The San Mateo County (Cal.) Superior Court granted final approval...
The San Mateo County (Cal.) Superior Court granted final approval late last month to a settlement in a class action employee suit against Electronic Arts (EA), the publisher said in a 10-Q SEC filing Wed. The suit, filed July…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
2004, claimed the publisher improperly classified “image production employees” in Cal. as “exempt.” The court granted preliminary approval in Oct. of a settlement in which EA agreed to pay a lump sum of $15.6 million. EA said it paid that to a 3rd-party administrator during 2005’s 4th quarter to cover all claims allegedly suffered by the class members, as well as plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and other case costs. EA’s filing also said a consolidated class action securities lawsuit by investors against it and some officers and directors was dismissed with prejudice Jan. 26 by a U.S. Dist. Court in northern Cal. But EA said there were still a shareholder derivative action pending in the same court and 2 shareholder derivative actions pending in Superior Court, San Mateo, that made the same basic claims as the earlier suits. EA also revealed that it agreed Feb. 7 to lease 94,782 sq. ft. of facilities space in Guildford, U.K. It said the deal was subject to renovations by the Standard Life Assurance Co. that expects to be done about June 1. At that time, EA said, it will enter into a 10-year lease and take possession of the facilities. The company said it plans to use the facilities “primarily as studio space for the development of our games.” Separately, another law firm -- Federman & Sherwood in Oklahoma City -- filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in N.Y.C., claiming that EA rival Take-Two Interactive violated securities laws by making material misrepresentations of its performance that artificially inflated the market price of Take-Two stock.