In some ways, perhaps, the world of Mergers and Acquisitions is a massively multiplayer role playing game as well. Like in World of Warcraft and other games, the participants in the M&A field take on certain roles, interact in their own community, hone specialized skills, and even develop a unique, somewhat curious vernacular. One particular quest in the world of M&A is disclosure litigation. In the instance of disclosure litigation presently pending before this Court, the world of M&A meets the World of Warcraft.

All I can see is a man in a business suit with a yellow exclamation point over his head. Hit the jump for Judge Chandler's stunning conclusion.

In the role-playing game that is this disclosure litigation, both sides have played their respective roles well. Plaintiff has vigorously battled for additional information about the proposed transaction, and, indeed, additional information has been released by the Company during the pendency of this litigation. Likewise, defendants have responsively and effectively addressed the many variations of claims that plaintiff has proffered. Ultimately, however, there still remained three outstanding disclosure claims for the Court to resolve. Like any game, this one has rules, and the most essential rule of disclosure is materiality. Because the plaintiff could not establish the materiality of its final three disclosure claims, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. The July 8, 2008 meeting may proceed. GAME OVER.

I love this man.

In Chandler Opinion, World of M&A Meets ‘World of Warcraft’ Video Game [The Wall Street Journal via Game Politics]

This is fascinating detail of a case I'm otherwise tired of hearing about: Federal District Court Judge James Rosenbaum, who is presiding over the case over a pending law in which $25 fines will be issued to underaged purchasers of M-rated games, asked a court clerk to bring an Xbox and several games into the courtroom.

The article doesn't mention which games he was playing, but GamePolitics speculates light-heartedly:

There's no word on how well Federal District Court Judge James Rosenbaum did at Jade Empire or whether he preferred Full Spectrum Warrior to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3.

I would honestly be interested to know what games he played and what he thought of them, but the AP article is regrettably barren of that sort of detail, much like the vast expanse of hair-matted linoleum in the employee showers here at the Kotaku Building. I made the mistake of looking for the loofah one time. I found it cringing behind the sanitary napkin disposal canister, pewling weakly and dribbling a sort of orange mucus. Eliza gauger

More here [GamePolitics]

Judge Steeh wrote that it is unlikely that the State can demonstrate a compelling interest in preventing a perceived 'harm. He added that looming law, which goes into effect on Dec. 1, would likely have a chilling effect on adults' expression, as well as expression that is fully protected as to minors.

Steeh reasons that by using the threat of criminal penalties against those who give a violent game to a minor it could in fact lead to a form of self-censorship on the part of developers, creators, distributors and retailers. Steeh went as far as saying that it may even lead to all M and T games being pulled from store shelves.

In his opinion, Steeh seems to completely reject the research put forward by the state as proof of the harmfulness of video games to minors. What makes this so interesting is that it s the same research that both California and Illinois relied on to get their crap laws passed. Steeh says the research is unpersuasive and insufficient to sustain the argument.

One wonders when exactly this issue is going to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps when a state comes up with legitimate arguments for creating the law in the first place.