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 :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenWell this is unique! A musical critique of the Factual Feminist's "Are Video Games Sexist?" video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4s7cV4Us409/20/2014 - 2:41am
Andrew EisenSome locked threads. Some let them be. So, no, I'm not seeing a problem here. No corruption. No collusion. No ethical problem with privately discussing ethics.09/20/2014 - 12:48am
Andrew EisenAnd still, in the end, Tito made up his own mind on how to handle his site. All 150 or so members went off to handle their own sites in their own ways. Some talked about it. Some didn't. Some changed disclosure policies. Some didn't.09/20/2014 - 12:40am
Andrew EisenThere were two comments other than Kochera and Tito's. One pointed out the Escapist Code of Conduct, another comment was in support of Tito.09/20/2014 - 12:40am
Andrew EisenKochera privately expressed his disagreement on how Tito decided to do something. No, I don't consider that crossing a line nor do I consider the exchange an example of the group pressuring him.09/20/2014 - 12:36am
Kronotechnical reasons. Anyways, I need to get to sleep as well.09/20/2014 - 12:29am
KronoAnd he wasn't the only one pushing Tito to censor the thread. If Tito had bowed to peer pressure, we likely wouldn't have gotten this http://goo.gl/vKiYtR which grew out of that thread. Said thread also lasted until a new one needed to be made for09/20/2014 - 12:28am
Krono@Andrew So it's an example of Kuchera crossing the line from reporter to advocate. And an example of the group pressuring for censorship.09/20/2014 - 12:21am
E. Zachary KnightAnyway, I am off to bed. I will probably wake up to all of this being knocked off the shout box.09/20/2014 - 12:20am
E. Zachary KnightKrono, that is the type of reading too much into things that bugs me. Ben did no such thing. Greg had the last word in that part of the exchange. The rest was about how to approach the story and Quinn.09/20/2014 - 12:19am
Andrew EisenSo?09/20/2014 - 12:13am
KronoExcept that the forum thread wasn't harassment, and Kuchera continued to push for the thread's removal after Tito made it clear he didn't consider it harassment.09/20/2014 - 12:12am
Andrew EisenPersonally, I see nothing wrong with someone offering their opinion or the other person making up their own mind on how to run their site.09/20/2014 - 12:06am
E. Zachary KnightKrono, I read nothing of the sort in that email chain. I read Ben giving advice on what to do when a forum thread is used to harass someone and spread falshoods about them and others.09/20/2014 - 12:05am
KronoThat's exactly what Ben Kuchera was doing to Greg Tito.09/19/2014 - 11:58pm
Krono@EZK So you see nothing wrong with one journalist pressuring a journalist from a different organization to not only not run a story, but to censor a civil discussion already taking place?09/19/2014 - 11:56pm
E. Zachary KnightI write for a number of blogs and talk to people who write similar blogs all the time for tips and advice. I see nothing wrong with that.09/19/2014 - 11:50pm
E. Zachary KnightI read that comment now and frankly, I think that guy is reading too much into this. The press talk to each other. It happens. There is nothing that can be done to stop it from happening.09/19/2014 - 11:49pm
KronoUnfortunately it seems unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.09/19/2014 - 11:45pm
Krono@EZK No that's not the comment. As for wanting nothing do with any of it, that's perfectly understandable.09/19/2014 - 11:44pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician