General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBain Capital Must Justify Sealed Shareholder Suit
A federal judge may unseal an antitrust complaint against Bain Capital for reporters who want to cover the allegations against Mitt Romney's former company.
Shareholders accused 11 firms, including Bain Capital Partners, of forming bidding "teams," to rig the market for leveraged buyout deals. The teams allegedly limited the number of bidders and depressed prices at target companies. Shareholders said they received lower average premiums in bids involving joint buyouts than single-purchaser deals.
Romney co-founded Bain Capital in 1984 and ran the company until he campaigned for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 - a position he won the following year and held until 2007 when he sought the Republican presidential nomination. Though Romney lost the 2008 nomination to Sen. John McCain, he became the official 2012 nominee in August.
Two months earlier, the plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint, incorporating new information collected in discovery. It was filed under seal pursuant to a 2009 protective order.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/18/50401.htm
Patiod
(11,816 posts)Years ago, back in the go-go 1990s, she explained leveraged buyouts to me, and I distinctly remember her explaining that "they buy a company, strip its assets, and load it up with debt. Sometimes they do it to the same company more than once. They are just greedy people who are damaging our economy and our country."
This from a woman who read the WSJ cover to cover every morning, and generally accepts most of what she reads.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)This article says he ran the company continuously and "left" in 2002 to run for gov. He was supposed to have had a "break in service" to run the Olympics. Ok I'm officially confused.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/18/50401.htm
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)He was signing the SEC filings and so on as CEO of Bain. Then he cut an agreement with the firm by which he "retroactively retired" so his current position is that he had nothing to do with Bain during all those years in which he was representing himself to the government as the head of Bain.
Got that?
One consequence is that, according to Romney, he had nothing to do with the Bain acquisitions and restructurings that cost so many people their jobs during that time. He is, however, entitled to full credit for jobs that were created or saved by other Bain deals that had a happier outcome, even jobs created or saved long after 2002.
Still with us?
Now, just in case you aren't completely confused, consider this: During the years in which he was telling the SEC that he was running Bain (based in Massachusetts), but he was actually running the Olympics in Utah, he was living in Utah and telling both states' tax authorities that he was a Utah resident. This meant lower taxes in Massachusetts and entitled him to a lower property tax rate on his "principal residence" in Utah. Then, after the Olympics, he decided he wanted to run for Governor of Massachusetts, which has a requirement of several years' continuous in-state residence in order to run. He therefore filed amended tax returns retroactively changing his principal residence.
So, before 2002, he was claiming to run a Massachusetts company and claiming Utah residence. After 2002, he was claiming that during that period he was running the Olympics, not Bain, but was living in Massachusetts, not Utah.
Now, to un-confuse you: Mitt Romney will say whatever seems to be to his advantage at that moment. Bear that in mind and everything falls into place.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)I had a pretty good grip on the I-left-Bain-in-99-but-I-really-didn't/Olympic Savior lies then the Utah/Mass. voter fraud is when things got a little weirder THEN seeing this investigation starting to heat up and noticing the year on the document saying 2002 - well.........lost it.
Thanks and Romney really, really needs to release those 10 years of returns!