Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/15/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 18, 2001

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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TTWO
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-9919
JUDGE: Hon. Denise L. Cote
DATE FILED: 12/18/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/24/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/17/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 501.312.8505 ·
  3. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  5. Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C.
    200 N LaSalle St Ste 2100, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C., IL 60601
    312.346.3100 ·
  6. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-9919
JUDGE: Hon. Denise L. Cote
DATE FILED: 04/12/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/24/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/17/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
No Document Title Filing Date