Take-Two Says Former CEO Doctored Stock Options
Take-Two Says Former CEO Doctored Stock Options
January 23, 2007
A number of media outlets, including USA Today, have reported that an internal investigation by Grand Theft Auto publisher Take Two Interactive has blamed former CEO Ryan Brant for backdating stock options from 1997-2003. Brant resigned as T2 chairman last October. He stepped down as CEO several years prior.The investigation uncovered no wrongdoing by current executives. However, three former execs who declined to meet with investigators "appear to have had significant involvement in the company's stock-option granting process"
Brant was cited in a 2004 investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which alleged that he and two other former T2 officials inflated company revenues. Although none of the executives named in that case admitted any wrongdoing, Take Two, Brant and the two executives paid penalties of more than $9 million, plus interest.
Reporter Roddy Boyd, who often covers Take Two for the New York Post, has more.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Just because there is a margin of error doesn't mean that the numbers aren't at least psudo-accurate.
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Just because there is a margin of error doesn't mean that the numbers aren't at least psudo-accurate.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:25am
Valdearg: The point is that the bill reduces costs, expands coverage, and reduces the deficit.
Valdearg: The point is that the bill reduces costs, expands coverage, and reduces the deficit.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:24am
JDKJ: So why are you off and running with "facts and numbers don't lie" when the very author of the facts and numbers is acknowledging that their facts and numbers could quite easily be wrong?
JDKJ: So why are you off and running with "facts and numbers don't lie" when the very author of the facts and numbers is acknowledging that their facts and numbers could quite easily be wrong?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:23am
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Indeed, but the 10 year is also showing a deficit reduction, and that's more accurate.
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Indeed, but the 10 year is also showing a deficit reduction, and that's more accurate.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:19am
JDKJ: Val': Isn't the CBO saying at the same time that predicting the long term deficit reduction effect isn't anywhere near an exact science? And that its prediction should be taken with that understanding?
JDKJ: Val': Isn't the CBO saying at the same time that predicting the long term deficit reduction effect isn't anywhere near an exact science? And that its prediction should be taken with that understanding?
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Take-Two Interactive is being blamed for a lot of things and being ambushed just like the warriors and I hope that, like the warriors, they make it through the hard times and survive the attacks from the anti-game activists and the people on Wall Street, who don't like them. Just like the warriors, they find themselves being attacked for no good reason other than people are stupid. Also, watch the film "The Warriors." It's one of the greatest films ever and the greatest film made before 1980. It rocks.
They broke regulations.. and possible laws.
God damn.
60%? If I had any say in it, they would take away 100% of any money they obtained while defrauding the company, and they should also be thrown in jail for fraud. After all, a corporation is technically a public business, and if someone robs it, they should be jailed. Stock fraud is almost as bad as going out and robbing a store at gunpoint, so why do the CEOs get to keep the money they stole and avoid jail time?
And therein lies the problem with granting stock options. My company has very strick rules about how options can be "cashed in". I don't know if they were put in place in response to stuff like this, but they're pretty clear about the need for transparency and lots of documentation so if something fishy goes on, there's a clear trail.
Ryan Brant, the ex-CEO of the video game publisher Take-Two, pleaded guilty to charges of backdating and agreed to pay $7.3 million to settle two options-related cases. Brant is Take-Two's founder. He apologized for his actions: "I am deeply sorry......