amendment | Opinion | wyomingnews.com - Wyoming Tribune

The Ellsworth City Council voted 6-1 Monday night against a resolution that would have declared the city a Second Amendment sanctuary.

The rejection in Ellsworth follows the recent approval of similar resolutions in a handful of small Maine towns taking stances against federal gun control measures that have yet to pass Congress.

The councils vote against the measure, submitted by Councilor Michelle Kaplan, came after Glenn Moshier, the city manager and police chief, expressed concern for how the resolution might create ambiguity or confusion for the citys police officers, who take an oath to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions.

Kaplan argued in favor of the resolution, though she ended up voting not to support it. Gene Lyons was the only councilor who voted in favor of the resolution.

Kaplan, who described herself as a law-abiding gun owner, said residents asked her to propose the resolution, which would help send a message to Congress to not enact additional restrictions on gun ownership that she claimed would be a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Among the possible restrictions would be expanded background checks, limits on ammunition, increased taxes on gun sales and other barriers to entry, Kaplan said.

City Council Chair Dale Hamilton, who described himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment, said he had concerns about any city declaring itself a sanctuary from federal law, whether the law pertains to immigration or the right to carry firearms.

It sets a dangerous precedent, Hamilton said. You cant decide when you want to be a sanctuary city and when you dont.

Other municipalities in Maine that have considered and approved similar resolutions against proposals that they say would violate the Second Amendment include Paris, Fort Fairfield and Van Buren.

Approximately 40 people weighed in on the debate during Monday nights meeting, either in person or by emailing comments to Hamilton that he read aloud, with sentiment on the resolution more or less evenly split.

John Linnehan told members of the council that each of them swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, while Gwen Clark said she wouldnt feel safe living in a city that didnt support the Second Amendment.

Todd Little-Siebold countered that drafting the city budget and managing the citys handling of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are two far greater priorities for the council than trying to intervene in federal politics.

It is unnecessary and purely symbolic, Little-Siebold said. Keep your focus on local issues. Dont play into the gun lobby scare tactics.

Councilor Heather Grindle said she shares many of the concerns of people who do not want additional restrictions on gun ownership, but that she is hesitant to pick and choose which federal laws Ellsworth should single out for support. She also said she wanted to learn more about how the resolution might affect local law enforcement.

Im listening and I share your frustration, but Im not quite there yet, Grindle said.

Members of the council agreed that, whatever their vote was Monday on Kaplans proposal, they would be able to consider a similar declaration of support for gun ownership rights at a future meeting, if another proposal were submitted.

See the article here:
Ellsworth rejects bid to declare itself a Second Amendment sanctuary - Bangor Daily News

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

I have spent a lot of my lawyering years practicing and teaching civil rights. The Second Amendment is something I know a great deal about. That the Westmoreland County commissioners, or any county commissioners, should pass a resolution in support of the Second Amendment strikes me as a rather meretricious vote-fishing endeavor (Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County in favor of gun rights, March 16, TribLIVE).

No government entity wants to take away anyones rights under the Second Amendment. What is at issue is the Second Amendments true and intended scope and reach. Its language is not absolute and never has been. Like all other amendments, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, and even Justice Antonin Scalia, considered by many to be the patron saint of gun lovers, acknowledged that such weapons as assault rifles could be lawfully banned.

Such silly resolutions as proposed by the county commissioners only serve to embolden the misguided who think that no one can constitutionally take away any of their beloved killing machines. Perhaps the commissioners would do well to think of how such meaningless resolutions only lather up the gun lovers mistaken Second Amendment notions rather than promote respect for the law and its real meanings.

David Millstein

Naples, Fla.

The writer is a Greensburg native.

Categories:Letters to the Editor | Opinion

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Letters to the Editor Stories

Read the original post:
Letter to the editor: Commissioners misguided on gun-rights resolution - TribLIVE