Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I dont think that " BF will release CM:BN on a historical date " - theory holds water. That tiny, miniscule portion of the market that this forum represents, may know what those dates mean.

But the mass of potential customers buying this, has no clue about historical dates.

So BF will ship when its ready ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently there are some real motivations for at least some publishers about when to and not to release game titles.

The small developer team of Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943 stated quite plainly that they were told by their publisher there would be no follow-up add ons for that game until some time in 2011.....apparently for "tax reasons".

I read that on a message board for the game and it was posted by the head developer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently there are some real motivations for at least some publishers about when to and not to release game titles.

The small developer team of Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943 stated quite plainly that they were told by their publisher there would be no follow-up add ons for that game until some time in 2011.....apparently for "tax reasons".

I read that on a message board for the game and it was posted by the head developer.

so the developer wanted to keep the development cost out of the previous years account or something like that .... possible easy way to solve if that's likey in the BF circumstance (not that i am suggesting this , easier to ask BF when the year end hits :) and if its important ....) , in the uk we have companies house where all business must log there accounts for anyone to view. Find the US site, find BF company by VAT number on your invoice, download the accounts :) .... i'm not that i care but it is possible that's all i'm saying :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the law here may be different. The kind of public accountability you are talking about only applies to publicly traded companies here. BFC is a privately held firm. Of course, they have to file reports with the IRS, but I don't know to what degree those become part of the public record. SFAIK, BFC has never reported on this forum their gross sales or profits. From that I deduce that they regard it as a highly private and guarded matter.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. I'm not a corporate lawyer, but I work for one.

Firstly, there is no VAT in the U.S., ergo no "VAT number".

It depends somewhat on the exact organizational structure (P.C., LLC, LLP, etc.), and also sometimes on the State where the company is organized, but generally speaking, here in the U.S., there is very little a small privately held company is required to publicly disclose about its finances, plans, structure, or ownership. There may be some very basic tax & real property info that is part of the public record, but this usually isn't very elucidating. *IF* the company was or is party to a lawsuit, you can sometimes get more information because filings in a lawsuit are often (but not always) part of the public record.

In some cases, there may be other sources of information. This is very dependent on what the company does. For example, information regarding what kind of permits & licenses the company holds, health inspection records, etc. may be publicly available.

Publicly held companies are, as noted, a very different animal. There are literally codices of rules about what U.S. publicly held companies are required to disclose, and when.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No no no...The game will be released no earlier than April and no later than June/July.

Previews will take place around February/March, so no ealrier than that, and game seems finsihed enough to not go beyond mid summer (Also, Steve needs some vacations).

This puts the release roughly between May/June/July. So, its already 90 to 1. Not that bad till now.

Optimist will say May, pessimist will say July. So, Steve says June-he is quite a balanced type. 30 to 1. From all the June days, one is D-DAY. Its so damn obvious!

I bet 5$ :)

I really hope it's an April release! However, I'm still quite happy that it's relatively close by. I thought it was going to be a late 2011 release. I'm very much looking forward to this game!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the law here may be different. The kind of public accountability you are talking about only applies to publicly traded companies here. BFC is a privately held firm. Of course, they have to file reports with the IRS, but I don't know to what degree those become part of the public record. SFAIK, BFC has never reported on this forum their gross sales or profits. From that I deduce that they regard it as a highly private and guarded matter. Michael

Yep. I'm not a corporate lawyer, but I work for one. Firstly, there is no VAT in the U.S., ergo no "VAT number". It depends somewhat on the exact organizational structure (P.C., LLC, LLP, etc.), and also sometimes on the State where the company is organized, but generally speaking, here in the U.S., there is very little a small privately held company is required to publicly disclose about its finances, plans, structure, or ownership. There may be some very basic tax & real property info that is part of the public record, but this usually isn't very elucidating. *IF* the company was or is party to a lawsuit, you can sometimes get more information because filings in a lawsuit are often (but not always) part of the public record. In some cases, there may be other sources of information. This is very dependent on what the company does. For example, information regarding what kind of permits & licenses the company holds, health inspection records, etc. may be publicly available. Publicly held companies are, as noted, a very different animal. There are literally codices of rules about what U.S. publicly held companies are required to disclose, and when.

Hmm , thats interesting , yet more stuff i didn't know about the US :) If no VAT number there must be some company number to allow tractability. From a business perspective we tend to do our research to understand who we are dealing with. Find it odd that there is no form of public accessible traceability .... i though you guys were the leaders of the free information world :) Maybe just a different way of doing things. Thanks for the response though, all interesting stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, private entities (both individuals and companies) have a greater right to privacy in the United States than in Western Europe, especially with regard to financial matters. This right to privacy often trumps the "leader of the free information world" thing. There are exceptions to this. Curiously, these things are in some ways reversed once you start talking about publicly held companies. U.S. companies are subject to very strict reporting standards. Some of the regulations in Western Europe are arguably less stringent.

At work, we use professional services like Lexis-Nexis, Dun & Bradstreet etc. to find information about privately held entities; these are services that locate and aggregate information about entities. They're not cheap, but the time savings of getting all available information in one report is well worth it for us.

There might or might not be some form of "company number" in the U.S. At the smallest end of the scale -- a small, simple sole proprietorship (an individual in business for themselves; e.g., Grandma Polly selling her hand-knitted hats to supplement her retirement income), almost certainly not. But many forms of business in the U.S. will have some sort of registration or license that you can trace.

As a consumer in the United States, if you wanted to get information about a privately held business to make sure they were on the up and up before you bought goods or services from them, you'd generally go through the Better Business Bureau, and now increasingly to online consumer feedback/review sites like Yelp.com.

Cheers,

YD

Link to post
Share on other sites
There might or might not be some form of "company number" in the U.S. At the smallest end of the scale -- a small, simple sole proprietorship (an individual in business for themselves; e.g., Grandma Polly selling her hand-knitted hats to supplement her retirement income), almost certainly not. But many forms of business in the U.S. will have some sort of registration or license that you can trace.

I am finding this all very odd. In Australia the directorship and shareholding of all companies has to be reported to a government authority and is public information. And if shares are held beneficially that has to be disclosed in the publicly available company reports.

I have never understood US TV shows where the DA can't determine the ultimate owner of a asset because it is owned by a company with a "complex corporate structure". Is it the case in the US that private companies are not required to disclose their shareholders and directors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood US TV shows where the DA can't determine the ultimate owner of a asset because it is owned by a company with a "complex corporate structure". Is it the case in the US that private companies are not required to disclose their shareholders and directors?

Well, I think wrt to your TV show example, they're probably using a different phenomenon as a plot device: when you have corporate structure with multiple holding companies, parent-daughter relationships, etc., it can difficult to determine who ultimate beneficial owners of the company are. This isn't necessarily specifically a U.S. phenomenon. In fact, when someone really wants to obscure the beneficial owner of an asset, using multiple interrelated companies organized in different countries is often a good way to do it.

With regard to your questions about private company disclosure in the U.S., it's difficult to generalize here because many of the rules and laws relevant to especially small companies are State level rather than Federal level in the United States. Then you have to consider how the company is organized: The rules for a P.C. are different than the rules for an LLP, etc. So to give a fully accurate response, I'd have to give you 50 answers for each type of company structure. My general lack of interest in these kind of legal details is why I did NOT go to law school, thank you very much. :P

But my general understanding as a guy who does not have a legal degree, but works in the legal industry, is that a private company organized in the United States with a complex enough structure to have directors and shareholders will probably be required to report a substantial amount of information about its structure and ownership to various state and federal agencies, for tax purposes among other reasons.

However, just because this information is reported to the government doesn't mean that this it is publicly available to anyone who wants to see it. United States governmental agencies (whether Federal or State) don't necessarily give out all the information they have about a private entity (which could be a natural person or a company) to just anyone who wants to see it.

Cheers,

YD

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the law here may be different. The kind of public accountability you are talking about only applies to publicly traded companies here. BFC is a privately held firm. Michael

Man I wish they went public. I would love to invest in the company. Shareholder meetings would be very interesting indeed. I wonder if Steve would show up in one of his WWII vehilces??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I think wrt to your TV show example, they're probably using a different phenomenon as a plot device: when you have corporate structure with multiple holding companies, parent-daughter relationships, etc., it can difficult to determine who ultimate beneficial owners of the company are. This isn't necessarily specifically a U.S. phenomenon. In fact, when someone really wants to obscure the beneficial owner of an asset, using multiple interrelated companies organized in different countries is often a good way to do it.

With regard to your questions about private company disclosure in the U.S., it's difficult to generalize here because many of the rules and laws relevant to especially small companies are State level rather than Federal level in the United States. Then you have to consider how the company is organized: The rules for a P.C. are different than the rules for an LLP, etc. So to give a fully accurate response, I'd have to give you 50 answers for each type of company structure. My general lack of interest in these kind of legal details is why I did NOT go to law school, thank you very much. :P

But my general understanding as a guy who does not have a legal degree, but works in the legal industry, is that a private company organized in the United States with a complex enough structure to have directors and shareholders will probably be required to report a substantial amount of information about its structure and ownership to various state and federal agencies, for tax purposes among other reasons.

However, just because this information is reported to the government doesn't mean that this it is publicly available to anyone who wants to see it. United States governmental agencies (whether Federal or State) don't necessarily give out all the information they have about a private entity (which could be a natural person or a company) to just anyone who wants to see it.

Cheers,

YD

Thanks YankeeDog. In Australia the state company codes were Ferderalised in 2001 and company law in Austraila is now governed by the Corporations Act 2001. However, even prior to 2001 the state Attorneys General would cooperate to ensure the state company codes were, for all intents and purposes, identical.

Over here all companies are required to disclose to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) significant events such as changes in directorship and shareholding. ASIC maintains this information on a public database. I figured that was the default position all over the world. A few years ago I had a case involving two Vanuatu companies. When I read the Vaunatu corporations act I was shocked to find that not only is this information not available to the public, it is a criminal offense to even make enquiries as to the directors or shareholders of a company (punishable by fines and jail time). I assumed this bizzare law arose out of Vanuatu's status as a tax haven. It never occured to me that the shareholding of a company might be a privacy issue.

As an Australian I have often wondered about the difference between Australian law and US law. Both Australia and the US are common law countries and the law operating in the colonies was British law. But following the news on Fox and MSNBC it seems that Australians and Americans have widely differing views on the role of the law and of government in society.

In Australia we like laws and we like the government. We see it as the government's role to provide essential services and regulate relations between human beings. I find it odd that there is even a debate over government health care (on the basis that it is the government's job to take care of its citizens). I had open heart surgery a few years ago. My out of pocket costs were $15 for the cab fare. (I even saved money because the hospital fed me for a week.) And I am glad that, over here, psycopaths and schizophrenics (and belligerant arseholes) aren't allowed to carry guns in public.

Anyway, I am glad that I live in Australia with our user friendly laws, our intrusive government and our socialised health care system (even if America is the greates nation in the world).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...