Can Investment Advisors, Private Fund Managers, and their Employees Contribute to Governor Perry?

Last February, we posted an entry flagging potential concerns arising from the SEC’s new pay-to-play rules for investment advisors as applied to presidential candidates. Admittedly, at the time we were talking about Governors Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels, but the same holds true now for Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Compliance Building blog (Presidential Campaign Season and the SEC’s Pay-to-Play Rule) has just posted an excellent analysis of the issue. I highly recommend you check it out. As the blog notes:

 

“Registered Investment Advisors, private fund managers getting ready to register with Securities and Exchange Commission, and their employees need to be very cautious about making contributions to Governor Perry if they have a Texas state sponsored fund as a client or investor, or hope to have one as a client or investor in the next two years.”     

 

Transparency Alert: the author is campaign counsel to several federal candidates including former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms

FINRA CEO Says Brokers Must ?Push and Pull? for Private Placement Information

Often, investment advisors, stockbrokers and brokerages who unsuitably push Reg. D Private Placements on investors claim that any financial losses investors subsequently experience occur despite their due diligence. However, these private investments pay high fees that can induce some financial professionals to look the other way, focusing on the fifteen percent fee rather than the [...]

attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms

Even the Government Turns to Recruiting Agencies To Find the Best Employees

Would you be surprised if I told you that a website which helps people find government jobs actually has a page that lists the names of executive search firms that can be approached for the jobs? You hardly expect government agencies to also depend on services of recruiting agencies, but it is nonetheless true.
Government Sectors [...]

Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm

Friday News (06.10.2011)

Despite the Texas Governor’s veto in late May of a bill that would have closed a major sales tax loophole for online retailers like Amazon.com, the Texas House of Representatives fires back by refusing to take the issue off the table. Another Austin-based company is about to go public.  That makes six (6) Austin companies to file for an IPO this year. Scary NY Times blog post on why Timothy Geithner, U.S. Treasury Secretary, may be operating on some misguided assumptions. The Economist suggests that

general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter

Costs Associated with Investing in Mutual Funds

If you?ve invested in mutual funds, you should know that taxes can affect your investment, sometimes significantly reducing your net returns. To completely avoid federal taxes, consider investments such as tax free municipal bonds. Also be aware that some mutual fund investments are more tax efficient than others. Below is some basic information regarding mutual [...]

Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms

FINRA CEO Says Brokers Must ?Push and Pull? for Private Placement Information

Often, investment advisors, stockbrokers and brokerages who unsuitably push Reg. D Private Placements on investors claim that any financial losses investors subsequently experience occur despite their due diligence. However, these private investments pay high fees that can induce some financial professionals to look the other way, focusing on the fifteen percent fee rather than the [...]

Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms

Regulation D: Some Important Points

Takeaway: Some of the SEC’s more commonly used registration exemptions for private offerings are found in “Regulation D.”  Two of the overarching themes of “Reg D” are (1) a prohibition against “general solicitation” and (2) the distinction drawn between “accredited” and “unaccredited” investors.  Understanding these two concepts is crucial when offering securities for sale under these exemptions. Back in February, I discussed the importance of ensuring compliance with SEC and state regulations surrounding the private offering of securities.  As an old industry adage goes, there

legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms

Using a Recruiting Agency to Find Your Company?s Board of Directors?

A lot of new entrepreneurs dislike the idea of having a board of directors. They feel it is akin to handing over their powers to a group of people who may or may not share their vision. They also fear losing control over their own business and feel threatened by a board of directors in [...]

general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter

Starting a Company: One Needless Risk

Takeaway: Founding a company without a written, situation-specific contract between the owners is a massive risk that can not only kill the business but destroy relationships between business partners.  At the same time, this risk is easily avoidable by hiring a qualified, experienced corporate attorney to draft the document at the start. Starting a business can be financially challenging, and there is a strong temptation to “cut corners” with the company’s “foundational” or “core” legal documents that bind the members of  a new company together. 

legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms

Have you used Mark E. Imbertson as Your Broker?

Mark E. Imbertson, a former Merrill Lynch stock broker in West Palm Beach, Florida, was recently terminated for alleged multiple customer complaints. Mark Imbertson has received 17 reported customer disputes on his employment record, according to FINRA broker check. Many of the complaints allegedly relate to unauthorized trading and short selling without customer approval. If you were a [...]

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

Loans against assets

        ASSETS = $   Just about anything of significant value can serve as collateral for a Loan. OUT OF GROUND ASSETS Precious Metals-Gold/Silver/Platinum, etc. Precious Stones, Gems, Rubies Emeralds, Diamonds, Sapphire. Rare Coins, Museum Quality Antiques & Art works. NOTE ON GEMS (We can not lend on any Gems that are [...]

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

CandidateSpeak - Cases In Point

I had a great experience with GLI. Any job search is an emotional roller coaster, but leaving my firm where I started my legal career was unbelievably tough. Nancy was great, not only with the logistical, finding-me-a-job details, but also with the personal stress of the search. I got 3 amazing offers through her, and [...]

Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters

Los Angeles Passes its Pay-To-Play Ordinance

As we anticipated for you here last November, Angelenos have indeed passed into law an ordinance establishing pay-to-play restrictions in the City of Angels. If ever one needed a sense of the public sentiment towards pay-to play regulation, one need only look at the 75% -25% margin by which the measure passed. As anticipated, the Measure targeted a single class of campaign donors (City contractors) who are perceived to make their living procuring contracts greased by campaign contributions. The full Resolution - which you can count on approximately 5 people having actually read - can be found here.

As proposed, the ballot measure put before the public read:

Shall the Charter be amended to (1) restrict campaign contributions and fundraising by bidders on certain City contracts; require increased disclosure for bidders; and provide for bans on future contracts for violators; and (2) build upon the city's voter-approved campaign trust fund, which provides limited public matching funds for qualified city candidates who agree to spending limits, by lifting the maximum balance in the fund while allowing the LA City Council by a two-thirds vote to not make the annual appropriation and temporarily transfer funds to meet City budgetary obligations in certain emergency conditions?

Language like that is difficult to vote against. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. Specifically, as passed, the measure restricts contractors holding or seeking City contracts in excess of $100,000 from making campaign contributions to, or fundraising for, City officials (including the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Controller or a member of the City Council) or candidates to those offices. Second, the ordinance lifts the maximum balance on the City’s public finance vehicle - the Campaign Trust Fund.

This contribution ban extends not just to those authorized by the company to represent it in seeking or negotiating the contract, but also to the contractor’s Board Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, and anyone who holds more than a 20% ownership stake in the contractor.

As if these compliance challenges are not imposing enough for the well meaning corporation that might not have absolute control over the campaign contributions of its 21% minority owners, the new ordinance extends the ban to subcontractors and their officers if the subcontractor has a $100,000 interest in the City contract. While it is easy to perceive the logic that leads to such a prohibition, one can anticipate that the unintentional violations of this ordinance - and dramatic negative consequences - will be legion.

On the other hand, many argued against the measure on the ground that it does not go far enough in banning contributions and will simply drive unscrupulous contractors to measures that will evade disclosure altogether. A good example of such an argument can be found here.

Interestingly, the City taketh away just as it giveth. A third element of the ordinance provides that the City may, during “financial emergencies” (when do you anticipate LA won’t be laboring under a “financial emergency”?), borrow money from that trust fund without appropriating funds back in. Now that’s playing without paying!

Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters

Labor Day Greetings and Kudos

attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms

Milberg, Dreier, and the Shanda of It All

Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm

Paul Weiss, its New Player-Manager and BigGlobalLaw in 2009

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

Voting While Subject to a Conflict of Interest is not "Free Speech"

A unanimous United States Supreme Court today confirmed what anyone not sitting on the Nevada Supreme Court would be presumed already to know: legislators do not have a free speech right to vote on a matter they would otherwise be prohibited from recording under a state’s code of ethics. While this ruling would not appear, on the surface, to be controversial, a careful read of the opinion reveals that the legislator in question, as well as the Nevada Supreme Court, missed an opportunity to challenge the extended scope of the code in a way that would have had direct relevance to the regulated pay-to-play community.

In this case, Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, Sparks, Nevada City Councilmember Michael Carrigan voted to approve a hotel/casino deal that would have directly benefitted his long-time friend and campaign manager. Even in Nevada, that was considered a disqualifying conflict of interest under state law. Nonetheless, Carrigan took a shot at Frontier Justice and tried to argue that any law impairing his right to vote amounted to a denial of his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. The Nevada Supreme Court went along and dismissed the charges against Carrigan.

Because the Nevada court had ruled in such a broad fashion – virtually guaranteeing legislators the constitutional right to vote on a matter notwithstanding any state-imposed restrictions – it was relatively easy for outside observers to characterize the case as a “decision, [that] if upheld, threatened ethics laws nationwide”. The issue, thus framed, became relatively easy even for the chronically fractured Supreme Court.

Where opportunity for clarity was lost, unfortunately, was with respect to the permissible scope of ethics and pay-to-play laws in seeking to regulate behavior based on the conduct of others. One of the hallmarks of modern pay-to-play legislation is the need to prevent “circumvention” by casting ever-widening nets of relationships for which the regulated community is responsible for. This blog has bemoaned the compliance challenges posed by unreasonably broad compliance circles (such as http://www.paytoplaylawblog.com/2010/08/articles/alaska/alaska-gets-in-on-the...">here and here) and the issue has been taken up by the United States Second Court of Appeals.

In the present case, Nevada’s law prohibited legislators from voting on matters which might be impaired by the legislator’s “commitment” to members of his/her family, blood relatives, those related by adoption or marriage, employees, members of the household, and those with “substantial and continuing” business relationships with the officer. As if that weren’t vague enough, Carrigan actually got zapped on an even broader, and more vague, clause 281A.420(8)(e) capturing commitments or relationships “substantially similar” to those defined above. Such vague legislating would appear to be ripe for constitutional challenge. Unfortunately, as the U.S. Supreme Court gleefully pointed out in the last section of its opinion, Carrigan neglected to raise the issue in his petition for certiorari and the Court saw “no reason to sidestep” the rule that omitted arguments are considered waived.

It would thus appear that an opportunity to provide guidance, and pre-empt my whining about overbroad pay-to-play statutes, has been lost.

Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm

Second Quarter 2010 Report

attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms

Work-Life Balance and the Tour de France

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

Can Investment Advisors, Private Fund Managers, and their Employees Contribute to Governor Perry?

Last February, we posted an entry flagging potential concerns arising from the SEC’s new pay-to-play rules for investment advisors as applied to presidential candidates. Admittedly, at the time we were talking about Governors Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels, but the same holds true now for Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Compliance Building blog (Presidential Campaign Season and the SEC’s Pay-to-Play Rule) has just posted an excellent analysis of the issue. I highly recommend you check it out. As the blog notes:

 

“Registered Investment Advisors, private fund managers getting ready to register with Securities and Exchange Commission, and their employees need to be very cautious about making contributions to Governor Perry if they have a Texas state sponsored fund as a client or investor, or hope to have one as a client or investor in the next two years.”     

 

Transparency Alert: the author is campaign counsel to several federal candidates including former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms

Insurance Recruiters: Helping Your Company Hire Insurance Professionals

Unlike many other industries, the insurance industry is one industry that requires large numbers of highly skilled as well as qualified and certified people. In the current market scenario, this is translating into huge recruitment problems. There are many reasons for this. Some of the recruiting problems are discussed below and so are the solutions.
Types [...]

Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms

The GLI Advantage

by Nancy Grimes
GLI has achieved great success by following our state-of-the-art process time after time. The objective of any search assignment is always the same: to match a client?s specific need with the ideal candidate in a mutually beneficial manner for both parties. GLI considers it part of the assignment to overcome any obstacles which [...]

Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters

New Jersey and Pennsylvania Highlight Different Approaches to Pay-to-Play Enforcement

The only consistent element one can discern from state and local pay-to-play enforcement is that municipal approaches to enforcement vary widely. Local legislation and enforcement is driven far more by politics and past scandal than a desire to afford the regulated community with consistent national application. Recently, this blog engaged in something of a back and forth with the public interest group CityEthics.org over realistic approaches to pay-to-play enforcement. Trenton, New Jersey’s City Hall and Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives now offer the most recent embodiment of these tensions.

Pennsylvania’s scandals of choice in recent years have involved allegations that the State contracting employees -- from the Governor on down -- have been all too cozy with political allies and former employees in the awarding of no-bid contracts; political allegations that date back several years. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee recently passed proposed legislation by a unanimous vote that focuses on the conduct and relationships of state procurement evaluators rather than on the conduct of those seeking state contracts.

House Bill 107, if passed and signed into law, would prohibit any state employee from evaluating a state contract proposal if that employee “has been employed by an offeror within the last two years”. Pennsylvania’s House Republican Caucus left no doubt that this legislation is being proposed as a political response to past scandal:

“This legislation is a direct answer to eight years of allegations concerning back-door, pay-to-play politics from Pennsylvania taxpayers and job creators who have legitimately questioned the integrity regarding the slew of multi-million dollar, no-bid state contracts entered into by the Rendell administration,” said (Rep. George) Dunbar (R-Westmoreland). House Bill 107 will prevent anyone from coming to work for state government and rewarding their former boss with a multi-million dollar contract paid for by you, the taxpayer—strictly on the basis of political favoritism,” said Dunbar. “Put simply, this legislation will bring a long overdue end to this blatant, unethical conflict of interest where back-room, pay-to-play politics generates countless overpriced and uncompetitive state contracts.”

Placing additional compliance responsibility on those awarding state contracts, as opposed to those seeking such contracts and all of their various and sundry potential “agents” is a refreshing and atypical approach to enforcement.

Meanwhile, across the Delaware River, Trenton New Jersey’s Law Director found himself in the uncomfortable, and procedurally murky, position of having his enforcement of the city’s strict pay-to-play ordinance reversed by the city’s mayor after significant “input” from the affected party. Last week, Trenton’s Law Director Marc McKithen concluded that a well-connected state law firm should lose its contract with the City because it had made a political contribution within a year of bidding on a city contract. Under the city’s strict ordinance, that single violation, if not undone, theoretically served as grounds to rescind the contract. Within a single day, however, several heated phone calls by the law firm to the Mayor’s office appears to have demonstrated the difficulties of no-tolerance pay-to-play restrictions as th e Mayor’s office effectively countermanded the finding.

Whether the Mayor had the authority to undo such a determination by the city’s Law Director, and whether application of such unforgiving laws is good public policy, remains to be seen. What is clear is that the tension between reporting and debarment has given rise to another interesting anecdote in the world of pay-to-play.

general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter

Second Quarter 2010 Report

legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms

Los Angeles Passes its Pay-To-Play Ordinance

As we anticipated for you here last November, Angelenos have indeed passed into law an ordinance establishing pay-to-play restrictions in the City of Angels. If ever one needed a sense of the public sentiment towards pay-to play regulation, one need only look at the 75% -25% margin by which the measure passed. As anticipated, the Measure targeted a single class of campaign donors (City contractors) who are perceived to make their living procuring contracts greased by campaign contributions. The full Resolution - which you can count on approximately 5 people having actually read - can be found here.

As proposed, the ballot measure put before the public read:

Shall the Charter be amended to (1) restrict campaign contributions and fundraising by bidders on certain City contracts; require increased disclosure for bidders; and provide for bans on future contracts for violators; and (2) build upon the city's voter-approved campaign trust fund, which provides limited public matching funds for qualified city candidates who agree to spending limits, by lifting the maximum balance in the fund while allowing the LA City Council by a two-thirds vote to not make the annual appropriation and temporarily transfer funds to meet City budgetary obligations in certain emergency conditions?

Language like that is difficult to vote against. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. Specifically, as passed, the measure restricts contractors holding or seeking City contracts in excess of $100,000 from making campaign contributions to, or fundraising for, City officials (including the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Controller or a member of the City Council) or candidates to those offices. Second, the ordinance lifts the maximum balance on the City’s public finance vehicle - the Campaign Trust Fund.

This contribution ban extends not just to those authorized by the company to represent it in seeking or negotiating the contract, but also to the contractor’s Board Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, and anyone who holds more than a 20% ownership stake in the contractor.

As if these compliance challenges are not imposing enough for the well meaning corporation that might not have absolute control over the campaign contributions of its 21% minority owners, the new ordinance extends the ban to subcontractors and their officers if the subcontractor has a $100,000 interest in the City contract. While it is easy to perceive the logic that leads to such a prohibition, one can anticipate that the unintentional violations of this ordinance - and dramatic negative consequences - will be legion.

On the other hand, many argued against the measure on the ground that it does not go far enough in banning contributions and will simply drive unscrupulous contractors to measures that will evade disclosure altogether. A good example of such an argument can be found here.

Interestingly, the City taketh away just as it giveth. A third element of the ordinance provides that the City may, during “financial emergencies” (when do you anticipate LA won’t be laboring under a “financial emergency”?), borrow money from that trust fund without appropriating funds back in. Now that’s playing without paying!

Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters

Legal Recruiters: How Legal Headhunters Help Find the Best Talent

The legal system is at the foundation of our nation and if affects companies just as it affects society at large. Every company needs the expert advice and services from members of the legal profession from time to time. The need to hire the best and most competent lawyers has increased over a period of [...]

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

Smooth Sailing in 2011

Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm

Legal Placement ? Some Do It Well?We Do It Right!!!!

Grimes Legal, Inc. (GLI) presents a unique approach among legal search firms, one which focuses on craftsmanship. We cover all disciplines within legal placement, which gives us the opportunity to work on a wide variety of projects. To us, effective recruiting is truly an art. It is the ability to be creative, to work outside [...]

attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms

Atlanta Update: Cooler Heads Prevail

Atlanta’s Fulton County Commission met yesterday as predicted http://www.paytoplaylawblog.com/2011/08/articles/georgia/atlanta-takes-anothe... ">here to take up its latest pay-to-play resolution. 

Everyone’s dying to know what happened. 

Drum roll . . . It failed.

Interestingly, Fulton County’s Commission didn’t simply reject the resolution, they made sure to give the bill sufficient medical attention to permit the orderlies to wheel it in to the room where they could execute it properly and with finality. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported on the gruesome course of events thusly:

 Fulton County commissioners didn't just reject Vice Chair Emma Darnell's proposal to limit contractors' donations to political campaigns. They killed it.

Darnell sought to prohibit any company or individual from bidding for county work if they have donated more than $500 to a commission candidate, or have given gifts to commissioners or county employees, during the past year.

The board opposed the plan 4-2, then, on a motion from Commissioner Tom Lowe, voted 4-2 to officially deny it so it can't be brought up again. Lowe called the idea stupid and bad for business

Not everyone sees the issue the same way. On the same day Fulton County was doing its work, the Brigantine Beach, New Jersey, City Council voted a strikingly similar piece of legislation onto the books. The Brigantine Beach ordinance, based largely on an Atlantic County, NJ, ordinance, and drafted with the assistance of the Atlantic County counsel, bans all professional contractor contributions one year before bidding and limits success ful bidders to $300 candidate contributions after that with aggregate total limit contributions from a corporation holding a city contract to no more than $2,500 annually.

The regulatory patchwork continues to be sewn together stitch by stitch with no sign of uniformity on the horizon.

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

Leased Instruments Delivered with only a Small Down Payment

World Prime Banks TOP 50 PRIME WORLD BANKS BANK NAME COUNTRY 1.    BNP Paribas SA, Paris FRANCE 2.    The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Edinburgh UK 3.    Credit Agricole SA, Paris FRANCE 4.    Barclays PLC, London UK 5.    Deutsche Bank AG, Frankfurt am Main GERMANY 6.    Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Limited, Beijing [...]

general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter

Costs Associated with Investing in Mutual Funds

If you?ve invested in mutual funds, you should know that taxes can affect your investment, sometimes significantly reducing your net returns. To completely avoid federal taxes, consider investments such as tax free municipal bonds. Also be aware that some mutual fund investments are more tax efficient than others. Below is some basic information regarding mutual [...]

Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters

Starting a Company: One Needless Risk

Takeaway: Founding a company without a written, situation-specific contract between the owners is a massive risk that can not only kill the business but destroy relationships between business partners.  At the same time, this risk is easily avoidable by hiring a qualified, experienced corporate attorney to draft the document at the start. Starting a business can be financially challenging, and there is a strong temptation to “cut corners” with the company’s “foundational” or “core” legal documents that bind the members of  a new company together. 

Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter

Principal Protected Notes, Lehman Brothers and UBS Financial Services Arbitrations

A recent class action suit against Lehman Brothers as well as an enforcement proceeding against UBS Financial Services by New Hampshire has encouraged investors to hire investment recovery litigators and pursue claims against firms selling Lehman Brothers principal protected notes in an attempt to recoup their financial losses. According to New Hampshire?s claim, UBS engaged [...]

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

Did Wall Street Bankers Commit CDO Fraud?

In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began a civil fraud investigation of over a dozen banking firms that traded and sold mortgage-backed collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). This investigation has engendered subsequent probes into the behavior of Wall Street firms. Did Wall Street bankers defraud investors by selling them CDOs in order to make [...]

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

Is It Really Too Late? Fraud, Statutes of Limitations & Recovering Investment Losses

Although it?s been three years since financial misconduct on Wall Street rocked the nation, investors still have opportunity to recoup some or all of their financial loss. If you suffered financial loss during the recent crisis, your broker, brokerage or financial advisor may be legally responsible for that loss. A variety of legal actions can [...]

Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters

Voting While Subject to a Conflict of Interest is not "Free Speech"

A unanimous United States Supreme Court today confirmed what anyone not sitting on the Nevada Supreme Court would be presumed already to know: legislators do not have a free speech right to vote on a matter they would otherwise be prohibited from recording under a state’s code of ethics. While this ruling would not appear, on the surface, to be controversial, a careful read of the opinion reveals that the legislator in question, as well as the Nevada Supreme Court, missed an opportunity to challenge the extended scope of the code in a way that would have had direct relevance to the regulated pay-to-play community.

In this case, Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, Sparks, Nevada City Councilmember Michael Carrigan voted to approve a hotel/casino deal that would have directly benefitted his long-time friend and campaign manager. Even in Nevada, that was considered a disqualifying conflict of interest under state law. Nonetheless, Carrigan took a shot at Frontier Justice and tried to argue that any law impairing his right to vote amounted to a denial of his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. The Nevada Supreme Court went along and dismissed the charges against Carrigan.

Because the Nevada court had ruled in such a broad fashion – virtually guaranteeing legislators the constitutional right to vote on a matter notwithstanding any state-imposed restrictions – it was relatively easy for outside observers to characterize the case as a “decision, [that] if upheld, threatened ethics laws nationwide”. The issue, thus framed, became relatively easy even for the chronically fractured Supreme Court.

Where opportunity for clarity was lost, unfortunately, was with respect to the permissible scope of ethics and pay-to-play laws in seeking to regulate behavior based on the conduct of others. One of the hallmarks of modern pay-to-play legislation is the need to prevent “circumvention” by casting ever-widening nets of relationships for which the regulated community is responsible for. This blog has bemoaned the compliance challenges posed by unreasonably broad compliance circles (such as http://www.paytoplaylawblog.com/2010/08/articles/alaska/alaska-gets-in-on-the...">here and here) and the issue has been taken up by the United States Second Court of Appeals.

In the present case, Nevada’s law prohibited legislators from voting on matters which might be impaired by the legislator’s “commitment” to members of his/her family, blood relatives, those related by adoption or marriage, employees, members of the household, and those with “substantial and continuing” business relationships with the officer. As if that weren’t vague enough, Carrigan actually got zapped on an even broader, and more vague, clause 281A.420(8)(e) capturing commitments or relationships “substantially similar” to those defined above. Such vague legislating would appear to be ripe for constitutional challenge. Unfortunately, as the U.S. Supreme Court gleefully pointed out in the last section of its opinion, Carrigan neglected to raise the issue in his petition for certiorari and the Court saw “no reason to sidestep” the rule that omitted arguments are considered waived.

It would thus appear that an opportunity to provide guidance, and pre-empt my whining about overbroad pay-to-play statutes, has been lost.

legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms

Third Quarter 2010 Report

Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter

Can Investment Advisors, Private Fund Managers, and their Employees Contribute to Governor Perry?

Last February, we posted an entry flagging potential concerns arising from the SEC’s new pay-to-play rules for investment advisors as applied to presidential candidates. Admittedly, at the time we were talking about Governors Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels, but the same holds true now for Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Compliance Building blog (Presidential Campaign Season and the SEC’s Pay-to-Play Rule) has just posted an excellent analysis of the issue. I highly recommend you check it out. As the blog notes:

 

“Registered Investment Advisors, private fund managers getting ready to register with Securities and Exchange Commission, and their employees need to be very cautious about making contributions to Governor Perry if they have a Texas state sponsored fund as a client or investor, or hope to have one as a client or investor in the next two years.”     

 

Transparency Alert: the author is campaign counsel to several federal candidates including former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters

Internal Oversight, the SEC and BigLaw

Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters

Pricing Gap Revealed in Apple REIT Eight

David Kelly of InvestmentNews.com, June 15, 2011, writes that the price of one in a series of 10 nontraded REITs sold exclusively through David Lerner Associates Inc. took a hit yesterday when management from Apple REIT Eight Inc. said that its book value was $7.57 per share at the end of March, according to a [...]

Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter

New York City area loans available

Our lender has an appetite for New York City area loan requests! Anything with a decent completed value will be considered. Opportunities, hard money, refinances, refurbishment, construction, expansions, and acquisitions are all fair game. Below are other often overlooked market niches that are closing. Look to your existing clients or start a marketing program to [...]

general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter

Best Wishes for an Ethical 2009

Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter

Milberg, Dreier, and the Shanda of It All

attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms

Paper Lion Ahead for SEC's Pay-to-Play Exemption?

On March 14, the SEC's pay-to-play rule will come into effect and there is growing concern that the rule's exemption for accidental violations will result in an administrative hailstorm. The rule allows an advisor to apply to the SEC for an order exempting it from application of the two-year ban. Under such provision, the SEC can exempt advisers from the time out requirement where the adviser discovers triggering contributions after they have been made, and when imposition of the prohibition is unnecessary to achieve the rule's intended purpose. An exemption would be based on the facts and circumstances of each applicant, including the SEC's consideration of factors such as whether the adviser had a compliance program in place.

The SEC estimated that seven advisers would apply for the exemption each year, a number that several attorneys have speculated as too low given the number of investment advisers affected. On the other hand, the SEC utilized FINRA's data on exemption applications to calculate the estimate, and investment advisers have had several months to digest and prepare for the rule. Either way, whether March will come in like a lamb or a lion for the SEC is anyone's guess.

Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms

Pricing Gap Revealed in Apple REIT Eight

David Kelly of InvestmentNews.com, June 15, 2011, writes that the price of one in a series of 10 nontraded REITs sold exclusively through David Lerner Associates Inc. took a hit yesterday when management from Apple REIT Eight Inc. said that its book value was $7.57 per share at the end of March, according to a [...]

Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm

Paper Lion Ahead for SEC's Pay-to-Play Exemption?

On March 14, the SEC's pay-to-play rule will come into effect and there is growing concern that the rule's exemption for accidental violations will result in an administrative hailstorm. The rule allows an advisor to apply to the SEC for an order exempting it from application of the two-year ban. Under such provision, the SEC can exempt advisers from the time out requirement where the adviser discovers triggering contributions after they have been made, and when imposition of the prohibition is unnecessary to achieve the rule's intended purpose. An exemption would be based on the facts and circumstances of each applicant, including the SEC's consideration of factors such as whether the adviser had a compliance program in place.

The SEC estimated that seven advisers would apply for the exemption each year, a number that several attorneys have speculated as too low given the number of investment advisers affected. On the other hand, the SEC utilized FINRA's data on exemption applications to calculate the estimate, and investment advisers have had several months to digest and prepare for the rule. Either way, whether March will come in like a lamb or a lion for the SEC is anyone's guess.

Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter

Did Goldman Sachs Play an Unwholesome Role in the Recent Financial Crisis?

According to an article published by Reuters on June 2, 2011, Goldman Sachs has been subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney?s Office for information regarding its role in events which precipitated the recent worldwide financial crisis. Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Justice also plans to subpoena Goldman [...]

Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter

Sales Recruiters: What Type of Positions Do They Fill?

In an economic crisis like the one we are facing today, sales jobs have become more important than ever. Companies may cut down on advertising and reduce expenditure on the marketing and promotion of their products, but they all need a strong sales force to keep them in business. Without a dependable sales force, companies [...]

attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter

2010 Year End Report

attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms

Search Firms Know the Best Recruiting Techniques

In World War II, there was a need for Assessment Centers to identify those people among fresh recruits who were capable of handling critical jobs and heavy responsibilities. In today?s scenario, similar recruiting techniques are used by search firms to identify the best candidates for their clients? requirements. Just as finding the right people to [...]

Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter

RESOURCE WELL INVESTMENT

We maintain a close relationship with prominent oil field operator in Texas o This oil field operator is offering fractional oil well ownership to our clients for a long term investment opportunity lasting 25yrs. ? This offer has 100% Success Rate with Proof of Performance ? 100% Transparent, Full Due Diligence package offered to Qualified [...]

legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms

Where Were the Lawyers?

Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm

Turning the Corner on the Big Roller Coaster Ride of BigLaw

Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting

Milberg, Dreier, and the Shanda of It All

Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter

Pay-to-Play Disclosure For Government Contractors - UPDATE Strong Reactions and a Not-Too Transparent White House

Our last post focused on the trial balloon being floated by the White House to impose corporate political disclosure obligations on government contractors.  At the time of that post, all we had was a White House press secretary description.  Subsequently, draft orders have been floating around the internet including here.

If I do say so myself, I thought our firm’s government contracts department provided a pretty comprehensive analysis of the issue for our clients in a recent client alert.

 Notably, that alert observed:

The proposed executive order would require every federal contracting department and agency to require all entities submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within two years of the submission date of the offer.  The disclosures would include all contributions to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or by any affiliates or subsidiaries.  Any contributions to third party entities (such as trade associations or industry groups) made with the expectation or intention that the parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications would have to be disclosed.  The FAR Council would be directed to adopt rules and regulations that would, among other things, require bidders to certify that the accuracy of the information disclosed as a condition of aw ard.

Reaction from all ends of the political spectrum has been immediate and prolific with objections to the proposal being found from Senator Collins in today’s Washington Post,others in the Senate, and the US Chamber of Commerce.  Most concerns surrounding the proposed executive order track those raised by the Chamber (and, of course, this blog which raised them first - wink) in observing that the order is of dubious constitutionality and a relatively clear effort to circumvent politi cal challenges in getting Congress to pass the DISCLOSE ACT in the wake of Citizens United v. FEC:

The executive order would make every company that tries to contract with the federal government disclose spending that is confidential and used to fund core, First Amendment-protected political speech. Also troubling is the executive order’s reach beyond companies to their individual officers and directors, who would be forced by the executive order to disclose personal political spending undertaken with their own assets. This aspect of the order will both impair individuals’ First Amendment freedoms and interfere with the relationships between companies and their employees.

On the other hand, public interest groups such as Democracy21 rose in defense of the proposed order and against the Chamber’s efforts to stifle it.  Groups like Care2 have pointed out:

Its [sic] easy to see why the Chamber of Commerce would want to stop the order; it would effect a large number of their big business clients. Corporations often want to keep their political spending quiet, hoping to avoid the negative press and boycotts like the one Target was hit with after their donation to an openly anti-gay candidate was leaked to the public.

From a process standpoint, there is a delicious irony in the fact that the White House is currently unwilling to discuss publicly its internal discussions concerning the need for an Executive Order imposing political transparency on government contractors.  The nature of trial balloons in politics is that one does not want one’s fingerprints on something until one is willing to take ownership of it.  This political phenomenon resulted in the following exchange during a May 12 joint Oversight and Small Business Committee hearing on the proposed Order:

"Does it strike you at all as being ironic to invoke confidentiality and not answering questions when we're having a hearing about transparency?" – Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

"It does not, sir. I think there are discussions, even about transparency and developing rules about transparency that we need to be able to have quietly and behind closed doors." – Hon. Daniel Gordon, Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President

Let’s go to the videotape!

Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter

Employment Recruitment Agencies Are Now More Affordable Than Ever

There is no doubt that the economic meltdown is affecting all companies, whether they are billion dollar empires like AIG or smaller operations like community medical centers. One of the trends that are becoming more and more popular during this economic situation is that of employing employment recruitment agencies. Companies across industries are beginning to [...]

legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms

Can Investment Advisors, Private Fund Managers, and their Employees Contribute to Governor Perry?

Last February, we posted an entry flagging potential concerns arising from the SEC’s new pay-to-play rules for investment advisors as applied to presidential candidates. Admittedly, at the time we were talking about Governors Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels, but the same holds true now for Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Compliance Building blog (Presidential Campaign Season and the SEC’s Pay-to-Play Rule) has just posted an excellent analysis of the issue. I highly recommend you check it out. As the blog notes:

 

“Registered Investment Advisors, private fund managers getting ready to register with Securities and Exchange Commission, and their employees need to be very cautious about making contributions to Governor Perry if they have a Texas state sponsored fund as a client or investor, or hope to have one as a client or investor in the next two years.”     

 

Transparency Alert: the author is campaign counsel to several federal candidates including former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Legal Recruiting Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement

Pay-to-Play Disclosure For Government Contractors - UPDATE Strong Reactions and a Not-Too Transparent White House

Our last post focused on the trial balloon being floated by the White House to impose corporate political disclosure obligations on government contractors.  At the time of that post, all we had was a White House press secretary description.  Subsequently, draft orders have been floating around the internet including here.

If I do say so myself, I thought our firm’s government contracts department provided a pretty comprehensive analysis of the issue for our clients in a recent client alert.

 Notably, that alert observed:

The proposed executive order would require every federal contracting department and agency to require all entities submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within two years of the submission date of the offer.  The disclosures would include all contributions to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or by any affiliates or subsidiaries.  Any contributions to third party entities (such as trade associations or industry groups) made with the expectation or intention that the parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications would have to be disclosed.  The FAR Council would be directed to adopt rules and regulations that would, among other things, require bidders to certify that the accuracy of the information disclosed as a condition of aw ard.

Reaction from all ends of the political spectrum has been immediate and prolific with objections to the proposal being found from Senator Collins in today’s Washington Post,others in the Senate, and the US Chamber of Commerce.  Most concerns surrounding the proposed executive order track those raised by the Chamber (and, of course, this blog which raised them first - wink) in observing that the order is of dubious constitutionality and a relatively clear effort to circumvent politi cal challenges in getting Congress to pass the DISCLOSE ACT in the wake of Citizens United v. FEC:

The executive order would make every company that tries to contract with the federal government disclose spending that is confidential and used to fund core, First Amendment-protected political speech. Also troubling is the executive order’s reach beyond companies to their individual officers and directors, who would be forced by the executive order to disclose personal political spending undertaken with their own assets. This aspect of the order will both impair individuals’ First Amendment freedoms and interfere with the relationships between companies and their employees.

On the other hand, public interest groups such as Democracy21 rose in defense of the proposed order and against the Chamber’s efforts to stifle it.  Groups like Care2 have pointed out:

Its [sic] easy to see why the Chamber of Commerce would want to stop the order; it would effect a large number of their big business clients. Corporations often want to keep their political spending quiet, hoping to avoid the negative press and boycotts like the one Target was hit with after their donation to an openly anti-gay candidate was leaked to the public.

From a process standpoint, there is a delicious irony in the fact that the White House is currently unwilling to discuss publicly its internal discussions concerning the need for an Executive Order imposing political transparency on government contractors.  The nature of trial balloons in politics is that one does not want one’s fingerprints on something until one is willing to take ownership of it.  This political phenomenon resulted in the following exchange during a May 12 joint Oversight and Small Business Committee hearing on the proposed Order:

"Does it strike you at all as being ironic to invoke confidentiality and not answering questions when we're having a hearing about transparency?" – Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

"It does not, sir. I think there are discussions, even about transparency and developing rules about transparency that we need to be able to have quietly and behind closed doors." – Hon. Daniel Gordon, Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President

Let’s go to the videotape!

Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm

Robin Bush, Fined and Suspended by FINRA

 Robin Fran Bush (CRD #1994431, Registered Principal, Coral Springs, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which she was fined $15,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for six months. The fine must be paid either immediately upon Bush?s reassociation with a FINRA member firm following her [...]

Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm Attorney Search Firms general counsel recruiter

Aviation Recruitment: What Companies Must Know Before They Hire

A few years back, the aviation industry looked like it was in turmoil. Profits were dropping and it seemed impossible that all but the largest carriers would survive the phase. But, the upswing for the aviation industry has begun recently and as you may know most aviation companies are in the process of recruiting large [...]

general counsel recruiter Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter

Ambac & Others Agree to Pay $33M to Settle Fraud Allegations Surrounding Bond/Insurance Litigation

Ambac Financial Group Inc., as well as several of its banking underwriters and insurers, has agreed to pay a total of $33M in order to settle claims of investment fraud. According to investors who experienced significant financial loss, the parties involved hid risks from investors about the mortgage debt it guaranteed. The primary claimants in [...]

Legal Recruiting Firms Legal Search Firms Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm

Did You Experience Significant Losses with Morgan Keegan?

Morgan Keegan Fund Losses* Ticker Bond Fund 2007 2008 RMH RMK High Income Fund (-)58.0% (-)39.0% RHY RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund (-)60.6% (-)44.5% RMA RMK Advantage Income Fund (-)56.9% (-)39.1% RSF RMK Strategic Income Fund (-)58.1% (-)42.0% RHICX RMK Select High Income-C (-)59.9% (-)45.9% MKHIX RMK Select High Income-A (-)59.7% (-)46.1% RHIIX RMK Select [...]

Attorney Headhunters attorney placement Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting

Search Firms Know the Best Recruiting Techniques

In World War II, there was a need for Assessment Centers to identify those people among fresh recruits who were capable of handling critical jobs and heavy responsibilities. In today?s scenario, similar recruiting techniques are used by search firms to identify the best candidates for their clients? requirements. Just as finding the right people to [...]

Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters Legal Recruiting

Pay-to-Play Disclosure For Government Contractors - UPDATE Strong Reactions and a Not-Too Transparent White House

Our last post focused on the trial balloon being floated by the White House to impose corporate political disclosure obligations on government contractors.  At the time of that post, all we had was a White House press secretary description.  Subsequently, draft orders have been floating around the internet including here.

If I do say so myself, I thought our firm’s government contracts department provided a pretty comprehensive analysis of the issue for our clients in a recent client alert.

 Notably, that alert observed:

The proposed executive order would require every federal contracting department and agency to require all entities submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within two years of the submission date of the offer.  The disclosures would include all contributions to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or by any affiliates or subsidiaries.  Any contributions to third party entities (such as trade associations or industry groups) made with the expectation or intention that the parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications would have to be disclosed.  The FAR Council would be directed to adopt rules and regulations that would, among other things, require bidders to certify that the accuracy of the information disclosed as a condition of aw ard.

Reaction from all ends of the political spectrum has been immediate and prolific with objections to the proposal being found from Senator Collins in today’s Washington Post,others in the Senate, and the US Chamber of Commerce.  Most concerns surrounding the proposed executive order track those raised by the Chamber (and, of course, this blog which raised them first - wink) in observing that the order is of dubious constitutionality and a relatively clear effort to circumvent politi cal challenges in getting Congress to pass the DISCLOSE ACT in the wake of Citizens United v. FEC:

The executive order would make every company that tries to contract with the federal government disclose spending that is confidential and used to fund core, First Amendment-protected political speech. Also troubling is the executive order’s reach beyond companies to their individual officers and directors, who would be forced by the executive order to disclose personal political spending undertaken with their own assets. This aspect of the order will both impair individuals’ First Amendment freedoms and interfere with the relationships between companies and their employees.

On the other hand, public interest groups such as Democracy21 rose in defense of the proposed order and against the Chamber’s efforts to stifle it.  Groups like Care2 have pointed out:

Its [sic] easy to see why the Chamber of Commerce would want to stop the order; it would effect a large number of their big business clients. Corporations often want to keep their political spending quiet, hoping to avoid the negative press and boycotts like the one Target was hit with after their donation to an openly anti-gay candidate was leaked to the public.

From a process standpoint, there is a delicious irony in the fact that the White House is currently unwilling to discuss publicly its internal discussions concerning the need for an Executive Order imposing political transparency on government contractors.  The nature of trial balloons in politics is that one does not want one’s fingerprints on something until one is willing to take ownership of it.  This political phenomenon resulted in the following exchange during a May 12 joint Oversight and Small Business Committee hearing on the proposed Order:

"Does it strike you at all as being ironic to invoke confidentiality and not answering questions when we're having a hearing about transparency?" – Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

"It does not, sir. I think there are discussions, even about transparency and developing rules about transparency that we need to be able to have quietly and behind closed doors." – Hon. Daniel Gordon, Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President

Let’s go to the videotape!

Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters

Search Firms Know the Best Recruiting Techniques

In World War II, there was a need for Assessment Centers to identify those people among fresh recruits who were capable of handling critical jobs and heavy responsibilities. In today?s scenario, similar recruiting techniques are used by search firms to identify the best candidates for their clients? requirements. Just as finding the right people to [...]

Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter Legal Recruiters

Turning the Corner on the Big Roller Coaster Ride of BigLaw

Attorney Placement Firm attorney recruiter Attorney Recruiting Attorney Recruiting Firms attorney search firm

Can Investment Advisors, Private Fund Managers, and their Employees Contribute to Governor Perry?

Last February, we posted an entry flagging potential concerns arising from the SEC’s new pay-to-play rules for investment advisors as applied to presidential candidates. Admittedly, at the time we were talking about Governors Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels, but the same holds true now for Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Compliance Building blog (Presidential Campaign Season and the SEC’s Pay-to-Play Rule) has just posted an excellent analysis of the issue. I highly recommend you check it out. As the blog notes:

 

“Registered Investment Advisors, private fund managers getting ready to register with Securities and Exchange Commission, and their employees need to be very cautious about making contributions to Governor Perry if they have a Texas state sponsored fund as a client or investor, or hope to have one as a client or investor in the next two years.”     

 

Transparency Alert: the author is campaign counsel to several federal candidates including former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Lawyer Headhunters Lawyer Recruiter Lawyer Search Firms legal headhunter legal recruiter