Actually:

"On August 26, 2014, Burger King agreed to purchase Tim Hortons for US$11.4 billion; the chain became a subsidiary of the Oakville-based holding company Restaurant Brands International on December 15, 2014, which is majority-owned by Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital."

So that would be Brazilian for Burger King too.

You called it, can you confirm with an isdupe?

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Think this may be a dupe of this dead vid: http://videosift.com/video/Janis-Joplin-Ball-and-Chain-liveMonterey-Pop-Festival-67

@blankfist way to be bipartisan, you socialist authoritarian statist who wants to take away my precious offshore holding company.

i agree wholeheartedly on your points on corruption in politics but i disagree that corporations should not be held accountable

Define what you mean by 'held accountable'. Held accountable for what, specifically? Folks keeps saying "hold companies accountable" but then in the same breath they freely acknowledge that the companies "did nothing illegal". I'm all for holding companies accountable when they break laws. But that's not what some of you are talking about. The tenor of the commentary here is to hold companies "accountable" for engaging in protected, legal free speech and commerce just because you find thier exercise of those rights unlikable. I find that sort of subjective application of 'accountability' more than a little creepy.

you are correct that much of what these lenders did was lawful.laws in which these institutions spent billions in either redressing or outright dismissing

I could go on for hours on this - but VERY briefly this was not started by banks. This was started by GOVERNMENT who was upset that more people were not being qualified for loans. It was a very convenient political target. Back then banks were 'evil' for DENYING loans! But a few financial institutions (such as AIG) saw a way they could make money by debt repackaging. Hmmmm...

The lobbyist arguments 'for' the change were not without merit. Proponents argued that loans would inject money into communities, increase wealth, reduce blight, increase education, generate tax revenue... The list of "pros" was not hard to conjure up. Politicians and lobbyists were convinced they were actually doing a GOOD thing.

Oh - and leave us not forget the tarring and feathering of anyone who dared OPPOSE the changes. Such people were called racists. 'Red liners'. They were 'evil bankers' who wanted to 'starve children', 'keep people uneducated', and 'stop the poor from having the American dream'. To pretend that this was some sneaky, sinister, secret scheme that NO-ONE knew about is bunk. This was aggressively marketed by politicians all through the 70s and 80s.

When Glass-Steagal was repealed, everyone was forced to deal with the law AS IT EXISTED. Who should be punished for it all blowing up? The Banks who were operating within the legal framework that was dumped on them? Or the politicians who changed the law and made this whole crap-fest possible? My opinion is that politicians must be the FIRST to be held responsible, not the last.

I'm not saying companies should walk away clean. What I am saying is that you should only hold them responsible for violations of the law - not for exercising their free speech. It is the politicians you have to hold responsible when the law is bad. Put the blame where it belongs.