Take-Two Worried About Further Government Investigation
Faces greater scrutiny thanks to past dealings
Take-Two Interactive, the parent company of Rockstar and 2K, has noted concerns about future government investigation in an SEC filing.
Noting that it has been subject to three separate investigations recently, and that still-ongoing litigation could result in further significant costs, the company states:
"We also may be subject to heightened scrutiny in the future as a result of our historical legal proceedings, including an increased likelihood of a government investigation occurring and an increased likelihood that any such investigation is more extensive".
The company goes on to say that, "Furthermore, any future fines, restrictions or other penalties imposed as a result of any such investigation may be more severe than those which may be imposed on a company without our history."
Shareholders, you've been warned...
Noting that it has been subject to three separate investigations recently, and that still-ongoing litigation could result in further significant costs, the company states:
"We also may be subject to heightened scrutiny in the future as a result of our historical legal proceedings, including an increased likelihood of a government investigation occurring and an increased likelihood that any such investigation is more extensive".
The company goes on to say that, "Furthermore, any future fines, restrictions or other penalties imposed as a result of any such investigation may be more severe than those which may be imposed on a company without our history."
Shareholders, you've been warned...
Companies:
Take 2
Read More Like This
Comments
Hum... 20 Dec 2010 17:06
1/6
Nah, this isn't a hit piece. Not whatsoever!
Never mind the fact that I've never heard of Spong until today (and probably will never again). Never mind the fact that Cramer was 100% on this pick, and that there is a huge short interest involved in its failure.
Hack.
Never mind the fact that I've never heard of Spong until today (and probably will never again). Never mind the fact that Cramer was 100% on this pick, and that there is a huge short interest involved in its failure.
Hack.
Hum... 20 Dec 2010 17:07
2/6
@Hum...
"100% wrong," is what I meant to say.
"100% wrong," is what I meant to say.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Dreadknux 21 Dec 2010 09:47
3/6
Hi there "Hum..." - we report the news. We don't predict things. If you're asking us to look into a crystal ball and comment on whether what T2 has said is worth worrying about or not, that would be editorialising. And I'm sure you'd probably give us just as much stick for that.
It's a shame you had no intentions to stay whatever you were going to do. It's what I refer to as a hit comment. ;)
In the mean time, T2 said what it said, that's what we reported. There's nothing sinister or underhanded about it. I reckon if we really, really wanted to (note: we don't) we could do something a bit better than this if we were looking for a 'hit piece.'
It's a shame you had no intentions to stay whatever you were going to do. It's what I refer to as a hit comment. ;)
In the mean time, T2 said what it said, that's what we reported. There's nothing sinister or underhanded about it. I reckon if we really, really wanted to (note: we don't) we could do something a bit better than this if we were looking for a 'hit piece.'
TimSpong 21 Dec 2010 09:51
4/6
Hum... wrote:
Never mind the fact that I've never heard of Spong until today (and probably will never again). Never mind the fact that Cramer was 100% on this pick, and that there is a huge short interest involved in its failure. Hack.
Any chance you can unpack that for us going forward out of the box? I can't interface with what you're attempting to synergize vis-a-vis the fact-to-analysis matrix.
In short, what on earth are you going on about?
Tim Smith
Hum 21 Dec 2010 15:00
5/6
@Tim_Smith
The article lists no author, no dates, no places, no times, just a quotation that could easily be taken out of context. It simply sounds like something you guys made up off the top of your head, and without any sort of attribution other than to "the company," why should anybody believe a word you say? Especially given the fact that NOBODY has ever heard of your website until your wrote the TTWO hitpiece.
Have fun lapping up Cramer's ball juice, you cheesy robots.
The article lists no author, no dates, no places, no times, just a quotation that could easily be taken out of context. It simply sounds like something you guys made up off the top of your head, and without any sort of attribution other than to "the company," why should anybody believe a word you say? Especially given the fact that NOBODY has ever heard of your website until your wrote the TTWO hitpiece.
Have fun lapping up Cramer's ball juice, you cheesy robots.
Dreadknux 21 Dec 2010 19:22
6/6
@Hum Oh Hum, you do make me 'ho'.
Perhaps it would be wise to look at the SEC Filing, that was linked before your rather peculiar outburst, which shows that Take 2 - the company - said what was said. Here it is, just in case you can't find something as challenging as a hyperlink. I know it's difficult.
http://ir.take2games.com/
So, let's review.
"No author"
Take 2. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC, if you want to be specific.
"No date"
20th December. Yesterday.
"No places"
Washington, D.C.
"No times"
Not on the document as far as I can see, but is it important when you already have the date?
"A quotation that could easily be taken out of context"
SPOnG has provided the link for you to see the entire quote within its context. You clearly have not done so.
"It sounds like something you guys made up off the top of your head"
Ahem. I think the fact we linked the entire SEC Filing (before your original post, I hasten to add) proves that it may well be you that is, in fact, "making it up off the top of your head"
I'm curious. Do you happen to have shares in T2? Not feeling nervous, are we? Surely it's the only reason for such behaviour. Mind you, if you really did have shares, you'd have known all about that investor relations website and had seen the quote already... and this whole escapade could have been avoided.
Perhaps it would be wise to look at the SEC Filing, that was linked before your rather peculiar outburst, which shows that Take 2 - the company - said what was said. Here it is, just in case you can't find something as challenging as a hyperlink. I know it's difficult.
http://ir.take2games.com/
So, let's review.
"No author"
Take 2. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC, if you want to be specific.
"No date"
20th December. Yesterday.
"No places"
Washington, D.C.
"No times"
Not on the document as far as I can see, but is it important when you already have the date?
"A quotation that could easily be taken out of context"
SPOnG has provided the link for you to see the entire quote within its context. You clearly have not done so.
"It sounds like something you guys made up off the top of your head"
Ahem. I think the fact we linked the entire SEC Filing (before your original post, I hasten to add) proves that it may well be you that is, in fact, "making it up off the top of your head"
I'm curious. Do you happen to have shares in T2? Not feeling nervous, are we? Surely it's the only reason for such behaviour. Mind you, if you really did have shares, you'd have known all about that investor relations website and had seen the quote already... and this whole escapade could have been avoided.