Sounds like these are on the venture capital side of Bain -- about which there has been no criticism. You list only one that sounds clearly like a private equity turnaround.
Sort of unrelated question: it sounds in a number of accounts as if Bain took over, in whole or in part, a company and then hired or got itself as a consultant. I guess it's perfectly legal (whether it should be or not is another question), but it does seem to guarantee that, whether the company succeeds or fails, Bain will come out on top.
Exactly! That is their business model to come out on top. However, if they make a company more successful, the more they come out on top! Their business model is based on providing companies with an infusion of cash so they can survive and thrive.
They want the companies to succeed! The two recent examples that the left and certain unstable members of Freerepublic are screaming about failed because of a Union Strike theat caused the company to shutter its doors and a whole industry failing. Both events out of their hands.
If Bain had a choice they would have wanted these companies to succeed to collect more profits from their risky investment. They would be stupid to not take advantage of Government subsidies freely offered and not to demand a return on their extremely risky investment in failing companies. Does anyone sane person believe without demanding a return on their investment any venture capitalist would supply the needed capital needed to a dying company?