March 28, 2007
Shareholder meetings are usually about as interesting to gamers as watching paint dry.But tomorrow's gathering of Take Two shareholders promises to be different, full of conflict, raw emotion, simple greed and perhaps a Jack Thompson rant. And it's all going to be broadcast via the web (audio only).
As has been heavily reported here on GamePolitics and elsewhere, a well-financed bloc of T2 shareholders stands ready to seize control of the company and oust CEO Paul Eibeler (left) and the entire Take Two board of directors.
That alone makes the meeting interesting, but in case you need more, gadfly attorney Jack Thompson, a longtime nemesis of Eibeler, Take Two, and its Rockstar subsidiary, has been making noises about speaking at the meeting. The outspoken anti-game activist, currently embroiled in a lawsuit with Take Two, reportedly owns a few shares of company stock, which is enough to get him admitted to the gathering at the Hotel Gansevoort.
If he does get his hands on the microphone, Thompson certainly won't be throwing roses.
As outlined by a T2 press release, the fireworks start at 4:00 P.M. Eastern time on Thursday. The audio simulcast will be available here.
Comments
Re: Catch the Fireworks as Take Two Webcasts Stockholder Meeting
I think I don't need it!
Re: Catch the Fireworks as Take Two Webcasts Stockholder Meeting
会社設立したばかりで色々情報を集めている時にこのサイトに着きました。また寄させてもらいます。
Re: Catch the Fireworks as Take Two Webcasts Stockholder Meeting
学习中文 dark lyrics
The meeting will be the most boring thing you've heard, trust me, there will be no fireworks!
Andrew Eisen
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6168306.html
The meeting was 25 minutes long. The old board was nominated along with a new board and they voted and collected the ballots. I assume a forthcoming press release will reveal the results.
One of the big shareholders identified herself as belonging to the Sisters of the Church of Nazareth (or something like that). She talked a bit about the backdated stock options and disclosing content to the ESRB but didn't sound particularly passionate. More along the lines of "make sure the company is run well so my shares are worth money."
Andrew Eisen
"Statements Jack Thompson made at the mic during the Take 2 stockholder meeting."
The speaking agenda was already set, and JT was most certainly not on it. They can't keep you out of the meeting if you own voting shares (he might want to check those certificates), but they can most certainly eject you from it if you're disruptive. I'm sure JT probably handed out leaflets or something, probably tried to hold up a sign before being threatened with ejection. If he was even there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-cCfZrkCFI
Sure, it'll be more entertaining than what we'll be able to hear... but still...
Mr. Thompson hates the Left Behind series. Hates it.
I'd be surprised if they were allowed to keep him out. Remember, they will be voting on a possible ouster of the board. Keeping him out would prevent him from voting on the matter, which is clearly his right as a stockholder.
I don't see how his stated opinions on T2 have any serious impact on this. In fact, I'd say he's perfectly entitled to work towards changing T2 from within. Let's face it, if he was swimming in money, he would be well within his rights to buy the entire company and turn it toward making "Left Behind" games.
If they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he bought the shared in order to disrupt the company then it would probably be conflict of interest, yes. It might also come up in the forthcoming trial as evidence against Thompson. He would be advised to stay well clear, but then when has he ever done anything sensible in his life?
I hope Jack Thompson is on before that so he won't interrupt it for me.
As defined by Wikipedia:
conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=3&day=29&year...
Dennis: any chance you could stick 4PM Eastern into this, so us crazy foreigners know what time to tune in, please?
/b
Also according to the SEC website. As a stockholder, speaking at a stockholders meeting, knowingly lying about the company to influence other stockholders at the meeting is securities fraud.
Not to mention that his simply owning stock in the company that he is attempting to sue and "destroy" might not be considered a legally defined "conflict of interest". But it sure as hell is unethical.
Similarly, use of government or corporate property or assets for personal use is fraud, and classifying this as a conflict of interest does not improve the analysis of this problem.
As Thompson holds assets of the company (stock in said company) and is using them for his own personal AND professional use, he is committing securities fraud as he is purposfully attempting to sabotage Take Two's business via his owning of stock.
Most stockholders aren't going to give two shits about the content of the games. They care about one thing: will Take Two be profitable?
How many of the stockholders there will be more intelligent than any of the anti-game politicians we've seen in the past few years?
I mean, when John Bruce stands up and starts spewing his misinformation and false claims regarding the games themselves (as you know he's prone to do), will the other investors follow blindly and ignorantly? Or will they prove their intelligence and show they know the true about the material the company puts out and tell John Bruce to sit down 'cuz this whole thing is about the finances and how the company was run, not about the content of the video games.
I mean, just how much research do these investors do? Surely they knew about Paul's previous problems. So they knew, business wise, they were taking a risk investing in a company he was involved with. But how well do they actually know the product?
nightwng2000
NW2K Software