Nils Pratley is a Guardian columnist to whose opinion I usually pay little attention. But he caught my eye today. Writing on the raid on Cadbury Schweppes by the US hedge fund led by Nelson Peltz, infamous for his tussle with Heinz which cost 2,700 of its employees their jobs, he says:

He will be in it to make money, and won't mind at all if he is portrayed as a throwback to the rapacious 1980s.

In which case he says Peltz may argue that:

Cadbury's ambition of living up to its Quaker inheritance is a cost, not a benefit, to shareholders. If so, a collision with Cadbury's board is inevitable. Two years ago, Cadbury was voted "Britain's most admired company" in Management Today's annual poll based on the views of competitors. Todd Stitzer, Cadbury's chief executive, said much of the credit lay with the group's "progressive" principles and that there was no conflict with the task of enriching shareholders.

As Nils Pratley says:

The trade unions are right to be on red alert because this story could rapidly become a debate over how Cadbury, and public companies in general, should be managed. Already, voices can be heard arguing that public markets are failing, that the public company model has passed its sell-by date, compromised by demands for good corporate governance, greater disclosure and a sense of citizenship.

That might sound alarmist, but it's hard to deny that something is happening. Sainsbury's, Boots and Cadbury all have paternalistic corporate traditions. All now find themselves under scrutiny. Coincidence? It doesn't feel like it.

Transparency and accountability aren't Peltz's forte. Look at the Triarc hedge fund web site and you'll see what I mean. It doesn't gush disclosure. Is this what private equity is all about? Is it really just another secrecy space where, like offshore and the hidden activity within group accounts, secrets can be hidden away from those who need (I stress need) to know? It may be. In which case its more than an attack on the tax system. It's an attack on society itself.