You are assuming too much and focusing too narrowly on the information in the article. For example, you are assuming that they are disappointed with the $31.2 million loss. That, however, is not the way businesses are run. Instead of the identified fiscal year “loss”, it is very perfectly reasonable that Take 2 is focused more on the $1.2 billion in earnings, identified as a year over year improvement. Additionally, the company doubled its fourth quarter revenue on a year over year basis ($150 million to $300 million), while net income for that same period was a positive $21 million (based on a combination of 3.7 million units sold of BioShock: Infinite and older games such as GTAIV, RDR and Civ 5 – much older games that apparently continue to sell well). Finally, Zelnick projects FY 2014 revenues to increase by another $500 million or so. These are all positive things for a growing company. That there is a recorded loss is utterly meaningless without other context, such as how mush money has been reinvested into the company in anticipation of publishing future product.

Nowhere does the article suggest that there is anything disappointing about T2’s performance or that Zelnick thinks it was a disappointing FY2013. In fact, the implication is the exact opposite, ie. that this was a very successful year for Take 2 and things look to improve even more for the next year. This is positive news for the company, not negative, and certainly not an indicator of mismanagement.

Sorry, but the McDonalds hot coffee case you bring up (a favorite target of people’s when discussing what they believe to be “frivolous” lawsuits) was not only actionable but a just and reasoned verdict given the facts of that case.

Who cares what I think with regard to whether Gearbox or anyone else involved needs to be punished? I don’t make the laws as to what constitutes actionable misconduct. All I am saying is based on the facts as I am familiar with them, the class action lawsuit is non-actionable and will very likely be dismissed at some point. At best, the plaintiffs have a complaint to the California attorney general (or consumer protection agency) regarding false advertising. Should someone in the chain of decision making agree based on that complaint, the worst that would happen is a fine, which in turn would go to the state’s general fund, not to the complainants.

Appreciable, yes. Actionable, no.