Catch the Fireworks as Take Two Webcasts Stockholder Meeting

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

学习中文 dark lyrics

Jack Thompson won't be allowed into the meeting, period.

The meeting will be the most boring thing you've heard, trust me, there will be no fireworks!

Indeed, the meeting lasted under a half hour, and no one participated in the Q&A. JT was apparently not there. Votes were cast on the issue to sack the board, but they have not yet been fully counted. If this shareholder revolt succeeds, it will have been an extremely quiet one. TTWO is down ten cents in after-hours trading.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6168306.html

Nothing happened. No fireworks. Not even a sparkler.

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

I would guess the meeting has already happened, but I know nothing about what transpired. However, I'll be the Amazing Carnack, hold the envelope to my head, say *nothing at all*, open it, and pronounce:

"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.

It seems that there is enough drama at Take-Two already, but all this Thompson crap on top of everything makes my head spin. I don't think anyone at that company is a criminal, they've just had poor management and have made a few bad mistakes. It's basically Hollywood over there. We don't need Jack going around MAKING STUFF UP. Honestly, almost all of the problems Take-Two has had in the public eye has been imaginary, and all of their real problems have been ignored. Jack needs to shutup, and Paul Eibeler needs to go. Maybe then Take-Two can take things seriously and act like a real company with professional people. The only reason they haven't given EA and Ubisoft a run for their money is due to their own incompetence. With the games they have they should be one of the biggest publishers in the world. It's stupid.

Given his latest conspiracy accusations, even if Jack gets in, this is all that he will see/hear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-cCfZrkCFI

Sure, it'll be more entertaining than what we'll be able to hear... but still...

I can see him being escorted out of the building by security/police...

@ konrad_arflane
Mr. Thompson hates the Left Behind series. Hates it.

[...] For more information, check out Game Politics. [...]

@Dave:

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.

beemoh:

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?

The GTA4 trailer will be available at 5:00PM ET tomorrow.
I hope Jack Thompson is on before that so he won't interrupt it for me.

@Namrepus221. Being a stock holder is neither a professional nor official capacity, so it can't be the root of a conflict. He doesn't own enough stock to have a significant financial stake. (Two shares I believe. If the company goes under, he loses $40.) Thus, he does not have an interest which would conflict with his duties as a lawyer or pundit.

Wouldn't Thompson showing up, let alone BEING a stockholder of Take Two be classified as a conflict of interest

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.

Surely a share in a company is *his* asset, and not Take-Two's anyway?

Dennis: any chance you could stick 4PM Eastern into this, so us crazy foreigners know what time to tune in, please?

/b

He has an interest. He has repeatedly stated he wants to take the company down and cause it to close.

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.

Found another thing on Wikipedia's article on Conflict of Interest that might interest individuals here.

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.

@nightwng2000

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?

Man i dont think i'll be able to listen to it here at the libary hey nightwing do you think you can email me and just give me the meat and potatoes of the whole thing?

Am I the only one who actually hopes JT does get time on the mic? You know he's going to, at least, be making snide remarks from the floor. I'll be sure to make some popcorn.

The question is:
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
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
MattsworknameDitto kotaku, Gawker, VOX, Polygon, ETC07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MechaTama31So, between pulling a game from one chain of stores, and forcing editorial changes to a media source, only one of them strikes you as being on the edge of censorship, and it's the game one?07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician