Today is Deadline Day for EA's Latest Take-Two Offer
Today is Deadline Day for EA's Latest Take-Two Offer
June 16, 2008
GamePolitics readers may recall that Electronic Arts' latest tender offer for outstanding Take-Two shares expires today.
Will EA extend its deadline? Raise its offer price? Drop out?
An extension seems likely, given that the Federal Trade Commission has not completed an evaluation of whether an EA takeover of T2 would have antitrust implications. As we've reported, Take-Two is dragging its heels on that process, and an annoyed FTC is dragging T2 into court over the matter next week. And, of course, EA has placed the acquisition on hold, pending the FTC's findings.
Over at Level Up, Newsweek's N'Gai Croal has insightful analysis from former FTC attorney Justin Blankenship on the government agency's current dust-up with Take-Two.
Meanwhile, Forbes speculates that EA wants to close the deal ASAP in order to lock down Rockstar's Sam and Dan Houser before their contract with T2 expires next February:
Once that contract expires in 2009, the Housers will hit the open market. Despite the high price their services will command (mostly in the form of extensive royalties), game publishers may well enter into a heated bidding war for the Houser brothers in the hopes of seizing the next Grand Theft Auto phenomenon.
If Electronic Arts wants the minds behind Grand Theft Auto, it's going to have to move quickly. To gain the upper hand, Electronic Arts may be forced to pull the trigger and raise its $25.74 per share bid to around $30 per share--a move most analysts believe essential if Electronic Arts is serious about the Take-Two acquisition. Control of Take-Two would grant EA the rights to the Grand Theft Auto series, which the Redwood City-based publisher could then use to sweeten negotiations with the Housers. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping the brothers from setting up a rival series at a new studio.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
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
Any company who gets Rockstar after the contract ends better set aside some money for fax machine replacement.
-kurisu7885
Yeah, that's very true. Unless of course the Fax Machine Scourge gets disbarred in September. Oh wait...
I am certain that more is being made of Rockstar's position/role in this takeover than is warranted. This take over is definitely about the TTWO/EA Sports competition (or lack thereof). From what a little bird (an employee of one of the myriad Rockstar studios) tells me, the Rockstar folks are mostly sanguine about this possible takeover, thinking that it won't effect them much - being that Rockstar owns the majority of it's IP, and has met with it's success being left to it's own devices. So EA will likely do much the same with them, or risk sending the Rockstar talent running for a new start-up.
The Housers will be a big issue for either company, after their contract is up, so how is that relevant for a take-over? One could say having major talent at the end of a contract is a liability for EA as much as one could say that they are a bonus for them during the aquisition.
Let's keep our focus on the real issue here, and that is that EA wants absolutely NO competition on sports games, and the takeover would effectively kill what little competition TTWO can offer, what with the NFL deal.
EA will extend the deadline - at least until the FTC findings. This tactic will render TTWO's stalling moot (except philosophically). I doubt they will raise the share price, their current offer is considered fairly good, and they had to get fairly sizeable loans to deal with the intitial offer.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
Why is t he FTC being stupid as hell? they really need to stop EA not TT.
Read the Level Up link GP provided. It explains the FTC's position.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
Who owns GTA? Take-Two or Rockstar? Does T2 also own Rockstar or is it the Housers and whomever else is higher up in the company? Is this contract with T2 just to be their publisher and that's it or is it just a contract to retain the services Dan and Sam Houser? If everything (especially GTA) stays with T2 when their contract is up are they really going to be worth that much?
on one hand, if EA does accuire TT, then the System Shock franchise may be revived. And while Take-Two currently owns the X-Com franchise, they certainly aren't doing anything with it.
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
I'm all for freedom of ttnet vitamin speech and allowing rent a car game makers to put whatever they want in games, but there's one thing about this app that has me scratching my head. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from araç kiralama the previous article araba kiralama on this I gathered that players can use Google maps in-game to find the other (real-life?) dealers in their area. If this is the case, has travesti anyone considered what's stopping someone from using this app to actually move drugs between hands for reals?
But majority araba kiralama of their outrage araç kiralama stems from what it could DO TO children, not the content itself. Talk to one of these people and you'll find they don't think any books kiralık araba should be banned from children. Mention American Psycho and they talk about kiralık araç the redeeming value of using imagination to construct a story. Reading, no matter what the content, is largely viewed as a consequenceless activity for people of any age. The reason why I mention American Psycho is because of the content itself. Gaming never has and likely never will have any scenes where someone has sex with a severed head. Not gonna happen. Yet despite this, they'll fight tooth and nail to protect their children from two boys kissing in Bully but whatever they read is harmless... yeah.
The entire arguement is kiralık oto based upon a social normality inflicted by luddites who can't figure out the controls for Halo so it's frightening and terrifying and obviously the cause of youth violence on the rise even though, in reality, it's in decline (which is actually a HUGE suprise given minibüs kiralama the economies status). In a perfect world, we would have parents that actually parent. The idea of sales restrictions on media on oto kiralama any form to accomidate parental unwillingness to get involved with their child's life is the real problem to me. Here I am, 32 years old, and being held up at a self-scan rent a car needing to show ID before I can buy a $10 M rated game all because Soccer Momthra can't be bothered to look at the crap Billy Genericallystupidson does in his free time. It's too hard for her, so I have to suffer?