Elad L. Roisman is suddenly leaving the SEC Commission after the DoJ starts investigating. Here’s why that’s curious

by Longjumping_College

Prior to joining the SEC, he held positions as a Chief Counsel at NYSE Euronext and as an associate at the law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP in New York.


Milbank, ‘Not a Wall Street Firm Anymore,’ Takes New Name


Then, on Sept. 17, Milbank learned it had beaten out at least two competitors to be selected as counsel to the unsecured creditors committee in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. In a flash, 30 lawyers were put onto the assignment—a number that’s likely to double. “It’s crazy busy now,” Immergut says.


In addition, a Wall Street law firm, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, is being drawn into the battle. Milbank has been hired, at more than $1 million a month, to represent the creditors committee in its negotiations with Enron.


The firm’s present name dates from 1962.[1] For decades, the firm’s biggest clients were the Rockefeller family and the Chase Manhattan Bank.


The firm was responsible for the legal work on the building of Rockefeller Center, and its offices can still be found in the One Chase Manhattan Plaza building, renamed 28 Liberty in 2015.[2] After World War II the firm advised new commercial and industrial developments.[1] Milbank created hedge funds and other investment vehicles for financial clients in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and capitalized on the growth of international business, finance, and technology transactions in the 1990s.


On Monday, E*Trade announced that it had hired Goldman Sachs to advise a newly created special committee of three independent directors tasked with evaluating the company’s strategic options–including a possible sale of the company–in response to Citadel’s demands. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy global litigation practice leader Alan Stone is advising the special committee, according to a lawyer involved in the matter.


This is also a PDF of meeting notes from their

As a law firm representing a number of clients actively involved in markets for swaps and securities-based swaps, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on selected issues raise by the proposed rules issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC,” and, together with the CFTC, the “Commissions”) that define key terms used and exemptions provided for in Title VII ofthe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

Non-U.S. Governments and their Agencies Should be Excluded or Exempted.

The Commissions’ final rules should exempt or exclude non-U.S. governments and their agencies from the definition of “swap dealer” and “major swap participant.” Many such entities enter into interest-rate, currency and credit default swaps to manage their currency reserves and domestic mortgage and related securities portfolios. Agencies potentially affected include central banks, treasury ministries, export agencies and housing finance authorities. The volume of such transactions is substantial and may well exceed the levels proposed in the Commissions’ definition of “major swap participant.”

We do not believe that Congress intended the requirements of Title VII to apply to these entities, many of which are active participants in the swaps markets for legitimate governmental purposes. To require non-U.S. agencies to register with the Commissions as swap dealers and major swap participants would produce an incongruous result and would represent both an unwarranted extraterritorial application of U.S. law and an unacceptable intrusion on the sovereignty of foreign nations.

While it may be unlikely that any non-U.S. government or any of its agencies would meet the definition of swap dealer, they are unquestionably significant participants in the swap markets. Under the proposed rules, they could face the prospect of registration with the Commissions, reporting sensitive financial data to a foreign, !.~. U.S., government regulatory authority, and business conduct rules designed for commercial entities.

Edit: What the fuck! Google says Susquehanna is owned by Milbank.

Susq Explained here


Susquehanna owns E-toro BTW


Milbank LLP acted as legal advisor to Goldman Sachs Lending Partners LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc.

So these guys advise the Govt and the banks and Wall Street at the same time.


Milbank Represents Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Barclays Bank PLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Jefferies Finance LLC in connection with $765 Million Senior Secured Facilities for the Acquisition of CHG Healthcare Services, Inc


Milbank Represents Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley in WisdomTree SEC Registered IPO

WisdomTree Represents $47.5B in 74 ETFs now


Doesn’t the huge $ “first-lien bond purchase” = predatory lending? So these guys help the whole thing run from the legal side and have a guy on the inside of the SEC to facilitate and cover their shit?

Has anyone read this book by chance?


Looks like this firm is involved in questionable practices and predatory lending/vulture investing

We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!

Article (paywall): www.nytimes.com/1997/02/28/business/milbank-tweed-is-accused-of-a-conflict.html


Another case public traded company ($MCPIQ) gets loans, 1 year later goes bankrupt and Oaktree scoops up the remains with Milbank.

On September 11, 2014, Molycorp, Inc. entered into a Credit Agreement (together with all other agreements, documents and instruments executed in connection therewith, as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified to date, the “Oaktree Parent Facility”) with Oaktree.  The Oaktree Parent Facility provided for, among other things, a term loan facility in an amount of up to $185.0 million, $50.167 million of which was advanced at the initial funding, and $134.833 million was subject to a delayed draw to be advanced upon the satisfaction of, among others, certain operational and financial conditions.  As of the Petition Date, the Debtors had not satisfied the conditions required to draw on the remaining $134.833 million of the Oaktree Parent Facility.  As of the Petition Date, there was approximately $52 million in aggregate principal amount of indebtedness (including $1.92 million in payable in kind interest) and including outstanding under the Oaktree Parent Facility.

The interest rates applicable to the loans under the Oaktree Prepetition Facilities are currently 7.00% per annum payable in cash and 5.00% per annum payable in kind, and will remain so until June 14, 2016.  After June 14, 2016, the interest rate converts to 12.00% per annum payable in cash unless certain conditions are satisfied.(29)  During the continuance of an event of default, the loans under the Oaktree Prepetition Facilities bear interest at an additional 2% per annum.  The Oaktree Prepetition Facilities mature on September 11, 2019, with the potential for earlier springing maturity dates if the outstanding amounts under the 2016 Notes, the 2017 Notes and the 2018 Notes (each as defined below) are not reduced below certain specified dollar thresholds at specified points in time beginning in 2016.  The Oaktree Prepetition Facilities also provide that the Debtors shall not make certain prepayments of the loans prior to the fourth anniversary of the closing date and contain early payment premiums on any prepayment, repayment, payment, satisfaction (whether in whole or part), distribution, discharge…


NEW YORK, April 1, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Capping its latest major bankruptcy assignment, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP has represented private equity investor Oaktree Capital Management LP in the successful chapter 11 reorganization of global metals and mining company Molycorp, Inc.

Molycorp’s plan of reorganization was confirmed on March 30, following a two-day hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Under terms of the plan, secured lender Oaktree, which previously provided debtor-in-possession financing to Molycorp, was granted a 92.5% equity stake in the reorganized company, comprised of surviving “neo” rare earth processing entities and related businesses.


Here’s another one to help HSBC shut down a cable competitor.

We have acted as counsel to RCN Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), in connection with the preparation and filing by the Company and all of its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the “Guarantors”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) of a registration statement on Form S-1, No. 333-126885 (including all amendments thereto, the “Registration Statement”), for the purpose of registering under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”) (i) the resale by the noteholders named in the prospectus contained in the Registration Statement (the “Prospectus”) of up to $125,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Convertible Second Lien Notes of the Company due 2012 (the “Notes”), issued under an indenture dated as of December 31, 2004 (the “Indenture”) between the Company and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”), the payment of which Notes is guaranteed by the Guarantors pursuant to the Subsidiaries Guaranty, dated as of December 21, 2004 (the “Subsidiaries Guaranty”) in favor of HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as collateral agent (the “Collateral Agent”); (ii) the resale by the holders named in the Prospectus of up to 4,968,204 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”) into which the Notes are convertible (the “Conversion Shares”) and (iii) the resale by certain affiliated stockholders named in the Prospectus of up to 7,048,205 shares of Common Stock (the “Affiliated Stockholder Shares”).

NEW YORK — RCN Corp. , which is trying to compete against cable companies by laying its own fiber network, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as part of a restructuring agreement with its creditors.

The company expects the plan to reduce its debt to $480 million from $1.7 billion by giving RCN’s bondholders most of the equity in the company.


The law firm he worked at represent literally every shit bank there is and some funds, they were involved in sketchy parts of Dodd-Frank allowing foreign entities to not report, they assist banks and funds in predatory lending/ vulture investing, they were involved in Enron, Lehman Brothers, represent the Rockefellers, Citadel owned 10% of ETrade and forced a sell and they showed up to represent Goldman Sachs, bankrupted a mining company in California that does rare minerals MCPIQ with Oaktree, killed a cable competitor with HSBC in 2004 and have some super questionable practices.

He goes to the SEC and starts cock blocking regulation on shit they influenced when it was made. As seen recently.

“Perhaps the absence of these rules is attributable to the regrettable decision to spend our scarce resources to undo a number of rules the Commission just adopted.”

Indeed, the agenda contains several proposals to revise rules adopted less than a year ago, including rules reigning in companies that provide advice on how institutional shareholders should vote on shareholder proposals, a rule mandated by the Dodd-Frank legislation that resource-extraction firms disclose payments made to foreign governments in countries where they operate and a rule that limited payments to whistleblowers that alert the SEC of wrongdoing at private companies.

The two complained that revisiting recently adopted rules creates uncertainty for the private sector around how long a controversial rule will remain on the books, which they said will stifle economic activity.


The Dodd-Frank thing, they are protecting these people from reporting what they are doing.

Many such entities enter into interest-rate, currency and credit default swaps to manage their currency reserves and domestic mortgage and related securities portfolios. Agencies potentially affected include central banks, treasury ministries, export agencies and housing finance authorities. The volume of such transactions is substantial and may well exceed the levels proposed in the Commissions’ definition of “major swap participant.”

Part 2: Hester Peirce, the other dissenting Commissioner her former law firm has had a retainer from Citadel, helped BNY Mellon out of a predatory dark pool situation and Goldman Sachs on the Malaysian bribery scandal on top of lobbying and attacking Dodd-Frank…. that she helped write.


Disclaimer: This is a guest post and it doesn’t necessarily represent the views of IWB.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.