2K Sports 2008 Annual Report Download - page 92

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 92 of the 2008 2K Sports annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 116

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116

allegations related to purported ‘‘hidden content’’ contained in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the
backdating of stock options, including the investigation thereof conducted by the Special Litigation
Committee of the Board of Directors and the restatement of our financial statements relating thereto. This
complaint was filed against us, our former Chief Executive Officer, our former Chief Financial Officer, our
former Chairman of the Board, our Rockstar Games subsidiary, and one officer and one former officer of
our Rockstar Games subsidiary. He sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs including
attorneys’ fees and expenses. In April 2008, the Court dismissed, with leave to amend, all claims as to all
defendants relating to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and certain claims as to our former CEO, CFO and
certain director defendants relating to the backdating of stock options. In September 2008, the lead
plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint seeking to reinstate these claims. We express no
opinion as to the outcome of the complaint and will continue to defend this case vigorously.
St. Clair Derivative Action. In January 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System
filed a purported class and derivative action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against us, as nominal defendant, and certain of our directors and certain former officers and
directors. The factual allegations in this action are similar to those in the securities class action described
above. The plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duty by selling their stock while
in possession of certain material non-public information and that we violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder by failing to disclose material facts in our 2003, 2004 and 2005
proxy statements in which we solicited approval to increase share availability under our 2002 Stock Option
Plan. The plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged insider trading conducted by the
individual defendants who sold our stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest and its costs in
the action. In March 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the complaint based on,
among other things, the Committee’s conclusion that ‘‘future pursuit of this action is not in the best
interests of Take-Two or its shareholders.’’ In August 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Derivative and
Class Action Complaint alleging, among other things, that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the issuance of proxy statements from 2001 through 2005. In September 2007, the Special
Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint or to consolidate certain of its claims
with the securities class action. In July 2008, the Court dismissed all claims against us and all claims against
all defendants that arose out of the plaintiff’s derivative claims. The Court expressly did not determine
whether the remaining claims, which are related to the proxy statements, would entitle the putative class to
monetary damages. We intend to continue to vigorously defend against the remainder of the plaintiff’s
claims.
Derivative Action—Option Backdating. In July and August 2006, shareholders Richard Lasky and Raeda
Karadsheh filed purported derivative actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against us, as nominal defendant, and certain of our directors and certain former officers and
directors. These actions were consolidated in November 2006 and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint in January 2007, which focused exclusively on our historical stock option granting practices,
alleging violations of federal and state law, including breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaints sought unspecified
damages against all of the individual defendants, reimbursement from certain of the defendants of bonuses
or other incentive or equity-based compensation paid to them, equitable and other relief relating to the
proceeds from certain of the defendants’ alleged improper trading activity in our stock, adoption of certain
corporate governance proposals and recovery of litigation costs. These matters were referred to the Special
Litigation Committee, which moved to dismiss certain parties from the litigation and to have any claims
against the remaining parties be assigned to us for disposition by our management and Board of Directors.
The parties are awaiting a decision by the Court.
Strickland et al. Personal Injury Action. In February 2005, the personal representatives of the Estates of
Arnold Strickland, James Crump and Ace Mealer brought an action in the Circuit Court of Fayette
County, Alabama against us, Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., Sony Corporation of America,
82