Company Overview of Davenport & Company LLC
Davenport & Company LLC operates as a stock brokerage firm. The company focuses on offering a range of investment services, including comprehensive stock and bond brokerage, investment management, research, financial planning, insurance, public finance, and corporate finance services. Its services include asset and cash management, financial planning, fixed income, insurance services, mutual funds and annuities, research, retirement plans, and wealth care; and corporate finance, public finance, institutional investors, and research. The company has locations in Charlottesville, Danville, Farmville, Franklin, Fredericksburg, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk, Roanoke, Virginia Beach, White Sto...
One James Center
901 East Cary Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Founded in 1863
Key Executives for Davenport & Company LLC
Vice President of Corporate Finance and Director
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2014.
Davenport & Company LLC Key Developments
Davenport Presents at Aluminum Summit, Jun-20-2013 11:45 AM
Jun 17 13
Davenport Presents at Aluminum Summit, Jun-20-2013 11:45 AM. Venue: Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel, New York, New York, United States. Speakers: Lloyd O'Carroll, Analyst.
Virginia Supreme Court Reinstates County's Suit Against Davenport & Co. LLC
Apr 23 13
The Virginia Supreme Court has reinstated Fluvanna County, Va.'s lawsuit against Davenport & Co. LLC, which seeks damages for state and federal security law violations the county claims the firm committed while serving as its financial advisor. The seven-member court ruled unanimously on April 18 that the Circuit Court of Fluvanna County was wrong to side with Davenport, which argued the Commonwealth's constitutional separation of powers prevented the circuit court from ruling based on the motives of a legislative body like the county's board of supervisors. The board had argued in a suit filed in September 2011 that it relied on Davenport's services when issuing bonds and making other financial decisions, and that the FA breached its fiduciary duty and committed fraud. The board alleged that Davenport, which had served as the county's FA for 15 years, made knowingly false statements to convince the board to issue $67.5 million of stand-alone bonds for a new high school rather than participate in a pool bond issue. The county's board claims Davenport recommended the standalone deal because, as FA, it would receive more compensation than for the pool deal, where it was one of four underwriters. The board claims Davenport began pushing for a refunding even before the issuance, a transaction from which it would also make money. The board also announced Davenport gave a presentation that downplayed the interest rate of a potential stand-alone deal while inflating the interest rate the pool deal would likely net, and also claimed that pool bonds could not be refunded. The board's suit seeks a jury trial and $18.5 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, disgorgement of all fees it paid Davenport, interest, and recovery of attorneys' fees and other costs. Davenport denies it ever misled the board and claims it did not breach any duty owed to the county. The circuit court granted Davenport's demurrer and refused to allow the board to amend its complaints so the suit could be re-filed, but the ruling by the state's high court will send the case back to the circuit court for another trial. The opinion, penned by Justice Leroy F. Millette Jr., states that the separation of powers doctrine should not apply because the board knowingly gave up its legislative immunity from civil liability. That immunity was designed to give lawmakers the freedom to act without fear of having to defend their motives in a legal proceeding. Millette announced the board did as required to waive their protection and allow a court to examine its legislative reasoning and how Davenport may have influenced it. Justice Elizabeth McClanahan agreed with the court's decision, but said in a separate opinion that separation of powers is a factor in the case. She reasoned that the suit does not ask the court to do anything normally reserved for the legislative branch.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions
|No transactions available in the past 12 months.|