|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
| |||||||||
This excerpt taken from the ATVI 10-Q filed Feb 8, 2006. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings
On March 5, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors. The complaint, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that our revenues and assets were overstated during the period between February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002, was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California by the Construction Industry, and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada purporting to represent a class of purchasers of Activision stock. Five additional purported class actions were subsequently filed by Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton, Stephen Anish, the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, and Joseph A. Romans asserting the same claims. Consistent with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), the court appointed lead plaintiffs consolidating the six putative securities class actions into a single case. In an Order dated May 16, 2005, the court dismissed the
21
consolidated complaint because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA. The court did, however, give the lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended consolidated complaint within 30 days of the order. Rather than file a new complaint, the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the entire case with prejudice. The Order dismissing the action with prejudice was entered on June 17, 2005.
In addition, on March 12, 2004, a shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned This excerpt taken from the ATVI 10-Q filed Nov 3, 2005. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings
On March 5, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors. The complaint, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that our revenues and assets were overstated during the period between February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002, was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California by the Construction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada purporting to represent a class of purchasers of Activision stock. Five additional purported class actions were subsequently filed by Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton, Stephen Anish, the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, and Joseph A. Romans asserting the same claims. Consistent with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), the court appointed lead plaintiffs consolidating the six putative
20
securities class actions into a single case. In an Order dated May 16, 2005, the court dismissed the consolidated complaint because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA. The court did, however, give the lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended consolidated complaint within 30 days of the order. Rather than file a new complaint, the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the entire case with prejudice. The Order dismissing the action with prejudice was entered on June 17, 2005.
In addition, on March 12, 2004, a shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned This excerpt taken from the ATVI 10-Q filed Aug 4, 2005. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings
On March 5, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors. The complaint, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that our revenues and assets were overstated during the period between February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002, was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California by the Construction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada purporting to represent a class of purchasers of Activision stock. Five additional purported class actions were subsequently filed by Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton, Stephen Anish, the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund and Joseph A. Romans asserting the same claims. Consistent with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), the court appointed lead plaintiffs consolidating the six putative securities class actions into a single case. In an Order dated May 16, 2005, the court dismissed the consolidated complaint because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA. The court did, however, give the lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended consolidated complaint within 30 days of the order. Rather than file a new complaint, the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the entire case with prejudice. The Order dismissing the action with prejudice was entered on June 17, 2005.
In addition, on March 12, 2004, a shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned This excerpt taken from the ATVI 10-Q filed Feb 8, 2005. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings On March 5, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors. The complaint, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that our revenues and assets were overstated during the period between February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002, was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California by the Construction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada purporting to represent a class of purchasers of Activision stock. Five additional purported class actions have subsequently been filed by Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton, Stephen Anish, the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, and Joseph A. Romans asserting similar claims. Five of the six actions have been transferred to the same court where the first-filed complaint was pending. In addition, on March 12, 2004, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed which asserts the same claims set forth in the federal class action lawsuit. That complaint was filed in Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. We strongly deny these allegations and will vigorously defend these cases. On July 11, 2003, we were informed by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Securities and Exchange Commission has commenced a non-public formal investigation captioned “In the Matter of Certain Video Game Manufacturers and Distributors.” The investigation appears to be focused on certain accounting practices common to the interactive entertainment industry, with specific emphasis on revenue recognition. In connection with this inquiry, the Securities and Exchange Commission submitted to us a request for information. We responded to this inquiry on September 2, 2003. To date, we have not received a request from the Securities and Exchange Commission for any additional information. The Securities and Exchange
17
Commission staff also informed us that other companies in the video game industry received similar requests for information. The Securities and Exchange Commission has advised us that this request for information should not be construed as an indication from the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff that any violation of the law has occurred, nor should it reflect negatively on any person, entity or security. We have cooperated and intend to continue to cooperate fully with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the conduct of this inquiry. On June 30, 2003, we terminated our Star Trek Merchandising License Agreement with Viacom Consumer Products, Inc. and filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for breach of contract and constructive trust against Viacom Consumer Products and Viacom International, Inc. (“Viacom”). On August 15, 2003, Viacom filed its response to our complaint as well as a cross-complaint alleging, among other matters, a breach of contract by Activision and seeking claimed damages in excess of $50 million. We strongly dispute the claims by Viacom, consider the damages alleged by Viacom to be speculative and without merit, and intend to defend vigorously and aggressively against the cross-complaint. In addition, we are party to other routine claims and suits brought by us and against us in the ordinary course of business, including disputes arising over the ownership of intellectual property rights, contractual claims and collection matters. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, the outcome of such routine claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. | EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
RELATED TOPICS for ATVI: |
| |||||||
