in the business: http://www.ropesgray.com/

left the company all aflutter about what to do..

I won't explain it as I'm not interested in all the grief.

Im interested to hear someone's explanation - which is why I asked the question.

It appears it could've been done, but someone didn't WANT it to be done.

thats an argument and a half.

I was expecting more. I'm kinda disappointed

In a November 2000 interview with the Globe, Romney’s wife, Ann, said he had been forced to lessen, but not end entirely, his involvement with Bain Capital.



(2) Interviews with Romney's wife and his lawyer regarding this period:
In a Boston Globe interview with Ann Romney from November 2000 the reporter learned
that Mitt Romney was dividing his time between running Bain and running the Olympics
project. “The (Olympics) project is running smoothly now, though still requiring so much
of Mitt Romney's time that he has had to lessen his involvement with Bain Capital, his
investment firm." (“West Wings Sprout,” Boston Globe 11/11/2000). Please note: not
end his involvement with Bain, but "lessen it"-precisely as Romney acknowledged in
shifting to part-time management involvement in l999.

Romney’s own personal lawyer as stated that he only became a passive investor in Bain
in August of 2001: “(Bradley) Malt, who was designated by the campaign to address
Romney’s time at Bain, said Romney finally resigned and reduced his role at the
company to that of a passive investor in 2001 when it became clear that he was going
to run for Massachusetts governor after the Olympics.” (“Cash, Advice on Tap at
Romney’s Old Firm” Washington Post 10/21/2007)

http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/07/OFA-FACTCHECK-LETTER-FINAL.pdf

hat tip to m_v.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=166394

Roper & Gray guy: http://www.ropesgray.com/bradmalt/

stealth trolls, IMHO.

I'm sure we'd love to hear it.

So I would love to hear his take. What do you have?

Looks like you have a response but you're not telling us what it is.

then insulting your fellow DUers because we might not accept that David Gergen has the answer that absolves Romney's web of lies? Classic.

or several somebodies, and their names, not Mitt's, should have been put on the paperwork. There was an excuse for the first year, maybe, but not the other two.

When Mittens ran for governor in 2002 he supposedly put all his assets in a "blind trust"...a typical game the rich play to pretend they have no conflicts. Chenney also had all his Haliburton stock put in a "blind trust" and we saw how that didn't influence how he acted

Supposedly he his personal laywer is the administrator of that blind trust and we're to believe that Mittens doesn't know what's going on with it or can influence how its administered? Methinks there's a lot of questions inside this arrangement. Yet another reason Willard will fight...even if it means losing the election...to protect his money.

and that it's ridiculous to think that someone has no knowledge of what their money is doing. Someone on DU posted it... the guy says whatever he thinks fits the situation.

As owner, corporate president, and CEO, Rmoney simply had to declare an acting CEO. What we're being asked to believe is that Rmoney simply abandoned the leadership position of his business without a designated successor, leaving 18 leaderless partners to do as they wished without oversight, much less direction. This is bullshit.

their crackerjack legal staff couldn't make it so he didn't have to be on the SEC filings?

... he had also appointed an acting CEO to take on the duties he claims to have given up. Apparently, he did not, and the only rational explanation is that he was still in control.

He comes off appearing to claim that his qualifications to be President are that he led a company that didn't need any leadership, and when he decided that heading up the Olympics would be more fun, he just didn't bother going to the office any more. He certainly should be screwed with that line.

no such thing.

what is the proper term for it?

there and probably figured people would nod their heads so as not to look stupid. An authorized signature is an authorized signature. That is what allows business to run without choas. Imagine if you couldn't be sure that the person with the authority to sign something really had that authority. This is why companies have to file their papers with the Secretary of State. I know the law firm that Bain used. They would nenver have taken 2-3 years to prepare transition papers. What likely happened is that Bain didn't gt its act together and didn't know which partners would get the stock and take charge. In the meantime, Mitt remained in charge. There is just no way around this.

he didn't want to transfer authority, or it would've been done.

the money. That's why his tax returns are so important. As far as why it took so long...no way Ropes &Gray would have done that. I know that law firm very well. My father was a partner there. They would have had people working 24/7 to get that done if there had been a will to get it done.

is the excuse I heard for it not being done for 3 years.

I'm also thinking a huge corporation doesn't just change overnight - Mittens is not off the hook for everything that happened after he left.

He is legally accountable for any documents that were filed with the SEC. He is responsible to be sure the documents are accurate before he affixes his signature. The law firm can be sued for malpractice in the event some affirmative act or omission on their part results in damages but RMoney is still legally culpable for his signature as it appears on official filings with the SEC.