HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Bain Says Romney Kept Own...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:47 PM

Bain Says Romney Kept Ownership After Leaving in 1999

Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Bloomberg

Mitt Romney remained the sole stockholder of Bain Capital LLC even after leaving in 1999 to run the Winter Olympics, the private-equity fund said after questions were raised about when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee departed the firm.

Bain, based in Boston, said in a statement today that it took a while to transfer ownership to Romney’s successors “due to the sudden nature” of his decision to run the Olympics in Salt Lake City. Until the ownership situation was resolved, Romney continued to be listed as the sole stockholder and in various executive positions in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the company said.

“Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure,” the company said.

The statement followed a Boston Globe report that he was listed as chief executive officer, among other positions, in SEC filings after he left to take over the Salt Lake City Olympic committee. The paper said documents filed with the commission through 2002 listed Romney as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president.”


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-12/bain-says-romney-kept-ownership-after-leaving-in-1999.html






just stole this from rufus dog
BWAHAHAHA - Romney getting trapped in his own web of lies


In Romney's 2002 race for governor, he testified before the state Ballot Law Commission that his separation from Bain in 1999 had been a "leave of absence" and not a final departure.
And why was Mitt Romney testifying before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission? Because, it turns out, for three years he paid property taxes to Utah while claiming his $3.8 million Park City mansion was his "primary residence." And unless he could convince the Commission that was a mistake and that his tony Belmont estate was still home, Bain Capital CEO Romney would never have become Governor Romney.
Mitt Romney the former Salt Lake City Olympics chief now running for Massachusetts governor paid property taxes on a Utah home as his "primary residence" between 1999 and 2001 and received a $54,600 tax discount as a result.
The distinction which Utah officials said was made in error fueled the debate about whether Romney meets Massachusetts' residential requirements to be governor. The state Constitution requires a candidate to live in Massachusetts for seven years prior to election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002937552

31 replies, 4994 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 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bain Says Romney Kept Ownership After Leaving in 1999 (Original post)
maddezmom Jul 2012 OP
truthisfreedom Jul 2012 #1
lsewpershad Jul 2012 #11
progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #2
Iliyah Jul 2012 #9
DFW Jul 2012 #3
DearAbby Jul 2012 #4
cbdo2007 Jul 2012 #6
stuckinodi Jul 2012 #8
sharp_stick Jul 2012 #5
TriplD Jul 2012 #24
Iliyah Jul 2012 #10
toddwv Jul 2012 #27
Bandit Jul 2012 #13
Igel Jul 2012 #15
SkyDaddy7 Jul 2012 #29
Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #7
HankyDub Jul 2012 #12
HotRodTuna Jul 2012 #20
Quantess Jul 2012 #30
mysuzuki2 Jul 2012 #14
Igel Jul 2012 #18
missy01121970 Jul 2012 #16
maddezmom Jul 2012 #21
DavidDvorkin Jul 2012 #22
maddezmom Jul 2012 #23
Lex Jul 2012 #28
Quantess Jul 2012 #31
missy01121970 Jul 2012 #17
DavidDvorkin Jul 2012 #19
Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #25
Historic NY Jul 2012 #26

Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:50 PM

1. And what exactly did he report to the SEC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthisfreedom (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:42 PM

11. Sure

I would get the same break from the powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:52 PM

2. took them 3 years to make the change?? reeeaaaalllly?

So if the copier runs out of paper, does it talke like 10 years to get it replenished.

They are lying... you don't stay on as sole stockholder for 3 years and as CEO. They could not have been operating for 3 years without a CEO. This is such horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:24 PM

9. Now the real journalist

can investigate when did he know about leaving Bain to be CEO for the Olympics??????

Get on it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:53 PM

3. A passive ownership won't do the trick

What needs to be proved is an active role in running the company. Otherwise, he wiggles out of this like a greased eel and the right wing media has a long hard laugh at our expense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:58 PM

4. Misrepresenting the Company

on SEC report would be serious, no matter how passive he claims his leadership. There was a lie somewhere...where and why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:09 PM

6. True, if stockholders only looked at the SEC report they would have been seriously misled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbdo2007 (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:12 PM

8. But Rmoney was the sole stockholder

If somebody invested believing Rmoney was still in charge based on the SEC filings - that's fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:01 PM

5. If he was the CEO

passive or not, that title means he's responsible for the company. I've never in my life heard someone called a passive CEO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:57 PM

24. It'd be like the President not being reponsible for America.

Is that how he envisions the Presidency?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:28 PM

10. Nevertheless

either Bain or Mittens committed a felony, take your pick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:43 PM

27. Why not both?

And since corporations are people, I say arrest them both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 06:50 PM

13. According to some reports I have read his signature was on several important papers during

the three years he supposedly was absent from Bain... If that turns out to be the truth he is pretty much toast and quite possibly a felon..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:02 PM

15. Yeah.

The SEC filings for 2000 and 2001. The Obama team apparently echoed this claim.

Except that if you actually look at the filings you find that they're signed by a managing director named Nunnelly, and not by Romney or any of the other managing directors.

It's not a difficult claim to prove or disprove, just a tedious one. The filings are public record and were on, among others, the TPM site's page talking about the story.

People apparently took having signed SEC filings listing Romney as CEO to mean that Romney signed them.

Heck, the organization I was with had an acting CEO for 17 months. He wasn't really the CEO, and the real CEO was on forced administrative leave until his contract expired. His contract expired, and the next day another CEO's contract kicked in. There can be only one. I guess you'd have to say we had a "passive CEO" and functioned without an active (official) CEO for 17 months. But hey, our sales were only $75 million.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 07:20 AM

29. Very true!

I sure hope the Obama campaign is not overreaching to the point it blows back on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:11 PM

7. He was just the pretend CEO

So there is nothing to see here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 06:07 PM

12. Doesn't Bain have every reason to lie about this?

 

Serious question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:26 PM

20. Why would they lie about it?

 

I'd say it's in their interests to be truthful since they've lately been made out to be the Prince of Darkness's personal consulting company because they, I don't know, ran a business apparently. They need all the positive press they can get. Maybe if they go bankrupt and take huge bailout money from the government people will think more highly of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 07:21 AM

30. It looks like they are covering their asses

while also trying as best they can not to point a finger at Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 07:52 PM

14. Mitt seems to be changing his story every time he turns around.

My mother always told me to tell the truth because then you don; have to remember the different stories you have told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mysuzuki2 (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:14 PM

18. Actually, only slightly.

In 1999 he said he had no active involvement with Bain. It doesn't say he was never going to return to it. Just that he had no active involvement.

The only break was when in 2002 he said it wasn't a "permanent departure" but a "leave of absence". By then the paperwork was clearing so, yeah, it *was* a permanent departure so you have to have to understand "intent" versus "objective fact."

I assume Romney left Bain in 1999 and retained his legal interest in it because he intended to return to it or at least wanted to keep his options open, so it wasn't necessarily intended to be a permanent departure. It turned out that he never did return to it, so it was a permanent departure.

Seen from 2012, this sounds odd. But if you're there in 2000 the way he describes it makes sense. You have a decent gig, and you can take off for a couple of years. Things are set up to function okay without you if authority's delegated and shared to some extent. Then when it's clear your absence isn't just a couple of years, you formally leave. After all, telling potential investors that the CEO really is hands-off and has no say gets old after a while, and might even raise questions.

In 2006 all that matters is that your departure in 1999 was, in the end, permanent.

What gets a bit iffy is when in 2012 Bain says that it was a matter of getting clear ownership established prior to transfering the ownership. It sounds like they're skipping a year or two when nobody much cared about transferring ownership wedged in there and trying to say that Romney's departure was always intended to be permanent. Or, perhaps, they're covering over that Romney simply walked away while keeping ownership over the shell company that gave him control of Bain, and they were pissed that they couldn't wrest control away to people that were actively involved. Can't tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:06 PM

16. sorry to rain on your parade

 

http://www.washingtonpost...7/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html


If the Obama campaign were correct, Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999….

And after reviewing evidence cited by the Obama campaign, we reaffirm our conclusion that Romney left the helm of Bain Capital when he took a leave of absence in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics – as he has said repeatedly — and never returned to active management. The Obama campaign’s recent ads thus mislead when they point to investments made by Bain, as well as management decisions made by companies in which Bain invested, after that time.

What does the Obama campaign have in rebuttal? Very little, and none of it convincing in our judgment.

Much of the Obama campaign’s letter is devoted to quoting portions of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In summary, the letter states there are “at least 63 filings with that agency after March 1, 1999 that list various Bain entities and describe them as ‘wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney.’” That’s true, but not relevant.

We have never disputed that Romney remained the owner of Bain while he was running the Olympics committee. The issue always has been, who was running Bain? Nothing in the SEC documents contradicts what Romney has certified as true.

On that point, the Obama campaign cites snippets of a few news clippings to make a case that Romney was still a part-time manager of Bain after he left to run the Olympics. But a close reading shows these news accounts don’t contradict Romney either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to missy01121970 (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:33 PM

21. Welcome to DU!

See ya later, tater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:37 PM

22. Why do they bother?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:46 PM

23. no idea

but it can be rather fun to watch...for a spell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to missy01121970 (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:44 PM

28. Doesn't matter--it keeps the "Romney outsourced American jobs" in the spotlight.

If he's on the defensive about it, then it's being kept front and center for the voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to missy01121970 (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 07:23 AM

31. Getting nervous?

Of course you are, which is why you signed up to DU just to troll here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)


Response to missy01121970 (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:20 PM

19. Bush wasn't my president because he wasn't legitimately elected

Obama won election legitimately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:23 PM

25. I'm still wondering if he was involved while governor.

Or maybe STILL is on some level.

It's Cheney = Halliburton 2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:40 PM

26. "Oh what a tangled web we weave...

When first we practice to deceive."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread