Interplay finally files belated 10-K

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Interplay Entertainment Corp. finally filed it's SEC form 10-K, which should probably mean they'll no longer be IPLYE, as they've now satisfied the required filing.

There's a lot of repeating known stuff in the filing, but here's some bits (with some high-lighting):<blockquote>As of April 1, 2004, we were three months in arrears on the rent obligations for our corporate lease in Irvine, California. On April 9, 2004, our lessor served us with a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Surrender Possession. If we are unable to pay our rent, we may lose our office space, which would interrupt our operations and cause substantial harm to our business. We have received notice from the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") that we owe approximately $70,000 in payroll tax penalties. We estimate that we owe an additional $10,000, which we have accrued in penalties for nonpayment of approximately $99,000 in Federal and State payroll taxes, which were due on March 31, 2004 and is still outstanding. We were unable to meet our April 15, 2004 payroll obligations to our employees. Our property, general liability, auto, workers compensation, fiduciary liability, and employment practices liability have been cancelled.

We are currently in default of the settlement agreement with Warner and have entered into a payment plan, of which we are in default, for the balance of the $0.32 million owed payable in one remaining installment. On or about February 23, 2004, we received correspondence from Atari Interactive alleging that Interplay had failed to pay royalties due under the D&D license as of February 15, 2004. If we are unable to cure this alleged breach of the license agreement, we may lose our remaining rights under the license, including the rights to continued distribution of BALDUR'S GATE: DARK ALLIANCE II. The loss of the remaining rights to distribute games created under the D&D license could have a significant negative impact on our future operating results.

In January 2004, Titus, our 71% majority shareholder, disclosed in their annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, filed with the Autorite des Marches Financiers of France, that they were involved in a litigation with one of our former founders and officers and as a result had deposited pursuant to a California Court Order approximately 8,679,306 shares of our common stock held by them (representing approximately 9% of our issued and outstanding common stock) with the court. Also disclosed was that Titus was conducting settlement discussions at the time of the filing to resolve the issue. To date, Titus has maintained voting control over the 8,679,306 million shares of common stock and has not represented to us that a transfer of beneficial ownership has occurred. Nevertheless, such transfer of shares may occur in fiscal 2004.</blockquote> They report a net income over 2003 as 4%, compare to 34% for 2002 and a loss of 82% for 2001. They're income sources were 21% PC, 34% video game console and a whopping 45% OEM, royalty and licensing. But here's the big whopper under risk factors:<blockquote>WE CURRENTLY HAVE A NUMBER OF OBLIGATIONS THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO MEET WITHOUT GENERATING ADDITIONAL REVENUES OR RAISING ADDITIONAL CAPITAL. IF WE CANNOT GENERATE ADDITIONAL REVENUES OR RAISE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WE MAY BECOME INSOLVENT AND/OR OUR STOCK WOULD BECOME ILLIQUID OR WORTHLESS.

(...)

WE HAVE A HISTORY OF LOSSES, AND MAY HAVE TO FURTHER REDUCE OUR COSTS BY CURTAILING FUTURE OPERATIONS TO CONTINUE AS A BUSINESS.

(...)

WE HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF KEY MANAGEMENT AND OTHER PERSONNEL. THE LOSS OF ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF MANAGEMENT OR KEY PERSON OR THE FAILURE TO HIRE AND INTEGRATE CAPABLE NEW KEY PERSONNEL COULD HARM OUR BUSINESS. </blockquote>Link: IPLYE 10-K form on Yahoo economics
Link: Full file on Pink Sheets
 
Well.......what now?

Will the Fallout license be bought......or left to rot?..........

man........IPLAY sure got what they deserved.........

'By gamers, for gamers'

..........whatever......
 
They're not gone yet.

However: WE CURRENTLY HAVE A NUMBER OF OBLIGATIONS THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO MEET WITHOUT GENERATING ADDITIONAL REVENUES OR RAISING ADDITIONAL CAPITAL.

Additional capital?

Selling off licenses, anyone?

Would prolly be a bad idea for them on the long-term, but given their situation I don't think they can afford to look beyond the short-term (which is being without an office :wink: )
 
By Gamers for Gamers was good when it was. By advertizing jackasses for fools who like cookie cutter games wasn't. I can't say I'll miss the company it's been for the past few years.

Sell the licensces please.
 
Wasteland/Fallout1/FO2

My guess is there has to be a copywrite "Time-Limit" for games by companies so that after a certain amout of time anyone can use that title...then again it's just a thought.

I know Brian Fargo was talking with IPLY about wasteland, so I wonder if he has a free shot at it.

If IPLY doesn't have lawyers to file a few to renew those licences my guess is anyone can take the game. :)
 
Tis all so sad...
Still remembering the days with my good old Commodere 64,
playing Bard's Tale 1-3, yes THE CPRG ever! :wink:
Wasteland on the C-64, Postapocalypse in it's truest kind! :D

Later on, when the first one in the neighbourhood had an PC,
there was StoneKeep, hope I'll remember right that tis
one was from Iplay too...

Interplay was always a sort of hope...


:(
 
Well it was to be expected, all I can say is if it truly is the end of them is good riddance!

Tis all so sad...
Still remembering the days with my good old Commodere 64,
playing Bard's Tale 1-3, yes THE CPRG ever!
Wasteland on the C-64, Postapocalypse in it's truest kind!...

Yes, they had made some great games in the waybackwhen, but they don't deserve to stay open anymore.


:) I remember back in December I bet all my friends they'd dissolve before the end of 2004, looks like I might be right!
 
My guess is there has to be a copywrite "Time-Limit" for games by companies so that after a certain amout of time anyone can use that title...then again it's just a thought.
Methinks you're right. But, IIRC, the time-limit was about 94 years. Not something to worry about.

That said, Interplay will have to sell those licenses for quite a bit of money. I think they'll squeeze every last bit of money they can out of a Fallout license sale, to get enough money to pay off their debts, and retain the BG: DA license.) If they manage to do that, and manage to keep the staff and everything, they might be in the clear. Their reputation will be worthless, though, but they'll have survived.
 
Kharn said:
<blockquote> In January 2004, Titus, our 71% majority shareholder, disclosed in their annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, filed with the Autorite des Marches Financiers of France, that they were involved in a litigation with one of our former founders and officers and as a result had deposited pursuant to a California Court Order approximately 8,679,306 shares of our common stock held by them (representing approximately 9% of our issued and outstanding common stock) with the court. Also disclosed was that Titus was conducting settlement discussions at the time of the filing to resolve the issue. To date, Titus has maintained voting control over the 8,679,306 million shares of common stock and has not represented to us that a transfer of beneficial ownership has occurred. Nevertheless, such transfer of shares may occur in fiscal 2004.</blockquote>

Who is this former founder and officer they are alluding to? From the way this is phrased, I assume it must be Brian Fargo. Does this mean that Hervé somehow sued Fargo and then settled for buying him out cheaply, cause those are the 8+ million he bought at 0.5 a few weeks ago, aren't they?
Not sure if I got that correctly - anybody else got the meaning of this?
 
You know, they should really cut down on their office space. Remember that interview where it was mentioned that they had dismantled all the cubicals and everyone had a proper office? Not to mention the room to set up a ping-pong table and the time to play it constantly.

Looks like they will have to take the ping-pong tournament out to the parking lot.
 
Sander said:
My guess is there has to be a copywrite "Time-Limit" for games by companies so that after a certain amout of time anyone can use that title...then again it's just a thought.
Methinks you're right. But, IIRC, the time-limit was about 94 years. Not something to worry about.
I think that you're mixing up copyrights and trademarks. The 95 year thing is for old (pre-1978) copyrights. Here's something that I posted at Winterwind a couple of months ago...

Capelworth said:
Spider's basically right. Here's the long answer...

For any published literary works in the US and in Europe (including the UK), a copyright lasts for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. In Canada, it's the lifetime of the author plus 50 years. However, in the US, that only applies to works created after 1978. For American works published prior to 1978, the copyright lasts 95 years from the publication date.

Canada: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33308
Europe: http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/copyright/how_long.htm
US: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc

Copyrights go by the country of origin...
That means that it will be a while before the existing Fallout games become public domain and may be freely distributed.

However, if you're talking about new games sporting the Fallout name in the title, you're talking trademarks. A trademark registration must be renewed at several different times. For a trademark registration to remain valid, the trademark owner must file an Affidavit of Use with the USPTO between the fifth and sixth year following registration, and within the year before the end of every ten-year period after the date of registration. The holder can file the affidavit within a grace period of six months after the end of the sixth or tenth year, but they must pay a late fee.

The Fallout mark was registered in August 1998. That means that Interplay has until February 2005 to renew the registered mark. However, that doesn't mean that all of their trademark rights are terminated, just the registration. I won't go any farther on that because I've probably already said far more than anybody wanted to know.

If the company is liquidated, any trademark rights and licenses would be put up for sale, with the proceeds going to the company's creditors. If Interplay were to be liquidated and the mark left unsold for whatever reason, I believe that the Fallout mark would be up for grabs next March.

I believe that's how Brian Fargo obtained the Wasteland mark. Electronic Arts let it expire. It does happen...
 
Moorkh said:
Who is this former founder and officer they are alluding to? From the way this is phrased, I assume it must be Brian Fargo.
That'd be my guess as well.

Moorkh said:
Does this mean that Hervé somehow sued Fargo and then settled for buying him out cheaply, cause those are the 8+ million he bought at 0.5 a few weeks ago, aren't they?
Fargo's departure wasn't amicable and each filed suit against the other, but I think you're basically right. I'll eat my hat if those aren't the shares Caen bought.

Here's Fargo's resignation letter and Caen's response for the curious.
 
Capelworth:

What is the date of Brian Fargo's resignation? It would be interesting to track the events and activities of Interplay in relation to the dates alluded to in those letters, looking for correlations of bonehead decisions and Fargo's leaving.

Just curious.
 
Murdoch said:
What is the date of Brian Fargo's resignation? It would be interesting to track the events and activities of Interplay in relation to the dates alluded to in those letters, looking for correlations of bonehead decisions and Fargo's leaving.

Fargo wrote the letter Jan 7, 2002 and "effectively" resigned Jan 21. Herve Caen was appointed to all Fargo's positions on Jan 28.

I think Fargo's letter is the more believable of the two, but then again I am a little biased :wink:
 
Murdoch, I once made a timeline thread of events at Interplay over at the Interplay board. Here's an excerpt leading up to Mr. Fargo's resignation and (apparently not-so-conclusive) settlement...

May 30, 2001
Interplay nearly sold to Pacific Century Cyber Works, a Chinese Consotium for $120 million.

July 3, 2001
Interplay stock closes at $2.20/share.

August 20, 2001
Interplay announces $12.4 million loss in Second Quarter 2001.

August 21, 2001
Titus Interactive announces that its stake in Interplay now exceeds 50% and states that it will "undertake very significant changes in the Board of Directors, to change the management of the company and to exercise full control within a very short period."

September 11, 2001
Titus announces replacement of 5 of 7 member of the Interplay Board of Directors with Titus nominees. Brian Fargo, Interplay founder and CEO is retained.

September 20, 2001
BioWare and Parallax issue a press release alleging that "there are additional royalties due to both BioWare and Parallax."

BioWare files an additional suit alleging that "Interplay has breached two contracts with BioWare by sublicensing distribution of BioWare games to third parties without the knowledge or consent of BioWare."

September 21, 2001
Interplay announces that the new board has been ratified by shareholders and that shareholders approved the appointment of Arthur Andersen to audit the company for 2001.

September 28, 2001
Interplay announces deal with Vivendi Universal Publishing, giving Vivendi exclusive rights to publish and distribute Interplay games in exchange for a $13.5 million advance.

Interplay stock closes at $0.42/share.

November 14, 2001
Interplay announces Third Quarter 2001 losses of $19.0 million.

November 29, 2001
BioWare terminates its contract with Interplay to develop Neverwinter Nights.

December 5, 2001
Titus announces recapitalization to reduce debt (basically, this just means that bondholders traded their bonds for stock).

December 31, 2001
Interplay stock closes at $0.46/share.

January 7, 2002
Brian Fargo, Interplay founder and CEO, submits his resignation, effective January 21, 2002, citing reductions in his responsibilities as CEO.

January 25, 2002
BioWare and Interplay issue a joint press release announcing a settlement in which Infogrames will publish Neverwinter Nights.

January 28, 2002
Titus and Interplay announce that Herve Caen, co-founder of Titus Interactive, will take on Interim CEO responsiblities at Interplay.

Interplay files a Form 8-K with the SEC alleging that Brian Fargo had not attended to his responsibilities in more than four months. Interplay claims Fargo wanted to "secure a highly lucrative severance and separation package for himself." Fargo refutes this, claiming that he wanted nothing.

February 15, 2002
Interplay receives deficiency notice from NASDAQ. The notice states that Interplay no longer meets NASDAQ's listing requirements, and that it has 90 days to regain compliance.

March 11, 2002
Interplay announces $3.3 million operating loss in Fourth Quarter 2001.

March 15, 2002
Titus converts preferred shares to common shares to increase its ownership of Interplay to 72.4%.

March 20, 2002
Interplay announces the retention of licenses to "develop and publish roleplaying games in the Dungeons & Dragons franchises of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale." This is likely a part of the Neverwinter Nights settlement with BioWare and Infogrames.

March 22, 2002
Interplay announces that "issues" with former CEO Brian Fargo have been resolved.
 
Wow, that's a good list Capelworth! You can clearly see how it all falls downhill, going from $2.20 share in July 2001 and ending up at $0.08 (I believe the lowest was)...in 2004....

Sigh, it's a shame... Makes me wonder how the hell the Caen brothers have managed to get such a high position in the first place...
 
Back
Top