David Axelrod just tweeted the Boston Globe article that DESTROYS Romney's "I left Bain in 1999" defense.
The title of the article:
Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated
Firm’s 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999
David Axelrod also just tweeted:
Based on Globe report, either Bain filed false SEC statements 1999-2002 about Mitt's status, or his campaign is making false statements now.
There have been plenty of blogs that have pointed out that Romney's SEC filings contradict Romney's talking point that he left Bain in 1999 thus absolved of what Bain's actions after that date. But since no major paper has stated these findings many of the Fact Checking organizations accept Romney's talking point.
Well the Boston Globe has just written an article pointing out that Romney was really still head of Bain after 1999.
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.Not only that but Romney continued to get a salary as the CEO from Bain from 1999-2002.
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.Boston Globe also hits Romney on his lack of transparency.
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.According to the Boston Globe Romney severed ties as the CEO of Bain NOT in 1999 but actually 2002.
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.Could Romney be in hot water with the SEC?
A former SEC commissioner told the Globe that the SEC documents listing Romney as Bain’s chief executive between 1999 and 2002 cannot be dismissed so easily.
“You can’t say statements filed with the SEC are meaningless. This is a fact in an SEC filing,” said Roberta S. Karmel, now a professor at Brooklyn Law School.
“It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say he was technically in charge on paper but he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations,” Karmel continued. “Was he getting paid? He’s the sole stockholder. Are you telling me he owned the company but had no say in its investments?”
Karmel, the former SEC commissioner, said the contradictory statements could have legal implications in some instances.I personally think that it doesn't matter when Romney left Bain whether it was 1999 or 2002. He still was paid a salary during that time and he also receives millions of dollars from Bain's profits to this day so he is PROFITEERING from Bain's misery on the middle class REGARDLESS.
“If someone invested with Bain Capital because they believed Mitt Romney was a great fund manager, and it turns out he wasn’t really doing anything, that could be considered a misrepresentation to the investor,’’ she said. “It’s a theory that could be used in a lawsuit against him.”