Brad H. Hamilton

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Business & Corporate Attorney in Denver, CO

Jones & Keller, P.C.
 | 1999 Broadway, Suite 3150
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-573-1600
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2017
Licensed Since: 1983
Practice Areas:
  • Business/Corporate (30%),
  • Securities & Corporate Finance (30%),
  • Energy & Natural Resources (20%),
  • International (20%)
Attorney Profile

Brad H. Hamilton is the president of Jones & Keller, located in Denver, Colorado. Focusing his practice primarily on business and corporate law, he represents a diverse client base in areas relating to mergers and acquisitions, public and private debt and equity offerings, venture capital, business formation, and trademarks, and other intellectual property matters. Mr. Hamilton also has extensive experience in entertainment law, where he advises both artists and companies on production, financing, promotion and licensing agreements. His sports law background includes the representation of the purchasers of a Major League Baseball expansion team, where he assisted in coordinating the transaction with government agencies and other groups. Mr. Hamilton's technology practice includes software licensing, e-commerce, streaming media, and telecommunications service agreements.

In 1979, Mr. Hamilton received a Bachelor of Arts in journalism from the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications at The University of Kansas. Remaining in Lawrence, he enrolled at The University of Kansas School of Law and was awarded his Juris Doctor in 1983. While in law school, he served on its Moot Court Council.

After graduation, Mr. Hamilton served as general counsel to a variety of private companies, including a mining firm, before joining Jones & Keller in 2004. He has represented clients in transactions with governmental and private entities in China, Hong Kong, Australia, Switzerland and South Africa, among other countries. He is admitted to practice in Colorado and before the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and he holds an AV Preeminent* peer review rating through Martindale-Hubbell as well as a "Superb" peer review rating through Avvo. Mr. Hamilton remains active in a variety of professional organizations, including the Colorado and Denver bar associations, and he is frequently asked to deliver presentations before legal and business groups.

*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™ fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards.

 
Practice Areas
Lawyer Practice Area Pie Chart

Business/Corporate (30%): Business Formation and Planning, Limited Liability Companies, Partnership, Sub-chapter S Corporations, Contracts, Business Organizations

Securities & Corporate Finance (30%): Securities Law

Energy & Natural Resources (20%): Energy Law, Natural Resources Law

International (20%)

Focus Areas

Business/Corporate: Business Formation and Planning, Limited Liability Companies, Partnership, Sub-chapter S Corporations, Contracts, Business Organizations

Securities & Corporate Finance: Securities Law

Energy & Natural Resources: Energy Law, Natural Resources Law

Selections

Selected to Super Lawyers for 1 yearsbottom-image

Super Lawyers: 2017

Email Me

To: Brad H. Hamilton
Super Lawyers: Potential Client Inquiry

About Brad Hamilton

Admitted: 1983, Colorado

Professional Webpage: http://www.joneskeller.com/attorneys/brad-hamilton

Honors and Awards:

  • TOP RATED LAWYER in Banking and Finance, Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Ratings, 2014
  • Best Sports Lawyer, Law Week Colorado, 2010
  • AV Preeminent, Martindale-Hubbell
  • Barrister's Choice: Best Corporate Attorney, Law Week Colorado - Barrister's Best 2015
  • Best Corporate Law Lawyer, Law Week Colorado Barrister's Best 2016

Bar/Professional Activity:

  • Treasurer, Colorado Bar Association Technology Law & Policy Section, Colorado Bar Association, 2007
  • The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
  • Canadian Bar Association
  • Denver Bar Association
  • Colorado Bar Association
  • American Bar Association
  • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
  • Colorado, 1983

Pro bono/Community Service:

  • Since 2012, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Dolls for Daughters and Kenzi's Kidz, a Denver, Colorado based charity that conducts an annual holiday toy Driver for Colorado children who would not otherwise have toys during the holidays, and that provides finanical benefits to low-income families who pro-actively take the necessary steps to create a stable environment for their children. http://www.dollsfordaughters.com/, 2014
  • Colorado Lawyers for the Arts, pro bono work for arts organizations and artists in Colorado, 2011
  • American Association of Snowboard Instructors
  • Professional Ski Instructors of America
  • Chairman of the Board - Dolls for Daughters and Kenzi's Kidz, 2010 - 2016
  • Pro bono intellectual property work for charity - Dolls for Daughters and Kenzi's Kidz, Denver Colorado, since 2010.

Scholarly Lectures and Writings:

  • Lecturer, Recreational Marijuana: Banking, Tax & Other Business Challenges, CLE International, Colorado Law Institute, 2016
  • Lecturer, LEGAL AND BUSINESS CYBER SECURITY RISK PROFILES, Denver Business Journal Business Panel Series, 2015
  • Lecture, Capital Formation - Recent Developments - Federal Securities Law; JOBS Act Background, Overview and Update, Colorado Business Law Institute, Colorado Bar Association - CLE In Colorado, Inc., 2013
  • Faculty, Colorado Business Law Institute, Colorado Bar Association - CLE In Colorado, Inc., 2013
  • Faculty, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act - JOBS Act Overview and Update, Crowe Horwath, P.C. 23rd Annual SEC Conference, 2013
  • Speaker, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, Colorado Finanical Service Corp National Education Conference, 2013
  • Faculty, High Level Agreements, Lorman Education, Contract Negotiations and Preparation in the Oil and Gas Industry, 2012
  • Speaker, 2011 Update on the SEC Whistleblower Program, GHP Horwath 21st Annual SEC Reporting Conference, Accountants And Auditors, 2011
  • Speaker, Avoiding Land Mines on the Road to Success; Review of Federal & State Security Laws and legal aspects of Real Estate Investments, Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors, Real Estate, 2010
  • Faculty, Introduction to the Law of Computer Networks, Colorado Bar Association, 2005
  • Faculty, Overview of the Underlying Technology, Colorado Bar Association, 2005
  • Author, "Securities Offering Reform 2005", Denver Business Journal, (2005), Author, Securities Offering Reform 2005, Denver Business Journal, 2005
  • Editor, Colorado Bar Association Technology Law & Policy Section Monthly Newsletter, Editor, CBA Technology Law & Policy Section, Colorado Bar Association, Technology, 2005
  • Web Site and Information Security: Policies and Procedures to Protect Your Business From Liability, 2004
  • "Digital Rights Management", Colorado Bar Association Technology Law and Policy Section continuing legal education presentation (2004), Faculty, Digital Rights Management, Colorado Bar Association, 2004
  • Editor, Colorado Bar Association Technology Law & Policy Section Monthly Newsletter, Editor, CBA Technology Law & Policy Section, Colorado Bar Association 2005 - 2007

Transactions:

  • Represented an industrial food processing company in establishing multiple food processing joint ventures in Russia and negotiated and closed IFC/World Bank financing.
  • Represented a European venture capital fund group in international investments in excess of $300,000,000.
  • Issuer's counsel for initial public offerings in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
  • General counsel to a start-up news, sports and entertainment television production and streaming media company, negotiating, drafting and implementing agreements for studio architecture, design and construction, studio and mobile production, content licensing and distribution, and negotiated and managed production and broadcast agreements with one of America's most revered song and screen icon's, a boxing gold medallist and super welter-weight world champion, two members of an NBA championship basketball team, Major League Soccer, the Democratic National Committee and the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.
  • Represented the buyers of a Major League Baseball Club expansion team, coordinating negotiations among diverse ownership groups, community leaders, government and baseball officials, and hostile financiers. Represented the owners in financing, establishing and organizing the club, serving as its Secretary.
  • Established the first Russian-Mongolian-United States joint venture, and authored the Dornod Joint Venture Agreement, which served as the template for the first Minerals Law of Mongolia.
  • Issuer's counsel for the documentation and implementation of a unique, patented, 'AAA' rated certificate of deposit asset securitization.
  • Owner's counsel for the engineering, design, procurement and construction of a $2.5 billion copper and gold mining project in remote northern-Asia.
  • Represented a U.S.-based public international oil and gas producer in a $500 million auctioned tender offer and resulting cash merger with an Australian oil and gas company.

Newsletters:

  • COLORADO SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS LUCHT'S CONCRETE - NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS (PARTLY) SAFE AGAIN - June 3, 2011  The Colorado Supreme Court has reversed a lower court ruling in Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, and reinstated the status quo business practice of having eligible employees sign non-compete agreements without paying additional consideration. The Supreme Court ruled that not being fired is sufficient consideration to support a non-compete agreement, holding that ""Because an employer may terminate an at-will employee at any time during the employment relationship as a matter of right, its forbearance from terminating that employee is the forbearance of a legal right. As such, we find that such forbearance constitutes adequate consideration to support a noncompetition agreement with an existing at-will employee." Non-Compete agreements in Colorado must still satisfy both the requirements of C.R.S. § 8-2-113, which makes non-compete agreements void except (a) in connection with the sale of a business, (b) to preserve trade secrets, (c) to recover expenses of educating the employee, and (d) as applicable to executives, management, officers and their professional staff; and must still be reasonable in both duration and geographic area., CO Supreme Court Overturns Lucht's Concrete - Non-Compete Agreements (Partly) Safe Again
  • The Colorado Crowdfunding Act – The Online Intermediary (Part 2 of 2)May 15, 2015 – On April 13, 2015 Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado signed the Colorado Crowdfunding Act. The Crowdfunding Act becomes law on August 5, 2015, and on May 7, 2015 Colorado Securities Commissioner Gerald Rome said that he anticipates the regulations will be final by that date so that Colorado businesses will be able to raise money in a crowdfunded offering beginning August 5, 2015. Under the Crowdfunding Act, offers can be made solely in Colorado, under the federal intrastate offering exemption. This means that the offers may be made only to Colorado residents, and only Colorado residents may invest. In addition, the offering must comply with the federal intrastate exemption, which means, among other things, ownership of the stock must not leave Colorado for 9-months after it is purchased. I discussed the requirements for crowdfund offerings in Part 1 of this article; this Part 2 discusses the role and requirements for “intermediaries” who provide the Internet website for offerings., THE COLORADO CROWDFUNDING ACT - THE ONLINE INTERMEDIARY (part 2) (part 1), Finance, Securities
  • The Colorado Crowdfunding Act – The Issuer (Part 1 of 2)  May 5, 2015 – On April 13, 2015 Governor Hickenlooper signed the Colorado Crowdfunding Act into law. The Crowdfunding Act becomes law 90 days after the current legislative session adjourns (around August 5, 2015). However, raising money under the Act will not be allowed until the Colorado Securities Commissioner adopts crowdfunding regulations, so there is not yet any crowdfunding in Colorado. When the regulations are adopted, Colorado businesses will be able to raise money in a crowdfunded offering solely in Colorado, under the federal intrastate offering exemption., THE COLORADO CROWDFUNDING ACT - THE ISSUER (part 1), Finance, Securities
  • Shell Games: Going Public Through Reverse Merger and Lying to the SEC  Denver CO, April 22, 2015 – Last week the SEC charged 10 people with fraud for lying to the SEC about the shell or “blank-check” status of registered companies bound for reverse mergers. The SEC announced the charges in a press release on April 16, 2015, stating it brought fraud charges “against 10 individuals involved in a scheme to offer and sell penny stock in undisclosed “blank check” companies bound for reverse mergers while misrepresenting to the public that they were promising startups with business plans. Blank check companies generally have no operations and no value other than their status as a registered entity, which makes them attractive targets for unscrupulous individuals seeking reverse mergers with clean shells ripe for pump-and-dump schemes.” According to the SEC, the group created undisclosed blank check companies, installed figurehead officers, falsely claimed in registration statements and other SEC filings that the companies were pursuing real business ventures, and concealed from the public that the sole purpose of the companies was entering into reverse mergers so they could profit from the sales., SHELL GAMES: GOING PUBLIC THROUGH REVERSE MERGER AND LAYING TO THE SEC, Finance, Securities
  • DOES RECENT DELAWARE CASE PUT FINAL NAIL IN COFFIN OF “ZONE OF INSOLVENCY” CLAIMS? February 19, 2015  In Quadrant Structured Products v. Vertin et al, the Delaware Court of Chancery held in an opinion issued October 1, 2014, and again confirmed in relevant part on October 28, 2014, that lenders do not have direct claims against directors of a company for breach of fiduciary duty, and the directors do not owe fiduciary duties to the company’s lenders, but if a company is in the zone of insolvency, lenders do have the right to bring a derivative claim, just as a shareholder would under normal circumstances., DOES RECENT DELAWARE CASE PUT FINAL NAIL IN COFFIN OF "ZONE OF INSOLVENCY" CLAIMS?
  • THE SEC ALLOWS CANNABIS COMPANY TO REGISTER ITS SHARES - Jan. 29, 2015 The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has allowed a marijuana company to register its shares. Terra Tech Corp of Irvine, California is a Nevada corporation that primarily manufactures and sells hydroponic agriculture equipment and supplies.In November 2014 Terra Tech filed a registration statement for the resale of stock owned by one of its investors. The Wall Street Journal LawBlog reports that the SEC recently allowed the registration statement to go effective without action, which means it becomes effective 20-days after the SEC approves the disclosures in the registration statement. Typically, an issuer will request, and the SEC will grant, acceleration of the effective date to allow the issuer to immediately sell its shares. The SEC refused to grant Terra Tech’s request for acceleration. The article at the WSJLawBlog includes a good discussion of the significance to issuers of not receiving accelerated effectiveness – it makes it difficult if not impossible to do an underwritten public offering. However, that was not an issue in this case because Terra Tech was registering for resale stock acquired earlier by an institutional investor, Dominion Capital LLC, who purchased convertible notes and warrants from Terra Tech. Under the terms of the notes and warrant, Dominion had a right to require that stock be registered for resale in the future (registration rights). Therefore, Terra Tech was not registering its own stock for sale, and will not directly receive any of the proceeds from the sale of the registered stock for use in the marijuana business. It will be interesting to see whether the SEC allows a registration statement for direct sale to the public by a marijuana company., SEC ALLOWS CANNABIS COMPANY TO REGISTER SHARES, Finance, Securities
  • Delaware Court Invalidates Common Merger Agreement TermsIn Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company v. Audax Health Solutions, Inc.[1], the Delaware Court of Chancery invalidated (1) the buyer’s post-closing requirement of releases from the selling stockholders, that were not specifically set out in the merger agreement, and (2) indemnifications or “clawbacks” from the merger target’s stockholders that were not limited by time or amount.   The ruling in Cigna v. Audax effectively eliminates, at least in Delaware, a “work-around” often used by some lawyers to implement an acquisition of a private company by merger, but with terms typically found in a stock purchase. Invalidation of Unlimited Indemnification   The Optum merger agreement included the typically extensive representations and warranties discussed above, and extensive indemnification obligations from the stockholders. Some of the representations and warranties survived for 18-months, and some for 36-months, but a substantial portion had no time limit, surviving forever. Moreover, there was no “cap” or limit on the amount the stockholders would have to pay if any of the surviving representations or warranties turned out someday to be untrue. Cigna argued, and the court ruled, that the unlimited indemnification violated Delaware merger law, which requires that shareholders be able to determine the value of the merger consideration before approving the merger.Invalidation of Stockholder Releases The merger agreement between Audax and Optum did not mention stockholder releases. Instead, it required a Transmittal Letter “in form and substance reasonably acceptable to Buyer,” including, “among other things,” indemnification. Cigna argued, and the court agreed, that the merger had already occurred when Audax sent the Transmittal Letter, Cigna had the right to receive its money, and there was no consideration for requiring releases not included in the merger agreement.[1] http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=215350, Delaware Court Invalidates Common Private Merger Agreement Terms, Mergers And Acquisitions
  • A Massachusetts appellate court recently pierced the liability veil of a single-member limited liability company because of its failure to keep “corporate records.” In Kosanovich v. 80 Worcester Street Associates, LLC, No. 201201 CV 001748, 2014 WL 2565959 (Mass. App. Div. May 28, 2014) the Massachusetts Appellate Division, pierced the limited liability veil of a single-member LLC based on only one factor: the LLC’s failure to maintain business records.Shareholders and other equity owners of corporations, as a general rule, will not be personally liable for the debts and other liabilities of the corporation. This is commonly called the “corporate veil,” or the “liability veil.” However, under certain circumstance the courts may “pierce the corporate veil” to hold one or more shareholders (corporation), members (LLC) or limited partners personally liable for the debts of the company or partnership. A Colorado court could reach the same result as Kosanovich; these cases serve as a valuable reminder that the relatively simple requirement of keeping separate company books and records, have annual meetings (at least on paper), and observing basic corporate and governance formalities, remains important to preserving the limited liability that business owners expect when they chose the corporate or LLC form to do business., RECENT COURT DECISION A REMINDER OF IMPORTANCE OF COMPANY RECORDS
  • PUBLIC ADVERTISING OF “PRIVATE PLACEMENTS” – A BRAVE NEW (RISKY) WORLDSection 201(a) of The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, (the “JOBS Act”)(April 5, 2012) directed the SEC to issue rules allowing “general solicitation” in connection with a private placement. Earlier this year the SEC issued new Rule 506(c), which went into effect on September 23, 2013 and provides a new “safe harbor” exemption from registration for securities offerings marketed using general advertising if: all investors are “accredited investors” at the time of investment, and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that each purchaser is an accredited investor., PUBLIC ADVERTISING OF “PRIVATE PLACEMENTS” – A BRAVE NEW (RISKY) WORLD
  • SEC Says Public Companies Can Use Facebook, Twitter for News, If Investors InformedThe Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that companies can use social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to make news announcement in compliance with Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), if investors have previously been told which social media the company will be using, and who’s feed to monitor. Regulation FD requires companies to distribute important news in a manner designed to get that information out to the general public, so that all investors have the ability to get important news at the same time. The SEC confirmed that social media can meet that requirement, if certain conditions are met., SEC Says Public Companies Can Use Facebook, Twitter for News, If Investors Informed
  • Harvard Law School’s Shareholder Rights MistakeThe Shareholder Rights Project is actively seeking to eliminate staggered or classified boards in favor of boards that are up for re-election and replacement annually. The arguments pro and con are not as simple as frequently represented. Classified boards make hostile takeovers more difficult, and promote board continuity, but can entrench boards and make them less responsive to shareholders, and the Harvard professors running the Shareholder Rights Project argue that they reduce the value received by shareholders in hostile takeovers., Harvard Law School’s Shareholder Rights Mistake
  • Anti-Assignment Clauses; Are LLC Operating Agreements Different From Other Contracts?In a little noticed case reported on December 19, 2011, Condo v. Conners, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision on a common contract drafting problem – the effect of an anti-assignment clause.In Condo v. Conners, three people formed a Colorado limited liability company and signed an operating agreement that said “a member shall not sell, assign, pledge or otherwise transfer any portion of its interest in [the Company] without the prior written approval of all of the Members”. One of the members got a divorce, and as part of the divorce settlement he tried to assign his membership interest to his wife. The other two members did not consent, so he assigned his wife only the right to receive distributions, and also agreed to follow her instructions when voting his membership interest. When he later sold his membership interest to his partners, his ex-wife sued to void the sale and enforce the earlier assignment to her.Looking to Delaware case law, In re Seneca Invs. LLC, 970 A.2d 259 (Del. Ch. 2008), the Supreme Court held that operating agreements are contracts and shall be interpreted under prevailing contract law., Anti-Assignment Clauses; Are LLC Operating Agreements Different From Other Contracts?
  • Beginning September 7, 2011 trademark owners will have six weeks to block their trademarks from .XXX registration.  Contact your domain registrar to initiate this process.Later this year, anyone will be able to register domain names with the new .xxx gTLD (generic top level domain).  But beginning September 7, 2011 through October 28, 2011 trademark owners will have the right to block their trademarks from .xxx registration.  By paying a $225 fee to a registrar, a trademark owner can have the .xxx domain associated with its trademark removed from the pool of domain names available for registration for ten years and the WHOIS information will list standard registry information.  Persons who visit the blocked .xxx domain will see an informational page indicating the status of the domain name as not available for registration.  Providing an informational page for the blocked domain should prevent “synthetic DNS” or non-DNS resolution systems from hi-jacking queries to these domain names. Businesses with valuable brands and trademarks, those who rely on Internet searches utilizing their name to direct users to their websites, e-commerce and Internet based businesses, religious, non-profit and political organizations, should consider blocking their trademarks from .xxx registration.  Adult Internet businesses have some of the highest usage and highest search engine rankings on the Internet.  This means that businesses and organizations who rely on the Internet and search engine optimization to acquire customers and promote their brands could shortly find that their homepage is ranked with or below a corresponding .xxx website on searches for their name.  For example, www.”mybusiness”.xxx could eventually be a first page search result or even a higher ranking search result for the term “my business” than your primary www.”mybusiness”.com home page.  Blocking .xxx registration will prevent this possibility., How to Protect Your Trademarks and Domains From the New .XXX
  • What it Means to Be a "Deal Lawyer"  "Deal Lawyers", otherwise known as a "transactional lawyer", a "mergers and acquisitions lawyer" or a "business lawyer", are the lawyers who help their clients put together mergers, acquisitions, financing, buy-outs, and similar company or business changing events. For some clients, this is a once or twice in a lifetime event. Other clients do these deals every year, or more often. These deals can be stressful and difficult, or relatively easy, depending on the experience, sophistication, personalities and goals of the parties involved., What it Means to be a "Deal Lawyer", Corporate Finance, Mergers And Acquisitions
  • Two Colorado cases restrict and add clarity to the interpretation and enforceability of non-compete agreements in Colorado., Does Your Business Use Non-Compete Agreements? Non-Competes in Colorado Take Another Hit.
  • The SEC Opens Its Toolbox: Non-Prosecution and Deferred Prosecution Agreements Last year the SEC announced it was adopting new procedures to encourage greater cooperation in its enforcement investigations, including the use of cooperation agreements, non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements. Non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements are typically used in criminal proceedings to encourage cooperation by important witnesses and provide fair and specific treatment of cooperating witnesses. In the last few months, the SEC has begun using its new tools to encourage greater cooperation from companies. The SEC entered its first non-prosecution agreement in December 2010 with Carter’s Inc. In the Carter’s case the EVP of Sales, Joe Elles, allegedly gave substantial discounts to the company’s largest customer and hid them from the company. Because the company didn’t know, it did not recognize the discounts until later reporting periods, which caused the company’s results for the quarters in which the discounts were given to be artificially inflated. The SEC brought an action against Elles, but entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Carter’s. The SEC identified the following factors as relevant to its decision not to bring an action against Carter’s: (1) the “relatively isolated nature” of the unlawful conduct; (2) the company’s “prompt and complete” self-reporting of the misconduct to the SEC; and (3) the company’s “exemplary and extensive” cooperation in the inquiry, including a “thorough and comprehensive” internal investigation. The SEC did not require Carter’s to waive its attorney-client privilege. The SEC recently announced its first use of a deferred prosecution agreement, with Tenaris S.A., a manufacturer of steel pipe products from Luxemburg, listed on the New York Stock Exchange. A world-wide internal investigation conducted by Tenaris’ outside counsel revealed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in Uzbekistan, where Tenaris allegedly bribed Uzbek officials and made $5 million in profits from pipeline contracts. The company self-reported to the SEC and the Department of Justice, cooperated with the government, and made extensive efforts at correcting the violations. The SEC said that Tenaris was an appropriate candidate for the first deferred prosecution agreement because of its “immediate self-reporting, thorough internal investigation, full cooperation with SEC staff, enhanced anti-corruption procedures, and enhanced training.” Under the deferred prosecution agreement, the SEC will not bring civil charges against Tenaris unless the SEC determines that the company has not complied with its obligations under the agreement. Although Tenaris shared the results of its internal investigation with the government, the agreement does not require it to waive the attorney-client privilege. Tenaris agreed to pay $5.4 million in disgorgement and interest. By eliminating the Hobson’s choice of either cooperating and not knowing what will happen, or not cooperating and not knowing what will happen, the certainty provided by deferment and non-prosecution agreements will allow lawyers to better advise their clients on the consequences of self-reporting and corrective actions, and should make it easier for the SEC to secure cooperation from companies and individuals on a fair and reasonable basis., The SEC Opens Its Toolbox: Non-Prosecution and Deferred Prosecution Agreements, Securities
  • Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act requires extensive studies by the SEC, the GAO, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to implement regulations respecting accredited investors, short selling and swaps, investment advisors, Sarbanes-Oxley and aiding and abetting violations of securities laws., Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act: Prologue to Financial Reform, Finance And Securities
  • The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has changed the definition of "accredited investor" to provide that the total net worth of individual investors now excludes the value of that person's primary residence. This change is very important for businesses wishing to raise money through private placements of securities., Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Changes Definition of "Accredited Investor", Finance And Securities
  • The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provides new loan programs and extends existing loan programs under the Small Business Administration (SBA). The ARC loan program has been extended and the size of some SBA loans have been increased for small businesses. Borrowing and lending under the program are intended to allow small business to hire more people, create jobs and help retire debt to stimulate capital investment., The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 - Loan Benefits to Small Businesses, Small Business
  • The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provides many tax benefits and incentives for small business. These include a health insurance deduction, the suspension of capital gains tax on certain small business stock, cell phone and telecommunications expense deduction, an increased deduction for start-up expense, and relief from tax on "built-in gain" when a C corporation converts to an S corporation., The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 - Tax Changes and Incentives to Small Businesses, Small Business
  • What does a "sports lawyer" do? A "sports lawyer" is a business lawyer who has clients in the business of sports and entertainment; and except for the application of certain unique league or organization rules, the business of sports is not a lot different from other business., What is a Sports Lawyer, Sports And Entertainment

Educational Background:

  • University of Kansas, William Allen White School of Mass Communications & Journalism, B.S. Journalism, 1979

Industry Groups

  • Banking
  • Broker-dealers
  • Communications
  • Construction
  • Finance
  • Investment Banking
  • Mining
  • Natural Resources
  • Oil & Gas
  • Sports & Entertainment
  • Technology
  • Office Location for Brad H. Hamilton

    1999 Broadway
    Suite 3150
    Denver, CO 80202

    Phone: 303-573-1600

     

    Brad H. Hamilton:

    Last Updated: 3/17/2017

    Page Generated: 0.44626092910767 sec