Take Two to Take the United States Government?
GTA IV publisher contesting FTC request
The FTC
Not content with taking fighting off Electronic Arts, Take-Two Interactive, owner of GTA IV maker Rockstar Games could take on the might of the US government's Federal Trade Commission as part of the same war.
The FTC has subpoenaed Take-Two under what is called a Civil Investigative Demand ('CID'). This "requested" that Take-Two "provide additional information in connection with the FTC’s review of EA’s Offer".
A District of Columbia court has now "has scheduled a hearing on June 24, 2008 to determine whether the Company (Take Two) is required to comply with the subpoena and CID."
Take-Two has now stated that if it "cannot negotiate a settlement with the FTC regarding the subpoena and CID prior to the scheduled hearing, the Company intends to oppose the FTC’s petition."
Yes, you read it right, Take-Two is prepared to do battle with an arm - a very strong arm - of the US Federal Government itself.
You can head over to Take-Two for the nitty-gritty.
The FTC has subpoenaed Take-Two under what is called a Civil Investigative Demand ('CID'). This "requested" that Take-Two "provide additional information in connection with the FTC’s review of EA’s Offer".
A District of Columbia court has now "has scheduled a hearing on June 24, 2008 to determine whether the Company (Take Two) is required to comply with the subpoena and CID."
Take-Two has now stated that if it "cannot negotiate a settlement with the FTC regarding the subpoena and CID prior to the scheduled hearing, the Company intends to oppose the FTC’s petition."
Yes, you read it right, Take-Two is prepared to do battle with an arm - a very strong arm - of the US Federal Government itself.
You can head over to Take-Two for the nitty-gritty.
Read More Like This
Comments
YenRug 11 Jun 2008 15:02
1/7
So what's the deal here? Did EA go running off crying to the FTC because T2 wouldn't listen to their offer, or something? What's the point, surely they can just say that EA's offer wasn't good enough, or does US company law state that you have to let someone take you over even if they don't offer enough?
deleted 11 Jun 2008 15:35
2/7
Dont know what the deal is but id say their a bit insane, battling US government is gonna cost them an arm and a leg and in the process devalue the company even further, who wants shares in a company fighting a battle on these terms!
more comments below our sponsor's message
schnide 11 Jun 2008 15:39
3/7
haritori wrote:
battling US government is gonna cost them an arm and a leg and in the process devalue the company even further
If EA caused this, maybe that's why - to weaken Take Two. F**king aggressive and downright shameful if you ask me, whether "that's business" or not.
tyrion 11 Jun 2008 17:25
4/7
YenRug wrote:
does US company law state that you have to let someone take you over even if they don't offer enough?
While that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, I think it's more likely to be a "mergers and monopolies" type of investigation.
Stefen 11 Jun 2008 20:46
5/7
tyrion wrote:
YenRug wrote:
does US company law state that you have to let someone take you over even if they don't offer enough?
While that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, I think it's more likely to be a "mergers and monopolies" type of investigation.
*Sigh* and they say Americans are ignorant, and have no interest, in informing themselves about other countries...
The FTC is requesting more information about the proposed deal from Take Two, they are not forcing Take Two to consider the deal or to accept the deal. EA is pushing for this so, once they get approval, they can then come back and make another offer at a later date with out having to start the FTC process all over again.
Take Two doesn't want to comply with the FTC because they say it will take too much time and money to produce the documents they are requesting. That is what the hearing is for. If the court says they have to comply, they probably will (maybe after an appeal or two,) if the court syat they don't have to, they wont.
tyrion 12 Jun 2008 07:27
6/7
Stefen wrote:
*Sigh* and they say Americans are ignorant, and have no interest, in informing themselves about other countries...
They also say that sarcasm is not understood by Americans and, if you are one, you do seem to have proven this by missing the sarcastic humour in both YenRug's and my comments.
Stefen wrote:
The FTC is requesting more information about the proposed deal from Take Two, they are not forcing Take Two to consider the deal or to accept the deal. EA is pushing for this so, once they get approval, they can then come back and make another offer at a later date with out having to start the FTC process all over again.
So it's a question of getting more information so the FTC can approve the takeover? That would seem to be a mergers and monopolies type of question to me, as I said.
Indeed the fact that the subpoena issued by the FTC is cited by Take 2 as pursuant to its authority under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act and that act supplements the USA's antitrust laws that supervise the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations seems to back up my suggestion.
Neither YenRug nor I seriously believe that the laws of the USA force companies to accept takeover offers, it was all just in fun. Unless do you believe that YenRug? If so sorry to have spoken for you. :-)
YenRug 12 Jun 2008 13:02
7/7
tyrion wrote:
Unless do you believe that YenRug? If so sorry to have spoken for you. :-)
Whilst it was being said sarcastically, like you, I wouldn't have been surprised if it had turned out to be true...
The story did seem to imply that EA had sic'ed the FTC on T2 for not agreeing to their offer, it's normal to get monopolies/merger approval after you get agreement to a takeover, otherwise it is kind of pointless to start the process. Maybe T2 can sue EA for the costs of the paperwork, if they're forced to carry it out?