SEC Launches Take-Two Investigation 73
crecente writes "Take-Two, already the subject of a Grand Jury inquiry, is now being 'informally investigated' by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This latest investigation looks at stock option grants made by the company from Jan. 1997 to the present. Just how many investigations can a publically traded company handle before their stock turns to worthless paste?"
Re:Does anyone have more info? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hold on to your doodle pads... take-two will be ok and they might be worth a lil more in the future
Re:Does anyone have more info? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the battle that Overstock is going through right now. And Krispy Kreme and Vonage and Delta Airlines.
You can read more about this at http://www.thesanitycheck.com/ [thesanitycheck.com], http://www.faulkingtruth.com/ [faulkingtruth.com] and http://www.investigatethesec.com/ [investigatethesec.com].
By the way, and "informal" investigation technically is where the SEC ask for documents and provides them. They turn "formal" when the SEC issues subpoenas in order to get the information.
Thoughtful investing? (Score:2, Interesting)
So does that mean that immediately upon hearing of investigatory action the investor in said company should dump all stock? Say they choose that route. Then the investigation reveals that the company was indeed breaking the law. Then it was a wise choice to dump the stock. But what if the investigation reveals the company wasn't breaking the law? Does the stock then get a noticable, predictable bump? I am seriously asking these questions.
If the norm is that after a positive result, i.e. no law-breaking was found, the stock does not go up, then the only logical answer is to dump the stock no matter what when the investigation is announced. So in this respect whoever hears about the investigation first gets to lose the least amount of money. Which is to say, probably the company owners and employees. Is that insider trading? Again, I am seriously asking these questions.
And what of the possbility of a more secretive investigation? Because in this case it certainly seems like the company in question is essentially guilty until proven innocent, and possibly punished before any proof is found. This certainly seems to breach the idea of constitutional rights.
Is there really any way to make this less damaging to the companies?
TLF
Grand Jury * (Score:2, Interesting)
I am pretty sure they could indict a wet paper bag if they felt the need.
Re:One in a long line... (Score:3, Interesting)
If Only... (Score:2, Interesting)