HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » SEC said "Romney was...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:27 PM

SEC said "Romney was the Controlling Person of Bain Capital in 2001

SEC Rule 405 of definition of "Controlling"

Control. The term control (including the terms controlling, controlled by and under common control with) means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.


http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule405.html

10 replies, 1351 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply SEC said "Romney was the Controlling Person of Bain Capital in 2001 (Original post)
Dalai_1 Jul 2012 OP
aint_no_life_nowhere Jul 2012 #1
DevonRex Jul 2012 #3
Yavin4 Jul 2012 #8
Dalai_1 Jul 2012 #2
Mira Jul 2012 #4
Dalai_1 Jul 2012 #5
Igel Jul 2012 #7
DreamGypsy Jul 2012 #6
Igel Jul 2012 #9
Igel Jul 2012 #10

Response to Dalai_1 (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:37 PM

1. Savannah Guthrie has made a great point

Interviewing one of Romney's surrogates, she pointed out that Romney is taking credit for all the jobs created by Bain capital UP TO THE PRESENT DAY, but is rejecting the notion that he is responsible for outsourcing jobs after 1999. The Romney surrogate looked stunned, like someone had hit him in the head with a mallet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aint_no_life_nowhere (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:42 PM

3. Wow. That's a fantastic point. He either takes credit

for both or neither. All or none. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aint_no_life_nowhere (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:05 PM

8. Looks Like Savannah Is A Fan of HBO's News Night n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dalai_1 (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:41 PM

2. President Obama just tweeted

Barack Obama ‏@BarackObama
FACT: Romney’s MA financial disclosure form shows that he earned more than $100,000 at Bain in 2001 and 2002— years after he claims he left.



This was about 20 minutes ago...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dalai_1 (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:46 PM

4. WOW - aren't you ever close to

the source. Keep on bringing us your info, Dalai _1
You're a dedicated poster already! Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:01 PM

5. Thank you,Mira!

It so nice to read posts and share information!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dalai_1 (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:59 PM

7. Earned or investment income? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dalai_1 (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:36 PM

6. If someone was "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president"...

...of a private asset management firm for 3 years or so and then claims that they "had no input on investments or management of companies" for that period is akin to saying

I was simultaneously President of the United States, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader, but during my term I had no involvement in government, judicial, legislative, or financial activities.


The job description for CEO, Chairman, and President for such a firm is exactly to set direction and make decisions on corporate management and investments. Those decisions have to involve the portfolio of companies being managed.

Do they think we're that stupid? Or is there some bigger problem hidden behind a sham executive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DreamGypsy (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:22 PM

9. I just posted on this on another thread.

1. We fired our "CEO". (The "director", our term for it.) Since he challenged it, he was on leave.

When he went for another job, he didn't list the date he went on leave as his termination date. He listed the date his contract expired.

From the date he went on leave--I confiscated his keys and escorted him from the building--until the date his contract expired or the court's declared it rescinded, we were legally required to list him as "Director." He was responsible for accepting resignations, hiring people, authorizing expenses and submitting budgets; he was the chief liaison with the Board of Directors and was ex officio on the board.

The civil case concluded two years after his contract expired. Until then, he had no official board contract, didn't sign one official document or even have access to the building. Yet on the Federal filings, he was the "Director."

2. A member of the House of Representatives has certain duties--attend sessions of Congress, attend committee meetings, keep up liaisons with her constituents and keep her office running. They do a lot more than just debate and vote on the floor of the House. Now, Gifford didn't do any of her duties, for medical reasons. Yet she was still a Representative, and performed most of her duties. She had a proxy, somebody that she didn't even have to communicate with. The proxy had full authority to act, and did so, on his own.

3. In student government we had a president. He had certain duties, in exchange for which he got a stipend and various perks. He had to appoint committee members to help make policy--in numerous cases, the members' votes counted as much as administrators' or faculty's. Three months after he was elected he started acting strangely and essentially bailed. The two VPs picked up the slack. The president was president but did virtually nothing for 3 months. Then in December he vanished. He showed up in January when he got out of the hospital--brain cancer. We'd have the same conversation 20 times. "Hi, Igel, you're back from break!" "Yes, J. Got back last week." "Good to see you." He'd look out the window and then notice me walking to my office. "Hi, Igel, you're back from break!" (Sigh.)

He stayed president until the end of his term. Somebody pointed out that his signature had to be on certain documents--he was the person legally required for certain functions. The "somebody" was told to be quiet, it was being handled. When necessary, we'd have J sign, even though he had no clue what he was signing.

When he died a year later, his dates as student president were given as a full year. He was also still listed as a full-time student, a requirement for his student health. That, even though given a list of buildings and classrooms for his classes he'd put it down and forget he ever had it, then pick it up and ask, "What's this?" Didn't know where the buildings were, who the professors were, or pretty much anything else.

4. My father died in 3/10. I supposed I had to file an IRS tax return for him for 2011, even though he was dead 9 months before the first day of 2011, but didn't. As a legal taxable entity he continued to exist until the last investment instrument bearing his SSN was altered to remove his SSN. Fortunately, "he" only had an investment account with something like $2 in it--he had it closed a couple of years before he died, but some dividend was deposited after it was zeroed out but before it was actually closed. Again, these are legal documents that would have needed to bear my father's name, even though he was cremated two years before they'd be filed.

The point isn't that Romney was ill or wasn't actively involved in Bain. It's just that for a variety of purposes, using a variety of means, the legally required paperwork may reflect a legal truth that is far, far from any kind of operational, de facto, real-life truth. The incapacitated can run an office, those banned from being on an organization's property can be the legal director, a dead person can file tax returns for a year in which he was dead from 1/1 until 12/31. Depends on the details.

I'd like details. But since non-signing is decreed "signing," I'd probably be loath to hand them over to spinmeisters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dalai_1 (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:22 PM

10. No, Nunnelly did. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread