The video, for Derty Sesh’s second single, Forever, was pulled from YouTube by Move The Crowd Records this week, at the same time the censor’s office began a classification process for the video.

For more see NZPA Report:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/3542326/Derty-Sesh-exhausted-from-backlash

The video for rapper Derty Sesh’s second single, Forever, has been pulled from YouTube by Move The Crowd Records.

Interested parties, including Move the Crowd Records, Rape Prevention Education, the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards and the Department of Internal Affairs, were yesterday invited to make comments on the video.

They would be given two to three weeks to make comments before they were considered by the Censor’s Office and classified.

For more see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/3533304/Graphic-hip-hop-video-taken-down

Ministry of Justice and Internal Affairs officials have been meeting key stakeholders and industry and government body officials during the past fortnight to gather submissions for a “tightly targeted review” of the current laws.

However, that scope may widen, given that the present act has been described as “unwieldy and expensive” and badly out of step with technology…

For more see article by James Croot. The Press 30 March 2010. Link below.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3525995/Time-to-reform-NZs-censorship-laws

As the Sunday Star-Times reported in the weekend: “An extended, online version of the video for Nathan King’s second single “Forever” depicts the rapper, who performs under the name “Dirty Sesh”, crouching over a bound woman with a knife to her head, before stabbing her in a frenzy and cutting out her organs. The clip, which features shots of mutilated women’s bodies and body parts, then segues into the television version of the video, which shows the rapper stalking a young couple in a park, dispatching the boyfriend, then driving the woman to a secluded hut. The television version ends with the woman screaming as the hooded rapper appears; in the online version, he assaults her.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3517368/Mike-Kings-son-in-horror-splatter-video-storm

Venue: Connolly Hall, Guilford Tce.
(off Hill St), Thorndon, Wellington

Date: Monday 8th June

Members’ Only AGM: 6.45pm – 7.20 p.m.
Followed by Free Public Address
(All welcome)
7.30 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.

GUEST SPEAKER

John Terris Q.S.O. ANZIM

Topic: “Media Matters in Society”

John James Terris is a New Zealand politician who initially represented the Labour Party in the NZ parliament. In that capacity he held the positions of Acting Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the House of Representatives from 1984 to 1990

He represented the electorate of Western Hutt in Parliament from 1978 to 1990 when he was defeated by National’s Joy McLauchlan, one of a number of losses contributing to the fall of the Fourth Labour Government.

He was later the politically independent Mayor of Lower Hutt, from 1995 to 2004. He is the only person ever to have been both MP and Mayor in the Hutt Valley where he has lived since 1965.

His early working life was in radio and television and he is an ordained Anglican priest.

He is currently the President of Media Matters in NZ, (www.viewers.org.nz)an advocacy group which campaigns against gratuitous sex and violence in the electronic media. He is a member of the Hutt Mana Charitable Trust and patron of a number of community groups in the Hutt area

He is a writer, publisher and broadcaster. His autobiography “Being Who You Are” (Steele Roberts) was published in 2004. He is a member of the Queen’s Service Order and a holder of the 1990 Medal.

Source: Wikipedia

Judge Shaw rejected the ERA ruled that employer, Arthur D Riley & Co., had “a significantly flawed and less than consistent approach” to its policy against accessing and transmitting “inappropriate material” via the internet/intranet because other staff who she had forwarded an offensive and sexually explicit email on to, had not been disciplined as she had. The ERA also ruled the images were not as objectionable as the company claimed. However, Judge Shaw commended the company for its fair and reasonable approach to the disciplinary action and the clarity of its policies and negated the ERA compensation payout.

In its Business Update e-newsletter published soon after the ERA decision was released in 2007, employer lobby group Business NZ scoffed at the authority’s suggestion that the company could have gone to the Chief Censor’s Office – The Office of Film and Literature Classification – for an “objective view” of the email.

“The thought of companies all over New Zealand having to run to the official censor [Bill Hastings] to rule on employees’ naughty emails is a humorous one,” it said. “But more important, the ruling raises the question of a company’s right to set its own standards, both for the protection of staff and protection of the company’s image and brand … Why shouldn’t companies have the right to set and maintain standards of appropriate workplace behaviour?” [Ref. 1]

The Society points out that much of the inappropriate, lewd, racist and obscene email content that gets passed around some workplace computers by employees, would hardly raise the eyelids of the Chief Censor Bill Hastings and his Deputy Nicola McCully, who have sanctioned films like Baise-Moi, Visitor Q and Irreversible, featuring lengthy, explicit and gratuitous scenes of brutal rape, necrophilia, etc. for adult film festivals. These censors have approved truckloads of grossly offensive sexually explicit and gratuitous DVDs and videos for home adult entertainment and the public cinema, that demean, degrade and dehumanise women.

For a static computer image or images (such as those forwarded to work colleagues via email by Miss Wood) to be classified “objectionable” by the Chief Censor’s Office the image(s) must feature content extending way beyond mere adult nudity, racial slurs, exposed adult private parts etc. Generally, it would have to promote and support activities such as paedophilia, sexual violence, etc. before the Chief Censor’s Office would even consider ruling it “objectionable”, thereby banning it.

What the general public considers grossly offensive – in terms of sexual content – often bears little if any relationship with the judgment of the Chief Censor’s Office. However, occasionally the Society has been pleasantly surprised – as when the Office recently banned the blasphemous and offensive “Cradle of Filth” T-shirt.

References

Ref. 1. Censoring makes sense, but only if it’s consistent, by Simon Hendery:

The General Manager of Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd, Garth Mickell, says a level of common sense has been applied in the decision by the Employment Court which has found that his company was justified in dismissing an employee.

The case, which was originally an appeal against a decision from the Employment Relations Authority, involved the dismissal of an employee for forwarding offensive images by e-mail to internal and external recipients.

Ms Wood forwarded an email containing pictures of naked people, having twice previously been warned about similar behaviour.

Mr Mickell says his company has only applied the terms of employment and policies that Ms Wood had signed, and she had been warned about on more than one occasion.

“It has been a long and costly process, but we could not let the ERA ruling stand as is, due to the ongoing impact it may have on employment disputes. Each and every employment environment is different and this ruling allows this to be taken into account.” 

The Employment Court held that the company was justified in dismissing the employee because of the relatively conservative nature of the workplace, the clarity of the company’s policies as to what constituted unacceptable behaviour, that previous warnings had been given, and because of the employee’s actions.

The Court also held that in situations where an employer does not strictly apply its own policies, this does not necessarily disentitle it from pursuing disciplinary action.

Blair Scotland, from EMA  Legal who represented Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd, says this case is important for employers as it highlights that individual organisations can have their own moral codes and standards, and can enforce these.

“Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 does not require a ‘one size fits all’ approach to an employer’s standards, so that behaviour deemed acceptable in the local mechanic’s workshop may not necessarily be acceptable at the childcare centre down the road,” Mr Scotland said.

ENDS

The Society is delighted that the Employment Court in Wellington has recently issued a robust landmark decision that defends the rights of employers to enforce any company rules they have prohibiting their employees from accessing, downloading, uploading, saving, requesting, transmitting, storing or purposely viewing sexual, pornographic, obscene, racist, profane or other offensive and inappropriate material, using the workplace internet or intranet. The Court’s decision overturns a determination of the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) issued last year that was extensively covered in the media and featured in July 2007 on John Campbell’s TV3 Nightline programme.

“Employers have always had a right to dismiss employees who breach company policies relating to conduct in the workplace,” says Society Executive Director David Lane. “However, this Court decision, Arthur D Riley & Co Limited v Jessica Sharon Wood (WC 18/08; WRC 25/07) issued by Judge CM Shaw on 8 October 2008, underlines in case law, for the first time I am aware of, the rights of employers to tie their company policies to their own community/workplace standards in relation to objectonable/pornographic or offensive content, without relying on the liberal and flaky definition of what constitutes offensive and obscene content issued regularly by the Chief Censor’s Office – the so-called enlightened  ‘objective view’. Of course companies must set out fair and reasonable procedures that allow an employer to effectively deal with breaches of conduct in the use of the internet, clearly define inappropriate content and notify and warn employees of the consequences of all misconduct.”

Employment Court Judge Coral M Shaw has overturned an earlier determination that was issued by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that upheld a wrongful dismissal claim by a Wellington woman Miss Jessica Sharon Wood against her employer Arthur D Riley & Co Lts (ADR). The substantial financial compensation awarded her by the ERA, made against ADR, has now been negated by the Employment Court which has ruled that all of it (paid in full by ADR into the Court, pending appeal result) – 75% of her lost wages from 18 September 2006 to January 2007 and $9,000 damages for humiliation – must be returned with interest to the plaintiff (ADR). The Court has reversed the decision of the ERA by now reserving costs in favour of the plaintiff, which has 28 days from the date of the Court’s decision, 8 October, to submit its claims against Miss Wood.

The Society Director David Lane praises Mr Garth Mickell, Director of a private electricity and water metering business, Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd (ADR), the plaintiff, for challenging the appallingly incompetent and flawed decision issued last year by Mr Denis Asher of the ERA.

In an email dated 10 October Mickell wrote to the Society:

“First thank you for your support, and advise. Attached for your reference is the employment court determination. We are thankful that commonsense has prevailed, and there is now the ability of places of work to be able to determine their level of  morality and ethics, without influence from central government.”

To reiterate: employers now have a right, recognised by the Employment Court, to enforce company policy relating to what they consider constitutes objectionable/pornographic or offensive content without having to get an “objective” determination from the Chief Censor’s Office. Employers can also determine what constitutes “serious misconduct” relating to such material without having to have the liberal Chief Censor’s Office effectively negate the fair and reasonable community standards they seek to uphold in the workplace.

Some Details on the Case

The Employment Court  overturned a determination issued by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that Miss Wood had been wrongly dismissed as an employee of Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd [ADR] on 18 September 2006, for serious misconduct including breaching its clear internet/intranet policy, by forwarding on to fellow employees and friends in government departments, a “joke email” on the subject of “Eleven Most hot People!!!!!!!” (sic), containing offensive sexual content, which she had received from her father Graeme Wood a Wellington City Council employee. The email contained offensive images including those of completely nude obese middle aged men and an elderly women and explicit depictions of a man’s genitalia.

The ERA determination made by Denis Asher stated: “The images were clearly designed to shock and ridicule, as evidenced by the subject title and the phrase employed by Ms Wood when she forwarded it,. . . namely ‘ewww’.”

Mr Asher said the company had “a significantly flawed and less than consistent approach to its email policy”. He also deemed the pictures were not as objectionable as Mr Mickell made them out to be and that his views were “unsustainable”. “Something more concrete is required than Mr Mickell and his colleagues’ personal views,” Mr Asher said. He implied that because Mr Mickell had not submitted the emails to the Chief Censor’s Office for classification and thereby ‘proved; that they were in fact “objectionable” under s. 3 of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, he (Mickell) could not possibly sustain his company’s view that they were offensive. In the Employment Court Judge Shaw rejected this argument advanced by Counsel for Miss Wood.

Mr Asher also made the bizarre and erroneous ruling that because the other employees of the company who had received Ms Wood’s email had not been disciplined, the company was not being fair.  The Court’s ruling notes that it is not the innocent recipient of “objectionable” or offensive content that breaks the law or company policy, but rather the disseminator of such content.

The Society strongly urged Mr Mickell in 2007 to appeal the ERA decision, which it considered seriously flawed. The ERA had ruled that Mr Mickell’s company had a significantly flawed and less than consistent approach to its internet and email policy and its application was not fair and consistent. The Court rejected these findings that run counter to all the facts of the case and rejected the criticism that it had failed to advance any “objective criteria” as to what constituted objectionable/pornographic or offensive material, but rather had relied only on colleagues’ personal views.

The Society is delighted that the Chief Censor’s Office was shut out of this dispute and that its liberal agenda has not been allowed to corrupt this important Employment Court ruling.

LATEST MEDIA REPORTS

NZPA Story: Otago Daily Times Sat, 11 Oct 2008

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/26854/employment-court-overturn-ruling-dismissal-over-email

___________________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND TO CASE PRIOR TO APPEAL

Employment Relations – a legal update Serious misconduct

Written by Jennifer Mills, Aaron Lloyd, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

Monday, 27 August 2007

3rd Annual HR Directors’ Forum

http://www.conferenz.co.nz/employment-relations-a-legal-update-6.html

139.    The test of justification set out in section 103A of the ERA is applicable to a wide range of decisions or actions by employers, including when identifying and evaluating alleged serious misconduct.

142.    If an employer has not made reasonable inquiries into an allegation of serious misconduct prior to reaching a conclusion, then any decision to dismiss is likely to be unjustified.   An employer will be evaluated on the reasonableness of his or her belief that the employee was guilty of the serious misconduct alleged, based generally on the investigative process undertaken to establish this belief, including the provision of an opportunity for the employee to answer the complaint.

143.    In respect of substantive justification, the Courts will usually apply a two-stage approach to the question of whether a dismissal is justified:
(a)    Did the misconduct amount to serious misconduct; and
(b)    Was dismissal what a fair and reasonable employer would have done bearing in mind in of all the circumstances at the time?
144.    With procedural fairness in such cases, the usual rules apply.  However, employers should note that an employee should be advised at the outset of an investigation that the process might result in him/her being summarily dismissed.
Wood v Arthur D Riley & Co Limited (unreported, WA96/07, 9 July 2007)

145.    A recent Employment Relations Authority determination, Wood v Arthur D Riley & Co Limited considered the test of justification in section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in a summary dismissal situation.  The case involved an employee, Jessica Wood, who forwarded, via her work email, an email she had earlier received from her father misleadingly entitled “Eleven most hot people!!!!!”.  Some individuals depicted were obese; another image appeared to have a woman’s head transposed onto the body of a male body-builder.  The Authority noted that the aim of the email was to shock and ridicule.

146.    In summarily dismissing Ms Wood, the company relied on its house rules (employment polices) which provided that a breach of the Internet and Email Policy amounted to serious misconduct.  The Internet and Email Policy provided that computers were to be used only for business purposes, and prohibited employees from transmitting or storing obscene, pornographic or offensive material. Further, the policy provided that what constituted offensive material was to be determined by the company in its sole discretion.

147.    Despite the company’s clear policies, and the fact that Ms Wood had received earlier warnings about inappropriate email usage and professionalism in the workplace generally, the Authority was of the opinion that the company’s decision to dismiss did not meet the test of justification in section 103A.

148.    The Authority emphasised that the company could not simply rely on its policies or house rules to assert justification for Ms Wood’s summary dismissal.  The application of any policy was subject to the test of justification in section 103A requiring an objective assessment by a fair and reasonable employer. Just because the company’s policy provided that certain behaviour amounted to serious misconduct, did not automatically mean that such behaviour did constitute serious misconduct. The rationale for this view is that section 103A requires an employer to decide whether dismissal is fair in all the circumstances.

149.    The Authority did not look favourably on the company’s flawed and inconsistent approach to enforcing its internet and email policy.  The Authority noted that in reality the company accepted a significant measure of personal email usage notwithstanding its policy that email and internet be used for business purposes only.  Accordingly, other employees had not been disciplined in relation to storing Ms Wood’s email in contravention of the Internet and Email policy.

150.    Further, the Authority was not convinced that a fair and reasonable employer would have considered the email offensive.  The Authority noted that Ms Wood had received the email from her father, a person she could reasonably expect to rely on in determining what was or was not offensive.  Ms Wood’s father was employed by a major local body whose computer filtering program had not picked up the email.  The Authority was of the view that the company had not advanced enough objective criteria that the images were offensive.  The Authority considered that the company’s reliance on arguments that, for example, pictures of obese people would offend other obese people was insufficient evidence that the email was offensive.

151.    The Authority concluded that the company had relied too heavily on its own views as to what constituted offensive material, and its decision to dismiss did not reflect on what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time.

152.    Ms Wood was awarded reimbursement for lost wages, and $12,000 in compensation for hurt and humiliation.  However both these awards were discounted by 25% to reflect Ms Wood’s contribution

The computer game’s distributor, the applicant to the FVLB, recorded on the application form, its identity as “TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE”. All other details relating to the company were deleted from the form by the Chief Censor, Bill Hastings, when he provided the application form to the Society, in response to its Official Information Request (OIR). The applicant’s contact person, return street address for the publication and contact telephone number, were all deleted.

The Society Investigates……..

The Society has been calling for the Grand Theft Auto game series to be banned since an earlier version was released onto the NZ market (See article by Fran Tyler “Crime-Promoting Game Sells Fast, Dominion Post 17/11/02, A12). Lack of disclosure from the Chief Censor’s Office regarding the details of the game’s version 4 distributor, has prompted the Society to do some quick research on the company ………

Here are some initial findings.

The full Company name of the New Zealand distributor of the Grand Theft Auto IV is TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE PTY LTD, New Zealand Branch. It is a branch of its overseas controlling company, one that is incorporated in Australia with an official name of TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE PTY LTD. The latter is controlled by a Swiss Company that is itself controlled by the parent company based in the US (see details in Appendix below).

The New Zealand Companies Website (www.companies.govt.nz) indicates that the NZ distributor of Grand Theft Auto IV was registered as a Company (No. 1100292). in New Zealand on the 6^th of November 2000 and its principal place of business is listed as Unit M, 86 Bush Road, Albany, Auckland (website record entry dated 23 May 2007). The person authorised to “accept service” in New Zealand on behalf of the Australian-based company, is Mr John Gray C/- Ross Melville PKF, Level 5. 50 Anzac Ave, Auckland 1010. The current NZ Branch Directors are listed as Michael Chow of 18 Headland Road, Castle Cove NSW 2069, Australia and Daniel Emerson, 109 Puritan Drive, Port Chester NY 10573, United States and by law must also be directors of the Australian controlling company. Both were appointed as directors on the 8^th of September 2007 on the same day that former Company directors Emmanuel Bohlock and James Ellingford resigned.

On the 30^th of March 2007, Bohlock and Ellingford and the Company’s auditor, Margaget van Aanholt, signed the NZ Branch 2006 Financial Statements (covering the period 1 November 2005 to 31 August 2006). However, it was not until eight months later, on the 26th of November 2007, that the documents were finally filed with the Companies Office. The directors were obligated under the Financial Reporting Act 1993 to file them within 20 working days of signing them off. However, they were filed almost 7 months after the due date and two months AFTER Bohlock and Ellingford had resigned as directors on September 8th 2007 – replaced by new directors, Michael Chow and Daniel Emerson, were appointed.

Section 10 of the Financial Reporting Act 1993 required that the directors file these documents NO LATER than 5 months and 20 working days after the balance date of 31st October 2006 – that is NO LATER than the 3rd of May 2006 (see ref. 3).

In a letter to the Society dated 5 May 2008, in response to the Society’s OIR concerning Grand Theft Auto IV, the Chief Censor wrote:

“The Film and Video Labelling Body Inc also submitted to the Classification Office [to accompany the publication Grand Theft Auto IV] a copy of the submission made by the game’s Australian applicant to the Australian Government Classification Board. This submission relates “to the classification of this publication”. This submission is however marked “confidential” and contains commercially valuable information. Under section 18(a) of the Official Information Act 1882, I therefore refuse your request because the information requested is subject to an obligation of confidence where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that the information should continue to be supplied, and because the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information. [Emphasis added]

“You have the right, by way of complaint to an Ombudsman under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act 1982 to seek an investigation and review of this refusal.”

The Society has lodged a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman over the refusal of Mr Bill Hastings to release this information to the Society. It contends that it is in the “public interest” for the submission on Grand Theft Auto IV received by the OFLC from the game’s Australian applicant to the Australian Government Classification Board, be released. Furthermore, it contends that any genuine commercially sensitive information, such as sales figures projections etc, could have easily been deleted by the applicant, prior to its release of the submission to the SPCS. Furthermore, it is asking that the Ombudsman investigate the nature of the so-called confidentiality agreement that Mr Hastings claims he has entered into with the game’s Australian applicant (and/or the New Zealand or Australian distributor).

The Society asks: Why is TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE so sensitive about the release of its New Zealand contact details, in view of the fact that Grand Theft Auto IV is advertised as being advertised in NZ as the Number 1 selling computer game in the world and the “coolest game ever made”.

Why would the Company distributing such a popular and commercially successful game request that Chief Censor Bill Hastings and Bill Hood, Executive Secretary of the FVLB, withhold its contact details from the SPCS?

As noted, TAKE INTERACTIVE last filed it audited Financial Statements with the New Zealand Companies Office on 26 November 2007 – LATE – and these were for the financial year 1 November 2005 to 31 October 2006. Its audited Financial Statements for the year ending 31 October 2007, that were required to be filed with the Companies Office NO LATER THAN the 29th of April 2007, have not yet been filed. Again Company Directors have a legal obligation to have these accounts filed by the due date (see ref. 3).

Audited Financial Accounts that have been filed show that that the New Zealand Branch of TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE had a sales revenue in the 2005/2006 financial year of $5,350.639 that together with interest revenue of $1,617, gave it a total yearly operating revenue of $5,352,256. Taking account of annual operating expenses of $5,287,737, this gave it an operating surplus before income tax of $64,519. Subtracting income tax of $27,797, gave it an operating surplus of $36,722.

The balance of the account at the beginning the year (1/11/05) was $237,209 and this amount combined with the net profit for 2006 (or operating surplus) of $36,722, gave an end of year (31/10/06) balance of the accounts of $273,931 (the latter figure derived from net profit of $36,722 + balance of $237,209 as at 1/11/05)

The only financial disclosures relating to the annual operating expenses of $5,352,256 that are provided in the 2005/2006 Financial Accounts are given in note 3: $29,023 (Cost of offering credit: bad and doubtful debts), $6,384 (Fees for audit services) and fees for taxation services ($13,186). The total amounts to only $48,593 – a mere 0.96% of total operating expenses. It appears that the NZ Branch directors of Take 2 Interactive have cited Section 211(3) of the Companies Act 1993 to justify the absence of financial disclosure with respect to $5,303,663 of operating costs. ALL Shareholders would have had to have formally agreed with such omissions from the Financial Statements for them to be legal under the Act. The Companies Office told the SPCS it was unable to disclose any information concerning this lack of financial disclosure.

http://www.companies.govt.nz/scanned-images/71/BC10054448471.pdf

Goods amounting to $4,568.795 (2005: $5,689,297) were purchased from the New Zealand Branch’s controlling company based in Australia – Take 2 International Software Pty Limited – during the financial year ending 31 October 2006. As that balance date the Branch owed the controlling company $806,383 for goods purchased (2005:$1,080,346).

The gross profit from sales by the Australian controlling company for the year ending 31 October 2006 was $10,453,067. Its net assets are recorded as $5,927,590 and total liabilities are $7,646,429. The total receipts from customers was $38,567,136 and the profits attributable to the entity after providing for income tax was $949,282.

These results contained in the Financial Statements for 2005/2006 were signed off by one director, Emmanuel Bohlock, and the auditor, Margaret van Aanhold, on the 1st of June 20007 and then filed with the NZ Companies Office on 26 November 2007, two months after Bohlock and fellow-director James Ellingford had resigned. Bohlock signed the Director’s report on behalf of his fellow directors Ellingford and Ashish Solanki. “Key Management Personnel Compensation” is given as $868,657 (2005:$827,868).

Appendix

A “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” contains Note 10 “Party Related Disclosures” to the NZ Branch’s Financial Accounts (2006), states:

“The controlling company of Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Limited, New Zealand Branch, is Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Ltd, a company incorporated in Australia.

“The immediate controlling company of Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Limited is Take-Two International SA, a company incorporated in Switzerland.

“The ultimate controlling company of Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Limited is Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. a company incorporated in the United States of America.”

Note 1 states:

“The [New Zealand] Branch is a qualifying entity within the Framework of Differential Reporting. The Branch qualifies on the basis that it is not publicly accountable and Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take-Two International SA, (Company incorporated in Switzerland).”

1. US game sales rise 47PC in April on GTA4. ReutersFriday, 16 May 2008

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4550995a28.html

2. Grand Theft Auto hailed as ‘masteroiece’ Reuters 29 April 2008.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4501898a1860.html

3. Section 19 (3) of the Financial Reporting Act 1993 states:

 The directors of every company to which this section applies [Overseas Companies] must—

• (a) ensure that, within 20 working days after the financial statements of the company and any group financial statements in relation to a group comprising that company and its subsidiaries are required to be signed, copies of those statements, together with a copy of the auditor’s report on those statements, are delivered to the Registrar for registration; and

• (b) ensure that the company pays to the Registrar the prescribed registration fee at the same time.