Mitt Romney Stayed At Bain 3 Years Longer Than He Stated

Nine SEC filings submitted by four different business entities after February 1999 describe Romney as Bain boss.

Firm’s 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999

By Callum Borchers and Christopher Rowland |  Globe Correspondent | Globe Staff July 12, 2012

Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

Contradictions concerning the length of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital add to the uncertainty and questions about his finances. Bain is the primary source of Romney’s wealth, which is estimated to be more than $25o million. But how his wealth has been invested, especially in a variety of Bain partnerships and other investment vehicles, remains difficult to decipher because of a lack of transparency.

The Obama campaign and other Democrats have raised questions about his unwillingness to release tax returns filed before 2010; his offshore assets, which include investment entities based in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and a recently closed bank account in Switzerland; and a set of “blind trusts” that meet the Massachusetts standards for public officials but not the more rigorous bar set by the federal government.

Romney did not finalize a severance agreement with Bain until 2002, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999. It expired in 2009.

Bain Capital and the campaign for the presumptive GOP nominee have suggested the SEC filings that show Romney as the man in charge during those additional three years have little meaning, and are the result of legal technicalities. The campaign declined to comment on the record. It pointed to a footnote in Romney’s most recent financial disclosure form, filed June 1 as a presidential candidate.

“Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way,’’ according to the footnote. Romney made the same assertion on a financial disclosure form in 2007, during his first run for president.

According to a statement issued by Bain Wednesday, “Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies, since that time.”

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

US checks S&P’s adding after downgrade

BigPond News Sunday, August 14, 2011 » 01:29pm

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has launched a probe into the process by which Standard Poor’s downgraded the US credit rating, the Wall Street Journal reported.

US officials lashed out at SP after it docked the country’s credit rating from AAA to AA+, accusing the agency of committing a $US2 trillion ($A1.93 trillion) maths error and of using a faulty baseline. SP has stood by its analysis.

The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, said the SEC would investigate the mathematical model used by the agency and look into which SP employees knew of the decision to downgrade before it was announced.

More here…

Read Full Post »

GE To Pay 23 Million Dollars After Iraq Bribery Charges

GE to pay 23 million dollars after Iraq bribery charges

Via: Raw Story- By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, July 27th, 2010 — 12:57 pm

US industrial titan General Electric has agreed to pay over 23 million dollars to settle allegations that it bribed Iraqi officials, a US financial watchdog said on Tuesday.

GE had been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of being part of “a 3.6 million dollar kickback scheme with Iraqi government agencies to win contracts to supply medical equipment and water purification equipment.”

Four subsidiaries of the Connecticut-based company were accused of bribing officials at the Iraqi ministries of health and oil, trading cash, computer equipment and medical supplies to win lucrative contracts.

The SEC said the four GE units — two of which were not part of the firm when the alleged bribery took place — earned around 18.4 million dollars as a direct result of the kickbacks.

“Bribes and kickbacks are bad business, period,” said Robert Khuzami, the head of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

America Must Face Up To The Dangers Of Derivatives

George Soros | Financial Times | April 22, 2010

The US Security and Exchange Commission’s civil suit against Goldman Sachs will be vigorously contested by the defendant. It is interesting to speculate which side will win; but we will not know the result for months. Irrespective of the eventual outcome, however, the case has far-reaching implications for the financial reform legislation Congress is considering.

Whether or not Goldman is guilty, the transaction in question clearly had no social benefit. It involved a complex synthetic security derived from existing mortgage-backed securities by cloning them into imaginary units that mimicked the originals. This synthetic collateralised debt obligation did not finance the ownership of any additional homes or allocate capital more efficiently; it merely swelled the volume of mortgage-backed securities that lost value when the housing bubble burst. The primary purpose of the transaction was to generate fees and commissions.

This is a clear demonstration of how derivatives and synthetic securities have been used to create imaginary value out of thin air. More triple A CDOs were created than there were underlying triple A assets. This was done on a large scale in spite of the fact that all of the parties involved were sophisticated investors. The process went on for years and culminated in a crash that caused wealth destruction amounting to trillions of dollars. It cannot be allowed to continue. The use of derivatives and other synthetic instruments must be regulated even if all the parties are sophisticated investors. Ordinary securities must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can be traded. Synthetic securities ought to be similarly registered, although the task could be assigned to a different authority, such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

SEC Charges Former Countrywide CEO

Angelo Mozilo Fraud Charges: SEC Charges Former Countrywide CEO

MARCY GORDON and GREG RISLING | June 4, 2009 05:43 PM EST |

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators on Thursday charged Angelo Mozilo, the former chief executive of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp., and two other company executives with civil fraud.

The Securities and Exchange Commission‘s civil lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Los Angeles, also accuses Mozilo of illegal insider trading.

Countrywide was a major player in the subprime mortgage market, the collapse of which in 2007 touched off the financial crisis that has gripped the U.S. and global economies.

Mozilo, 70, is the most high-profile individual to face formal charges from the federal government in the aftermath of the crisis. He has denied any wrongdoing and Mozilo’s attorney on Thursday called the SEC’s allegations “baseless.”

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Prosecutors Target Ruth Madoff’s Assets

Prosecutors target assets of Madoff’s wife

• James Doran
• The Observer, Sunday 15 March 2009
• Article history

Federal prosecutors in New York and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are preparing to file a legal action against Ruth Madoff, wife of jailed fraudster Bernie, amid fears that she will try to flee the United States or move her $70m fortune beyond their reach.

Department of Justice sources told the Observer that prosecutors were “working around the clock” to build a criminal complaint against Mrs Madoff in an effort to ask a judge to freeze her bank accounts, which they believe are filled with the proceeds of her husband’s crimes.

The SEC, America’s top financial regulator, is understood to be liaising with the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to help prepare the asset freezing order.

“What will happen,” one SEC source said, “is that the US attorneys will be in court in the next week or so to tell a judge that they believe Mrs Madoff’s assets are derived from ill-gotten gains and that they should be frozen for a certain period of time while the investigation is ongoing.”

The judge will then decide whether there is sufficient reason to believe Mrs Madoff’s assets were the proceeds of her husband’s $64bn Ponzi scheme.

After Madoff confessed his crimes to the FBI on 11 December, the Department of Justice moved quickly to file a criminal complaint against him while the SEC issued an order to freeze his assets. SEC sources indicated that Mrs Madoff would soon experience something similar.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Has Madoff Investigation Broadened?

Is Madoff Probe Expanding?

TPM Muckraker- By Zachary Roth – March 11, 2009, 2:22PM

Bernard Madoff is set this week to plead guilty to orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme. But could we be in line for more guilty pleas before this is all over?

The Daily Beast reports:

[T]he [Madoff] investigation … has broadened to include a number of suspected co-conspirators, according to federal officials involved in the case.

The Daily Beast story — written by Lucinda Franks, whose byline identifies her as a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist who was formerly on the staff of the New York Times — also reports that, according to sources, “several members of Madoff’s inner circle transferred assets to their wives, transactions thought to be laundered through an English bank.”

There are said to be three groups of possible co-conspirators, who could potentially be charged either criminally by the Justice Department, or civilly by the SEC.

In the first group are employees of Madoff’s firm who concocted false trades and sent out phony statements to thousands of unsuspecting clients.The second group is comprised of principals in feeder funds such as Cohmad Securities Corp. and Fairfield Greenwich Group, which funneled investor dollars to Madoff and received large fees for steering this business. If they were aware of Madoff’s fraud, they could face criminal charges; if they were not, they could be hit with civil charges for a lack of due diligence.

The third group is the target of an investigation that’s still in its early stages into money laundering through British banks, in which US and British authorities are cooperating. This group consists of solicitors, accountants, and others in London who may have assisted Madoff in transferring funds from client accounts to a Madoff entity that lists Ruth Madoff, brother Peter Madoff, and sons Mark and Andrew Madoff among its board members.

It’s not clear from any of this that any specific members of Madoff’s family, or his inner circle, are in immediate legal jeopardy.

But the Wall Street Journal appears to be thinking along similar lines (sub req). It notes:

Prosecutors alleged Tuesday that Mr. Madoff hired numerous employees with “little or no prior pertinent training or experience in the securities industry” and caused them to “communicate with clients and generate false and fraudulent documents.”

Its report doesn’t go as far as the Daily Beast‘s. The Journal says it’s still unclear whether prosecutors believe these people knew they were involved in a fraudulent scheme, and doesn’t explicitly say that the investigation has broadened beyond Madoff himself.

But it’s noticeable that the paper does take the time to lay out what’s known about the possible involvement in the scheme of five of Madoff’s relatives and associates — including his wife Ruth, who has hired her own lawyer, and his brother Peter, who was the chief compliance officer for Madoff’s firm.

With Madoff’s guilty plea soon to be safely in the bag, are these reports an indication of where prosecutors are going next?

Read Full Post »