 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Conclusion: According to the docket, on October 15, 2002, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment by U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote approving the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation and the action was dismissed with prejudice. The Court awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,500,000.00 and the reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $58,205.01, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. In the Stipulation of Settlement filed earlier on June 5, 2002, the Defendants established a Settlement Fund consisting of $7,500,000.00.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants materially misrepresented Take-Two's financial results and performance for each of the quarters of and full year of fiscal 2000, ended October 31, 2000, and each of the first three quarters of fiscal 2001, ended January 31, 2001, April 30, 2001 and July 31, 2001, respectively, by improperly recognizing revenue on sales to distributors. On August 24, 2001, the truth about the Company's financial condition began to emerge when the effects of defendants' scheme began to negatively impact the Company's financial results. It was not until December 14, 2001 and December 17, 2001, however, that the market began to learn that defendants had caused the Company to improperly recognize revenue for products shipped to distributors, where the distributors did not have a binding commitment to pay for the products, in direct contravention of GAAP. Significantly, defendants' unlawful accounting practices enabled defendants to portray Take-Two as a financially strong company that was experiencing dramatic revenue growth, and which was poised for future success when, in fact, the Company's purported success was the result of improper accounting practices. On December 14, 2001, following rumors of a possible restatement of Take-Two's financial results, Take-Two's common stock fell 31% --$4.72 a share to $10.33 per share. During the Class Period, Take-Two shares traded as high as $24.50 per share. Defendants were motivated to misrepresent the Company's financial results, by among other things, their desire to sell approximately 900,000 shares of Take-Two common stock during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices for proceeds of over $15 million.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Take-Two Interactive |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | TTWO |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.take2games.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Peter Fischbein, et al. v. Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 12/18/2001 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In re Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 04/12/2002 | ||
| Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 06/05/2002 | ||
| Preliminary Approval Order | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 07/18/2002 | ||
| Notice Of Pendency And Settlement Of Class Action, Hearing On Proposed Settlement And Attorneys’ Fee Petition And Right To Share In Settlement Fund | |||
| Type: Settlement | Date on the document: 07/29/2002 | ||
| Summary Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action, Proposed Settlement Thereof And Fairness Hearing | |||
| Type: Settlement | Date on the document: 07/31/2002 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 06/22/2004 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top