UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x                              Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006
OR

o                                 Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from                  to                .

0-29230

(Commission File No.)

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (646) 536-2842

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.   Yes x  No o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o  No x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes o  No x

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.   x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer x    Accelerated filer o    Non-accelerated filer o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in the Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes o  No x

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was approximately $1,236,383,000.

As of February 16, 2007, there were 72,838,149 shares of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:
Proxy Statement Relating to Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held in Fiscal 2007
(Incorporated into Part III)

INDEX

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that are based on the beliefs of management and assumptions made by and information currently available to them. The words “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “may,” “estimate,” “intend” and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions including those described in “Risk Factors,” which could cause our actual results to be materially different from results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

In this Form 10-K, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (“the Company”, “we”, “us” or similar pronouns) is restating its consolidated balance sheet as of October 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the fiscal years ended October 31, 2005 and October 31, 2004, as well as consolidated financial information for each of the quarters in fiscal year 2005.

This Form 10-K also reflects the restatement of “Selected Consolidated Financial Data” in Item 6 as of and for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002, and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2005 and October 31, 2004.

Previously filed annual reports on Form 10-K, Form 10-K/A and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q affected by the restatements have not been amended and should not be relied on.

As the Company previously reported, on June 23, 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), based on the recommendation of the Company’s management, initiated an investigation of all of the Company’s stock option grants during the period from its April 15, 1997 initial public offering (“IPO”) through June 2006 and assigned the investigation to a Special Committee of its Board consisting of three independent members of the Board (the “Special Committee”). On July 7, 2006, the Special Committee retained independent legal counsel, and such counsel retained independent accounting advisors (collectively the “Investigative Team”). The investigation included a broad and extensive document review (including the Company’s 1997 and 2002 Stock Option Plans, all Compensation Committee minutes, Board minutes, employment agreements, stock option agreements, offer letters, emails, accounting records such as earnings per share schedules, master option tracking schedules and other correspondence and materials contained in personnel files) and interviews of certain present and former Company officers, Directors and employees who were involved in or appeared to have knowledge of the issuance of the grants. During the period from April 15, 1997 through June 2006 the Company issued approximately 1,100 stock option grants at irregular intervals and for a variety of reasons including employee hiring, retention and promotion awards, broad-based awards, executive incentive awards and awards made in connection with business acquisitions. The Investigative Team found that the Company, in granting options, failed in many cases to comply with the terms of its Stock Option Plans, did not maintain adequate control and compliance procedures for option grants, and did not generate or maintain adequate or appropriate documentation of such grants.

In particular, the Investigative Team concluded that between April 1997 and August 2003, the former Chairman/CEO of the Company, who resigned from his last (non-executive) position with the Company in October 2006, controlled and dominated the stock option granting process. More specifically, during that period, numerous option grants appear to have been backdated through a variety of methods. It was determined that the former Chairman/CEO of the Company was primarily responsible for the selection of exercise prices and grant dates and the resulting backdating issues and was assisted by certain past employees and past members of management. The Investigative Team concluded, among other things, that the conduct of these individuals raised concerns about the reliability of their representations to the Company’s independent auditors and as a result the Company has concluded that such concerns are applicable to representations made by these individuals to the Company.

1

Furthermore, available contemporaneous documentation that was used by the Company to support its stock option grants was found by the Investigative Team to be unreliable, deficient or nonexistent in many cases. This documentation primarily took the form of stock option agreements, interoffice stock grant requests and beginning in May 2002, undated stock option grant letters, most of which were authorized and signed by the former Chairman/CEO. The Investigative Team found no evidence that the Company’s current senior executive management engaged in any misconduct with respect to the Company’s option granting practices. They also determined that while the members of the Compensation Committee abdicated their responsibility,  with respect to the granting of stock options, they did not engage in any willful misconduct or other dishonest acts.

It was determined that due to the backdating practices and the lack of contemporaneous or reliable documentation, all stock option grants should be reviewed, analyzed and re-measured based on the most reliable existing documentation.

The Investigative Team employed forensic analysis of all available written and electronic documents, the result of which established a set of documents to analyze stock option granting activity. Consistent with the accounting literature and recent guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) staff, the grants during the relevant period were organized into categories based on the grant type. After reviewing all available relevant documentation, a general hierarchy of documentation was considered when establishing an appropriate measurement date for accounting purposes. Although the hierarchy was considered, each grant was evaluated individually based on the particular facts and circumstances in each case. The documentation considered was:

·       Minutes of Board of Directors or Compensation Committee meetings (“Minutes”);

·       Date of hire (if the grant was a new hire grant, evidenced by an employment agreement or offer letter);

·       Correspondence or other documentation supporting the option grant (e.g. emails, internal memos, Forms 4, and other materials contained in personnel files);

·       Earliest date  as evidenced by (a) updating of the Company’s master stock option tracking spreadsheets (the Company’s tracking system which accumulated all stock option grants and all relevant terms, which was updated with new grants continuously, for which forensic analysis provided a date on which the option grant was first included in the Company’s master option spreadsheet) (b) stock option exercise dates or (c) inclusion in quarterly diluted earnings per share calculation records (the “EPS Records”).

The Company identified certain stock option grants as having approvals of the allocation of shares to specific individuals and an exercise price evidenced by dated Minutes, which differed from the measurement date that was indicated within the Company’s master stock option tracking spreadsheets. Often, awards had an approval date in the Minutes that was subsequent to the grant and measurement date reported by the Company within the Company’s stock option award documentation. Other grants were found to have been assigned measurement dates subsequent to documented approval in the minutes which would have indicated a potential re-pricing of the options, specifically when there was a significant time lag between the approval in the minutes and the measurement date and the price on the measurement date was significantly lower. Accordingly, certain of these grants were determined to have been awarded on the date approved by the Compensation Committee and re-priced on a subsequent date, particularly for grants that the Investigative Team believed the recipients would have been knowledgeable of the Compensation Committee’s approval and the key terms and conditions of the grant. Furthermore, in certain instances the Minutes acknowledged prior approvals of stock-based compensation awards although no documentation of such approval exists in the Company’s records. In each of the cases described above, the Company determined that the originally assigned measurement dates could not be reliably supported

2

and such grants should be based on dates documented in the Minutes. As a result, the Company re-measured and accounted for these awards as fixed (variable with respect to the options considered to be re-priced) on the date indicated in the Minutes.

The Company issued stock options in connection with employment agreements, offer letters, or other documentation indicative of an employee’s start of employment, but such awards often had measurement dates prior to the actual commencement of employment. The Company determined the appropriate measurement date for these grants to be the date on which the employee commenced employment.

The Company also identified certain stock option grants where the sole evidence was the aforementioned stock option agreements, interoffice request forms or stock option grant letters and employment agreement amendments (collectively, “Non-contemporaneous Dated Documents”). Stock option agreements included terms of the option grant and typically used “as of” dating to document such terms, and the Investigative Team concluded that it was unlikely that such agreements were signed by the Company and the employee on a contemporaneous basis. The interoffice request forms were undated standard forms that reflected the term of the option grants including, in some cases, grant dates. Stock option grant letters were also undated correspondence that reflected all of the terms of the options. The stock option grant letter became the primary means of documenting all of the terms of the option grants beginning in May 2002. At that time, the Company memorialized all prior option grants by preparing stock option grant letters and these grant letters were not contemporaneously prepared. All of the Non-contemporaneous Dated Documents were either authorized or signed by the former Chairman/CEO until March 2004 when he stepped-down as Chairman. As noted above, the Investigative Team found the former Chairman/CEO to have engaged in a pattern and practice of backdating option grants and determined that his representations could not be relied upon. Accordingly, any form of stock grant documentation that was authorized and/or signed by him and for which there was no other evidence that corroborated that measurement date, was deemed to be unreliable for measurement purposes.

Employment agreement amendments typically acknowledged a previous grant of options or a new grant and there was either limited or no documentation supporting the previous grant. Frequently, the indicated date of the grant was considered a “fortuitous” date (i.e. a date on which the Company’s stock price was at a low point during the period). The Investigative Team found evidence that the indicated grant date within such agreements was often unreliable for measurement purposes, and in some cases the amendment itself was backdated.

With respect to the Non-contemporaneous Dated Documents or otherwise unsupported grants, the Investigative Team reviewed and analyzed all available correspondence, including the master stock option tracking spreadsheets to determine the date on which the option was first entered into the spreadsheet, and the first period the grant was included in the EPS Records. The Company used available metadata and other computer generated records to determine the date on which the award was first entered into these spreadsheets. If the first date that the option was entered into the spreadsheet was identified, that date was used as the measurement date after considering any other available documentation. In cases where the date of first entry in the master option tracking spreadsheet was subsequent to the quarter in which the grant was first included in the EPS Records, these EPS Records were used for the determination of the measurement date.  EPS Records were only considered when there was no earlier correspondence or other evidence to document a more reliable measurement date.

The Company believes that this evidence, as supported by the Investigative Team’s conclusions, is consistent with the provisions of APB 25 whereby the measurement date is the first date on which the number of shares that each individual is allocated and the related option price is determined with employee notification soon afterwards (i.e. a “mutual understanding” between the employee and the Company of the key terms and conditions of an award)  (See paragraph below regarding actual date selected). While the number of shares and their corresponding exercise prices were identified in all of the

3

Non-contemporaneous Dated Documents or employment agreement amendments referred to above, the Investigative Team determined that in many instances these documents were not contemporaneously prepared and, as noted above, could not be relied upon for the measurement date. Additionally, the Investigative Team noted that the granting process and related approvals, whether formally approved by the Compensation Committee or authorized by the former Chairman/CEO, occurred prior to including the grant and its terms in master stock option tracking spreadsheets and the EPS Records. Once grants and their relevant terms were included in these spreadsheets or the EPS Records, changes to key terms (exercise price, number of shares, vesting period and identified employee) did not occur.

Where evidence of a stock option grant was limited to the EPS Records, this evidence does not result in a specific date as required under APB 25, but rather the period in which the measurement date occurred. Accordingly, the Company considered the qualitative and quantitative attributes of several alternatives, including using the date of the Company’s high and median closing stock price in each quarter. In the absence of evidence to support a more appropriate measurement date, the Company has selected the first instance of the highest quoted stock price in the quarter that the stock option grant was first included in the EPS Records as its measurement date for such stock option grants. The Company believes that this ensures that a sufficient amount of compensation expense results and that this date is equally probable to any other date in the quarter. Furthermore, neither existing documentation nor the results of the investigation indicate that there is a more appropriate date. This methodology resulted in the Company recognizing approximately $25 million of cumulative pre-tax stock-based compensation expense for the period April 15, 1997, the date of the Company’s IPO, through October 31, 2005.

If the Company had instead used the median closing price of its common stock in the corresponding quarters, rather than the highest price, the Company estimates that it would have reduced its cumulative pre-tax stock-based compensation charge by approximately $13 million. Restated cumulative net income (i.e. net income from the date of the Company’s IPO through October 31, 2005) would have been approximately 3% higher if the Company had used the median closing price of its common stock, rather than the highest price. The Company has deemed the difference between recording compensation expense based on the Company’s high and median closing stock prices to be quantitatively immaterial in the aggregate and to each individual fiscal year since the Company’s IPO, except for the Company’s fiscal years ended 2001 and 2000, when such difference would have impacted the Company’s previously reported net income by approximately $1.1 million and $0.7 million, respectively. However, the Company believes that these differences, in isolation, are not qualitatively material and would not impact an investor’s prospective opinion or valuation of the Company.

The Company also reviewed 84 restricted stock awards that were issued between May 2002 and June 2006 and identified 10 instances in which such awards had measurement dates that did not correspond with Minutes, employment agreements, offer letters, or other documentation indicative of an employee’s start date of employment. As a result, the Company recognized additional cumulative stock-based compensation expense of $0.6 million, net of tax, through October 31, 2005 related to these awards. The re-measurement of restricted stock awards resulted in $1.0 million of additional stock-based compensation expense, net of tax, in fiscal 2006, through the second quarter ended April 30, 2006, and did not have a material impact on the Company’s previously reported 2006 quarterly financial statements.

Based on the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company applied the controlling accounting standards in each year to determine, for every grant within each category, the proper measurement date. If the measurement date was not the original date that was reported in the records of the Company, accounting adjustments were made to record compensation expense based on the difference between the closing price on the revised measurement and the exercise price. The restatement as a result of the Special Committee investigation resulted in stock-based compensation expense and tax effects totaling approximately $54.6 million ($42.1 million, net of tax) from the IPO through October 31, 2005. The Investigative Team used a

4

significant amount of judgment in examining each separate option grant and also in determining the new measurement date applied to each grant in the Company’s calculation of compensation expense.

The impact of the restatement adjustments on the Company’s 2006 statements of operations was recorded in the third quarter of fiscal year 2006 due to its immateriality, and therefore the Company’s previously reported 2006 first and second quarter results of operations have not been restated.

The incremental impact from recognizing stock-based compensation expense resulting from the investigation of past stock-based compensation awards is shown below (dollars in thousands).

(a)           See Note 2 of the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Form 10-K for additional information regarding the restatement of its Consolidated Financial Statements for this period.

(b)          The impact on the 2003 and 2002 periods has been reflected in Item 6. Selected Financial Data in this Form 10-K.

(c)           The cumulative effect of the stock-based compensation adjustments through October 31, 2001 is reflected as an adjustment to beginning retained earnings/stockholders equity in the fiscal 2002 period information presented in Item 6, Selected Financial Data.

The following is a summary of the pre-tax and after-tax expense, by year (all amounts have been derived from the Company’s unaudited historical statements of operations):

Additionally, the Company has restated the pro forma expense under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123 in Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-K to reflect the impact of these adjustments for the years ended October 31, 2005 and October 31, 2004.

5

The Company is in the process of determining the extent of the adverse tax consequences that may be incurred by the holders of re-measured stock options. The adverse tax consequences are that re-measured stock options vesting after December 31, 2004 (“409A Affected Options”) subject the option holder to a penalty tax under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 409A (and, as applicable, similar penalty taxes). One action being considered by the Company is to offer to amend the 409A Affected Options to increase the exercise price to the market price on the accounting measurement date or, if lower, the market price at the time of the option amendment. The amended options would not be subject to taxation under IRC Section 409A. Under IRS regulations, these option amendments had to be completed by December 31, 2006 for anyone who was an executive officer when he or she received 409A Affected Options; the amendments for non-executive officers cannot be offered until after this Form 10-K is filed and do not need to be completed until December 31, 2007. Another possible action is to approve bonuses payable to holders of the amended options to compensate them for the resulting increase in their option exercise price. The amount of these bonuses would be effectively repaid to the Company if and when the options are exercised and the increased exercise price is paid (but there is no assurance that the options will be exercised). The Company has not determined what actions it will take, if any, with respect to 409A Affected Options. Any charges that arise from actions taken by the Company will be recorded in the period in which the determinations are made.

The Company also believes that United States tax deductions taken for stock option exercises in prior years, which pertained to certain executives, may not be deductible under limitations imposed by IRC Section 162(m). Section 162(m) limits the deductibility of compensation above $1 million to certain executive officers of public companies when such compensation is not incentive-based. The Special Committee found that many of the stock options granted to executives had intrinsic value on the basis of the new measurement dates determined for US GAAP financial statement purposes and therefore, under Section 162(m), may not be incentive-based and may not be tax deductible by the Company. As a result the Company has reduced its available tax net operating loss carry-forwards arising from certain exercised stock options and restricted stock. Separately, the Company also identified certain restricted stock grants and bonuses paid in prior periods that may be ineligible for deduction under section 162(m). The Company restated its tax provisions in the periods in which the benefits were recorded. The Company is in discussions with the IRS to settle these uncertainties regarding additional liabilities; however, there is no assurance that they will be settled on terms favorable to the Company.

As a result of its review, the Company also determined that it failed to properly withhold an immaterial amount of employment taxes associated with certain stock option exercises. The Company has recorded such amounts in its consolidated statements of operations in the period in which the Company was originally obligated to make the withholding.

6

PART I

Item 1.                        Business

Company Overview

We are a global publisher, developer and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware and accessories. Our publishing segment, which consists of Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and Global Star Software, develops, markets and publishes software titles for the following leading gaming and entertainment hardware platforms: Sony’s PlayStation®2 and PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment systems; Sony’s PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) system; Microsoft’s Xbox® and Xbox 360™ video game and entertainment systems; Nintendo’s Wii™, GameCube™, DS™ and Game Boy® Advance; and for PCs. Our distribution segment, which includes our Jack of All Games subsidiary, distributes our products as well as third-party software, hardware and accessories to retail outlets in North America. We have pursued a growth strategy by capitalizing on the widespread market acceptance of interactive entertainment, as well as the growing popularity of innovative action, sports and strategy games that appeal to the expanding demographic of video game players.

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 1993 and are headquartered in New York, New York with approximately 2,020 employees globally. Our telephone number is (646) 536-2842 and our Internet address is www.take2games.com. We make all of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) available, free of charge, on our website under the caption “Corporate—Corporate Overview—SEC Filings.”  Included in these filings are our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports, which are available as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such materials with the SEC pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The information on our website is not part of this report.

Our Publishing and Software Development Businesses

Rockstar Games.   Rockstar Games (“Rockstar”), the publisher of our blockbuster Grand Theft Auto® franchise, is focused on creating premium content and groundbreaking entertainment. We believe that Rockstar has established a uniquely original popular culture phenomenon with its Grand Theft Auto series and we have taken advantage of its success by developing new proprietary brands as well as sequels to our existing titles. Rockstar is also well known for developing titles in multiple genres, such as Midnight Club, Max Payne, Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis, The Warriors, Red Dead Revolver and Bully.

In May 2006, Rockstar announced that it would launch Grand Theft Auto IV on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 platforms in October 2007. In addition, Rockstar and Microsoft announced an agreement whereby Rockstar will publish episodic content for Grand Theft Auto IV exclusively on Xbox Live®, Microsoft’s online entertainment and gaming network. The digitally delivered episodic content will be available for purchase by Xbox Live subscribers, allowing them to expand their Grand Theft Auto IV gameplay experience. We believe that online delivery of episodic content will continue to become more prevalent as broadband connectivity gains popularity and digital delivery platforms such as Xbox Live, PlayStation Network and Valve’s Steam gain additional customers.

In 2006, Rockstar released Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories for Sony’s PlayStation 2, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories for the PSP, Bully for the PlayStation 2 and Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis for the Xbox 360. In 2007, Rockstar is anticipating the releases of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories for the PlayStation 2, Grand Theft Auto IV for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, Manhunt 2 for the Wii, PlayStation 2 and PSP and The Warriors, based on the Paramount feature film, for the PSP.

2K Games and 2K Sports.   In 2005, we diversified our business through a series of strategic studio acquisitions that are now organized into our 2K Games and 2K Sports publishing labels. Since their

7

formation, our 2K labels have been actively securing major sports league licenses and rights to popular entertainment properties. We have acquired the rights to the multi-million unit selling Civilization franchise as well as various sports licenses, including long-term, third-party exclusive licensing relationships with Major League Baseball Properties, the Major League Baseball Players Association and Major League Baseball Advanced Media.

In fiscal 2006, our 2K Sports publishing label continued to leverage its licensing agreements with major sports leagues to develop Major League Baseball 2K6, NBA 2K7, College Hoops 2K6 and NHL 2K7, while our 2K Games business remained focused on publishing major action and strategy PC titles. We also added to our 2K Games product line with the acquisition of Firaxis Games, developer of the Civilization franchise and Sid Meier’s Pirates!. In total, 2K Games and 2K Sports released 23 titles across multiple platforms in fiscal 2006, including The Elder Scrolls® IV: Oblivion, Prey, Major League Baseball 2K6, NBA 2K6, The Da Vinci Code  and Family Guy.

Our 2K Games and 2K Sports businesses are anticipating the release of more than 14 titles across multiple platforms in 2007, including Bioshock for Xbox 360 and PC; Major League Baseball 2K7 and The BIGS, an arcade style Major League Baseball title, both on multiple platforms; All-Pro Football 2K8 on next-generation consoles; The Darkness, based on the popular comic book franchise, for next-generation consoles; Jade Empire: Special Edition on PC; Ghost Rider based on the popular Marvel comic book franchise and Columbia Pictures film on current generation consoles; Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer on multiple platforms, in conjunction with the release of the feature film; as well as sequels to other 2K Sports’ licensed sports titles across multiple platforms.

Global Star Software.   Our Global Star Software label focuses on developing and publishing aggressively priced, licensed titles across various genres, including racing, family, action and children’s games. In fiscal 2006, Global Star released 7 titles, including Family Feud and Dora the Explorer: Dora’s World Adventure.

In fiscal 2007, Global Star released Deal or No Deal on PC, based on the hit TV series. Global Star plans to continue its focus on the growing market for video games incorporating popular licensed and children’s entertainment properties.

Our Distribution Business

Through our distribution segment, which primarily operates in North America and includes our Jack of All Games subsidiary, we supply retailers with our internally developed products as well as third-party software, hardware and accessories. We distribute third-party console, handheld and PC products, consisting principally of newly released and popular software titles, budget and catalog software titles, hardware and accessories.

Jack of All Games seeks to capitalize on the growing installed base of hardware and the proliferation of software titles and outlets to purchase software. It has established a strong presence in the budget segment of the business due to its expanding portfolio of value-priced products and its expertise in selling these titles. Jack of All Games continues to leverage this strategy by serving as the distributor of our value-priced publishing products.

Fiscal 2006 Product Launches

We publish products in the action, racing, strategy, sports and simulation genres. During fiscal 2006, we published 15 new internally developed titles and 18 new titles developed by third parties. Of these titles, 3 internally developed titles each sold more than one million units across all platforms, and 3 internally developed and 2 externally developed titles each sold more than 500,000 units across all platforms.

8

In fiscal 2006, Grand Theft Auto products accounted for approximately 22.4% of our net revenue, with Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories for the PSP and PlayStation 2 accounting for 7.5% and 4.5%, respectively, of our revenue; Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories for the PSP accounting for 4.2% of our revenue; and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for the PlayStation 2 accounting for 3.5% of our revenue, respectively. No other product accounted for more than 10% of our revenue for the year. For the years ended October 31, 2005 and 2004 our Grand Theft Auto titles accounted for 38.2% and 34.3% of our total revenue, respectively.

Our frontline products generally sell at retail prices ranging from $19.99 to $59.99 in North America. Products that are designated Sony’s Greatest Hits (for both the PlayStation 2 and the PSP) and Microsoft’s Platinum Hits (for Xbox) generally sell for $19.99. We release sports titles at retail prices ranging from $19.99 to $59.99, and we position our value-priced product offerings at a retail price starting at $9.99.

We include online capability features in certain of our PC, PlayStation 2, Xbox and Xbox 360 titles, which permit users to play against one another on the Internet, as well as in some cases to download additional content including product features and software updates. Some of our titles also include static and in-game dynamic advertising.

The following are certain of our products released in fiscal 2006:

9

Industry Overview

Expanding gamer demographics have driven demand for interactive entertainment software in recent years, with video games becoming a mainstream entertainment choice for a maturing sophisticated audience. According to the Entertainment Software Association, more than 228 million computer and video games were sold in the United States in 2005, representing almost two games for every household in America. At least half of all Americans claim to play PC and video games, with an estimated 69% of parents and caregivers playing games. The average game player is 33 years old and has been playing for nearly 10 years. The International Development Group reports sales of PC, console and handheld games (excluding wireless applications) to be $7.9 billion in 2006 in North America and estimates such sales to reach $8.5 billion in 2007.

The video game industry is cyclical and the introduction of next-generation hardware platforms has historically had a significant effect on the demand for gaming software. Demand for current generation gaming software often diminishes as consumers await the release of next-generation hardware platforms. Additionally, the introduction of new hardware platforms has, in many cases, been characterized by delays in launch dates or reductions in launch quantities or both. Each of these circumstances had a significant financial impact on us.

Sony introduced its new PSP handheld gaming system in 2005, which was followed by the release of Microsoft’s next-generation platform, the Xbox 360, in the first quarter of our fiscal 2006. Sony introduced its next-generation console, the PlayStation 3, in North America in November 2006 and is expected to do so in Europe in 2007. Nintendo also launched its next-generation console, the Wii, in North America in November 2006, and Europe in December 2006. These next-generation consoles are more complex than their predecessors, and in some cases contain multi-processor technology, new and unique game controllers, online gameplay functionality and high definition video capabilities, which in turn require video game developers to create games that are progressively more elaborate and costly to develop.

During the transition to next-generation hardware platforms, the gaming software industry continues to devote significant resources to create games for current generation systems. However, as next-generation platforms gain acceptance, the software industry has historically been compelled to lower prices on titles developed for older platforms to compensate for the shift in demand to the newer gaming systems. This decrease in demand may result in lower than expected sales on products designed for older platforms.

Transition periods also mark a shift in the software development process for next-generation gaming systems. During technology console transition periods, software publishers and developers often devote significant resources to producing next-generation software products for new gaming consoles, which have a limited installed hardware base. As a result, next-generation software products often start out selling at relatively low unit volumes and the time required for software publishers to recognize a return on their investment is increased. See Item 1A. - “Risk Factors” for further discussion of the transition to next-generation hardware platforms and the impact on our business.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (“ESRB”), through its ratings system, requires game publishers to provide consumers with information relating to video game content, including graphic violence, profanity or sexually explicit material contained in software titles. Consumer advocacy groups have opposed sales of interactive entertainment software containing graphic violence or sexually explicit material by pressing for legislation in these areas and by engaging in public demonstrations and media campaigns, and various governmental bodies have proposed regulation aimed at our industry to prohibit the sale to minors of software containing such material. Additionally, retailers may decline to sell interactive entertainment software containing graphic violence or sexually explicit material that they deem inappropriate for their businesses. Some of our titles have received an “M” rating (age 17 and over). If retailers decline to sell our “M” rated products or if our products are rated “AO” (age 18 and over), we might be required to significantly change or discontinue particular titles, which in the case of our best selling Grand Theft Auto titles could seriously hurt our business. See Item 1A—“Risk Factors.”

10

We anticipate an expanding market for interactive entertainment software as more powerful computing capabilities, increasingly realistic graphics, backwards compatibility of software, broadband connectivity, greater online functionality, online marketplace opportunities and expanded artificial intelligence capabilities of new platforms create new consumer awareness and demand for this compelling entertainment medium.

Software Content and Licensing

We have established a portfolio of successful proprietary software content. We own all of the intellectual property rights associated with the following brands: Grand Theft Auto, Midnight Club, Bully, Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis,  Sid Meier’s Civilization, Sid Meier’s Railroads!, Sid Meier’s Pirates, Manhunt, Red Dead Revolver, Max Payne, Smuggler’s Run, Spec Ops, Bioshock, Top Spin, Amped, Links, Railroad Tycoon and Xcom. We believe that content ownership facilitates our internal product development efforts and maximizes profit potential.

In 2006 we renewed our licensing relationship with the National Hockey League (NHL) and the National Hockey League Players’ Association (NHLPA). We also entered into an agreement to publish and distribute a video game based on the Columbia Pictures film Ghost Rider on multiple platforms. In 2005 we acquired rights to other popular entertainment properties and sports licenses, including long-term, third-party exclusive licensing relationships with Major League Baseball Properties (MLBP), the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and Major League Baseball Advanced Media (MLBAM) and a non-exclusive long-term licensing relationship with the National Basketball Association (NBA). Our agreements with licensors grant us intellectual property rights and require us to make significant license payments.

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Contractual Obligations and Contingent Liabilities and Commitments.”

Intellectual Property

We develop proprietary software titles and have obtained the rights to publish and distribute software titles developed by third parties. We attempt to protect our software and production techniques under copyright, trademark and trade secret laws as well as through contractual restrictions on disclosure, copying and distribution. Although we generally do not hold any patents, we obtain trademark and copyright registrations for our products.

Interactive entertainment software is susceptible to piracy and unauthorized copying. Unauthorized third parties may be able to copy or to reverse engineer our titles to obtain and use programming or production techniques that we regard as proprietary. Well organized piracy operations have proliferated in recent years, resulting in the ability to download pirated copies of software over the Internet. Although we attempt to incorporate protective measures into our software, piracy of our products could negatively impact our future profitability. See Item 1A. - “Risk Factors.”

As the amount of interactive entertainment software in the market increases and the functionality of this software further overlaps, we believe that interactive entertainment software will increasingly become the subject of claims that such software infringes the copyrights or patents of others. From time to time, we receive notices from third parties or are named in lawsuits by third parties alleging infringement of their proprietary rights. Although we believe that our titles and the titles and technologies of third-party developers and publishers with whom we have contractual relationships do not and will not infringe or violate proprietary rights of others, it is possible that infringement of proprietary rights of others may occur. Any claims of infringement, with or without merit, could be time consuming, costly and difficult to defend. See Item 1A. - “Risk Factors,”

11

Software Development

Rockstar.   We develop most of our software titles for our Rockstar label through our internal development studios: Rockstar North, the developer of Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt; Rockstar San Diego, the developer of Midnight Club, Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis, Smuggler’s Run and Red Dead Revolver; Rockstar Toronto, the developer of The Warriors for PlayStation 2 and Xbox, as well as the PlayStation 2 version of Max Payne; Rockstar Vancouver, the developer of Bully; and Rockstar Leeds, the developer of the PSP versions of Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories; Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition, and The Warriors. Rockstar also announced an arrangement with Team Bondi Pty Ltd to develop L.A. Noire, a crime thriller for next-generation systems.

2K Games.   While many of our 2K Games titles are developed by third-party developers, we also develop software titles for our 2K Games label through our internal development studios:  Irrational Studios, acquired in fiscal 2005, the developer of the third-party titles System Shock 2, SWAT 4, Freedom Force and the upcoming proprietary title BioShock; and Firaxis, the developer of Sid Meier’s Railroads!, Sid Meier’s Pirates!, and Sid Meier’s Civilization.

2K Sports.   In fiscal 2006, 2K Sports continued to expand its internal development studios. Visual Concepts Entertainment and Kush Games, which we acquired in fiscal 2005, continue to develop the majority of our sports titles, including the Major League Baseball 2K series, NBA 2K series, NHL 2K series and College Hoops 2K series. PAM Developments, which was also acquired in fiscal 2005, develops our Top Spin tennis series.

Global Star Software.   While the majority of our Global Star titles are developed by third-party developers, we also develop software titles for our Global Star label through our internal development studio Cat Daddy Games, the developer of Mall Tycoon 3 and Deal or No Deal.

Research and Development.   As of October 31, 2006, we had a research and development staff of 1,214 employees with the technical capabilities to develop and localize software titles for all major current and next-generation console and handheld hardware platforms and the PC in all major territories. Localization involves translating game text into foreign languages and making other changes appropriate to territory.

External Product Development.   Certain of our titles are developed by third parties. Agreements with developers generally give us exclusive publishing and marketing rights and require us to make advance royalty payments, pay royalties based on product sales and satisfy other conditions. Royalty advances for software titles are typically recoupable against royalties otherwise due to developers.

Our agreements with developers generally provide us with the right to monitor development efforts and to cease making advance payments if specified development milestones are not satisfied. We monitor the level of advances in light of expected sales for the related titles and write off unrecoverable advances to cost of sales in the period in which we determine the advance will not be fully recovered. See Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Contractual Obligations and Contingent Liabilities and Commitments.”

The development cycle for new console, handheld and PC titles generally ranges from 12 to more than 36 months. Although we often simultaneously develop our software for multiple platforms, in certain cases it can take nine to 12 months to adapt a product for additional hardware platforms after initial development for one platform is completed. The cost to develop a frontline software product generally ranges from $5 million to $20 million. We expect that development costs will continue to increase for next-generation platforms.

Arrangements with Platform Manufacturers

We have entered into license agreements with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to develop and publish software in North America and Europe for the PlayStation, PlayStation 2, PSP, Xbox, Xbox 360, Nintendo

12

GameCube and Game Boy Advance. We are not required to obtain any licenses to develop titles for the PC.

Sony.   In May 2000, we entered into a Licensed Publisher Agreement with Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Sony granted us the right and license to develop, market, publish and distribute software titles for the PlayStation 2 in North America. The agreement requires us to submit products to Sony for its approval. The agreement provides for Sony to be the exclusive manufacturer of our products for the PlayStation 2 and for us to pay royalties to Sony based on the number of units manufactured.

The agreement with Sony is automatically renewable for successive one-year terms, unless terminated by Sony in the event of a breach by us or our bankruptcy or insolvency. Sony may also terminate the agreement on a title-by-title basis. Upon expiration or termination of this agreement, we have certain rights to sell off existing inventories. We also entered into a similar agreement with Sony for the PlayStation 2 covering European territories and Australia.

In September 2004, we entered into a three-year agreement with Sony pursuant to which Sony granted us the right and license to develop, market, publish and distribute software titles for the PSP in North America. We also signed a similar agreement with Sony for the PSP covering European territories and Australia. We entered into a four-year Licensed Publisher Agreement with Sony in April 2004 under which Sony granted us the right and license to develop, market, publish and distribute software titles for the PlayStation in North America. We also entered into a similar agreement with Sony for PlayStation covering European territories and Australia.

We expect to enter into a platform license with Sony for the PlayStation 3.

Microsoft.   In November 2005, we entered into a three-year Publisher License Agreement with Microsoft whereby Microsoft granted us the right and license to develop, market, publish and distribute software titles for Microsoft’s Xbox 360 in territories to be determined on a title-by-title basis. The agreement requires us to submit products to Microsoft for approval and for us to make royalty payments to Microsoft based on the number of units manufactured. In addition, products are required to be manufactured by Microsoft approved manufacturers. The agreement, which expires on November 22, 2008, is automatically renewable for successive one-year terms, unless either party gives the other prior notice of non-renewal. The agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of a material breach. Microsoft also has the right to terminate on a title-by-title basis. Upon expiration or termination of the agreement, we have certain rights to sell off existing inventories. We also have a similar agreement in place with Microsoft for game development and distribution on its previous generation Xbox system.

In May 2006, we announced that we would launch Grand Theft Auto IV on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 platforms in October 2007. In addition, our Rockstar subsidiary and Microsoft announced that Rockstar will offer exclusive episodic content for Grand Theft Auto IV on Xbox Live®, Microsoft’s online entertainment and gaming network. The digitally delivered episodic content will be available for purchase by Xbox Live subscribers, allowing them to expand their Grand Theft Auto IV gameplay experience.

Nintendo.   We entered into a Confidential License Agreement with Nintendo that expires in December 2007. Under the agreement, Nintendo granted us the right and license to develop, market, publish and distribute software for Nintendo’s GameCube in the western hemisphere. The agreement requires us to submit products to Nintendo for its approval. The agreement also provides for Nintendo to be the exclusive manufacturer of our products and for us to make royalty payments to Nintendo based on the number of units manufactured. The agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of a breach and may be terminated by Nintendo in the event of our bankruptcy. Upon termination of all of our agreements with Nintendo, we have certain rights to sell off existing inventories. We also entered into a similar three-year agreement with Nintendo for GameCube covering European territories.

13

We also entered into an agreement with Nintendo that expires in July 2007, granting us the right and license to develop software for Nintendo’s Game Boy Advance in the western hemisphere. We entered into a similar agreement with Nintendo for European territories.

We expect to enter into a platform license with Nintendo for Wii and DS.

Manufacturing

Sony and Nintendo are the sole manufacturers of software products sold for use on their respective hardware platforms. We begin the manufacturing process for our published titles by placing a purchase order for the manufacture of our products with Sony or Nintendo and utilizing our line of credit with the manufacturer. We then send software code and a prototype of the product to the manufacturer, together with related artwork, user instructions, warranty information, brochures and packaging designs for approval, defect testing and manufacture. Games manufactured by Sony and Nintendo are generally shipped within two weeks of receipt of our manufacturing order. The same procedure applies to games for the Xbox and Xbox 360, although Xbox and Xbox 360 games must be manufactured by manufacturers pre-approved by Microsoft.

Production of PC software includes CD-ROM pressing, assembly of components, printing of packaging and user manuals and shipping of finished goods, which is performed by third-party vendors in accordance with our specifications, and, to a limited extent, by us. We believe that there are alternative sources for these services that could be obtained without delay. We send software code and a prototype of a title, together with related artwork, user instructions, warranty information, brochures and packaging designs to the manufacturers. Games are generally shipped within two weeks of receipt of our manufacturing order.

To date, we have not experienced any material difficulties or delays in the manufacture of our titles or material delays due to manufacturing defects. Our software titles carry a 90-day limited warranty.

Sales and Marketing

We sell software titles to retail outlets in North America and Europe through direct relationships with large retail customers and third-party distributors. Our customers in North America include Best Buy, Blockbuster, Circuit City, GameStop, Target, Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart and other leading mass merchandisers; video, electronic and toy stores; national and regional drug stores; supermarket and discount store chains; and specialty retailers. Our European customers include Carrefour, Dixons, Karstadt, and Media Saturn. We have sales and marketing operations in Australia, Austria, Canada, China France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, Japan and the United Kingdom.

Sales to our five largest customers in fiscal 2006 accounted for approximately 49.4% of our revenue, with Wal-Mart, GameStop and Best Buy accounting for 15.4%, 12.6% and 10.2%, respectively, of our net revenue. No other customer accounted for more than 10.0% of our revenue for this year.

Our marketing and promotional efforts are intended to maximize exposure and broaden distribution of our titles, promote brand name recognition, assist retailers and properly position, package and merchandise our titles. We market titles by implementing public relations campaigns, using print and online advertising, television, radio spots and outdoor advertising. We believe that we label and market our products in accordance with ESRB principles and guidelines.

We continue to actively pursue relationships with participants in the music and entertainment industries. We believe that the shared demographics between various media and some of the software titles marketed by our publishing labels provide excellent cross-promotional opportunities. We continue to work with popular recording artists to create sophisticated game soundtracks, enter into agreements to license high-profile names and likenesses, and make arrangements for co-branding opportunities.

14

We have numerous titles that have been designated Sony’s Greatest Hits Program for PlayStation 2 and PSP, and Microsoft’s Platinum Hits Program titles for Xbox. To qualify for these programs under our agreements with hardware manufacturers, our products had to satisfy certain shelf life and sales requirements. In connection with these programs, we receive manufacturing discounts from Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo has also established a Player’s Choice Program for the Wii and GameCube.

We seek to stimulate continued sales and maximize profit potential by reducing the wholesale prices of our products to retailers at various times during the life of a product. Price concessions may occur at any time in a product’s life cycle, but typically occur six to nine months after a product’s initial launch. In fiscal 2006, 2005 and 2004, price concessions to retailers amounted to $73.9 million, $30.4 million and $52.8 million, respectively, and are often related to products designated as a Greatest or Platinum Hits Program title offered by Sony and Microsoft. In certain international markets, we provide volume rebates to stimulate continued product sales.

We also employ various other marketing methods designed to promote consumer awareness, including in-store promotions and point-of-purchase displays, direct mail, co-operative advertising, as well as attendance at trade shows. We employ separate sales forces for our publishing and distribution operations. As of October 31, 2006, we had a sales and marketing staff of 256.

Distribution

We distribute our own titles as well as third-party software, hardware and accessories in North America through our Jack of All Games subsidiary. We distribute three major categories of third-party console, handheld and PC products, consisting principally of newly released and popular software titles, budget and catalog software titles, and hardware.

We procure products from suppliers principally using standard purchase orders based on our assessment of market demand, as well as pre-orders from retailers. We periodically enter into agreements with our suppliers that provide exclusive distribution rights to certain products. We carry inventory quantities that we believe are necessary to provide rapid response to retailer orders. We utilize electronic data interchange with many of our retailers to enhance the efficiency of placing and shipping orders and receiving payments.

Our Jack of All Games subsidiary maintains warehouse facilities and sales offices in Ohio and Ontario, Canada. Products arrive at our warehouses to be picked, packed and shipped to customers. We generally ship products by common carrier. Backlog is not material to our business as we generally ship products within seven days of receipt of orders.

Competition

In our publishing business, we compete both for licenses to properties and the sale of interactive entertainment software with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, each of which is a large developer and marketer of software for its own platforms. Each of these competitors has the financial resources to withstand significant price competition and to implement extensive advertising campaigns, particularly with prime-time television spots. These companies may also increase their own software development efforts. On certain occasions, we have been able to negotiate marketing reimbursements from the console manufacturers, which has allowed us to increase marketing exposure for certain of our titles.

We also compete with domestic companies such as Electronic Arts, Activision, THQ, Midway Games and Atari and international companies such as SEGA, Vivendi, Ubisoft, SCi Entertainment, Capcom, Konami and Namco-Bandai. Competition in the entertainment software industry is based on product quality and features, brand name recognition, access to distribution channels, price and effectiveness of marketing. Our business is also driven by hit titles, which require increasing budgets for development and marketing. The availability of significant financial resources has become a major competitive factor in developing and

15

marketing software games. Some of our competitors have greater financial, technical, personnel and other resources than we do, and are able to finance larger budgets for development and marketing and make higher offers to licensors and developers for commercially desirable intellectual properties.

Retailers have limited shelf space and promotional resources, and competition is intense among an increasing number of newly introduced entertainment software titles and hardware for adequate levels of shelf space and promotional support. Competition for retail shelf space is expected to increase, which may require us to increase our marketing expenditures to maintain current sales levels of our titles. Competitors with more extensive product lines and popular titles may have greater bargaining power with retailers. Accordingly, we may not be able to achieve the levels of support and shelf space that such competitors receive. Similarly, as competition for popular properties increases, our cost of acquiring licenses for such properties is likely to increase, resulting in reduced margins. Prolonged price competition, increased licensing costs or reduced operating margins would cause our profits to decrease significantly.

Competition for our titles is influenced by the timing of competitive product releases and the similarity of such products to our titles and may result in loss of shelf space or a reduction in sell-through of our titles at retail stores. Our titles also compete with other forms of entertainment such as motion pictures, television and audio and video products featuring similar themes, online computer programs and other forms of entertainment which may be less expensive or provide other advantages to consumers.

As the installed base of console and handheld platforms has increased and as new console and handheld platforms have been introduced, a growing market for used video games has emerged. We and other software developers have produced a wide variety of software titles, and to the extent that original purchasers have made titles available in second-hand markets, consumers have increasingly opted to purchase used video games rather than pay full retail price for new games. Competition from this secondary market most impacts our older software titles and titles we have published for past hardware platforms.

In our distribution business, we compete with large national companies as well as smaller regional distributors. We also compete with the efforts of the major entertainment software companies that distribute directly to retailers or over the Internet. Some of our competitors have greater financial, technical, personnel and other resources than we do, and are able to carry larger inventories, adopt more aggressive pricing policies, and provide more comprehensive product selection than we can.

International Operations

Sales in international markets, principally in the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe, have accounted for a significant portion of our net revenue. For fiscal 2006, 2005 and 2004, approximately 39.4%, 39.8% and 36.8%, respectively, of our net revenue was earned outside the United States. We are subject to risks inherent in foreign trade, including increased credit risks, tariffs and duties, fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, shipping delays and international political, regulatory and economic developments, all of which can have a significant impact on our operating results. See Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Segment Information

See Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information regarding our reportable segments.

Employees

As of October 31, 2006, we had approximately 2,020 full-time employees. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relations with employees to be satisfactory.

16

Executive Officers and Directors

The Company’s executive officers and directors as of January 1, 2007 are as follows:

Paul Eibeler has been Chief Executive Officer of the Company since January 2005 and President and a director of the Company since April 2004. Mr. Eibeler was also President of the Company from July 2000 to June 2003 and a director from December 2000 to February 2003. Prior to that time, Mr. Eibeler was a consultant for Microsoft’s Xbox launch team. From July 2003 to October 2003, Mr. Eibeler was President and Chief Operating Officer of Acclaim Entertainment’s North America Division, a company engaged in publishing video games and, from 1998 to 1999, Mr. Eibeler served as Acclaim North America’s Executive Vice-President and General Manager. Acclaim filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the federal Bankruptcy Code in September 2004. During the seven years prior to 1998, Mr. Eibeler held various executive positions with Impact, Inc., a leading supplier of licensed toys and school supplies. Mr. Eibeler received a B.A. from Loyola College.

Karl H. Winters has been Chief Financial Officer of the Company since February 2002. From April 2000 to June 2001, Mr. Winters was the Chief Financial Officer of ModelWire, Inc., a company engaged in marketing imaging database products. From 1993 to 1999, Mr. Winters served in various positions, most recently as Vice President of Trace International Holdings, Inc., a private holding company that held significant interests in United Auto Group, Inc., a consolidator of new car dealerships, and Foamex International Inc., a manufacturer of polyurethane products. During such period, Mr. Winters also held executive positions at United Auto and Foamex, most recently as United Auto’s Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President. From 1983 to 1993, Mr. Winters was a Senior Audit Manager for Coopers & Lybrand. Mr. Winters is a C.P.A. and received an M.B.A. from the University of Michigan and a B.A. in Business Economics with a concentration in Accounting from Calvin College.

Samuel A. Judd has been Senior Vice President of Planning and Administration of the Company since July 2004. Prior to joining the Company Mr. Judd served as Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Operations at the Simon & Schuster division of Viacom, Inc. Mr. Judd received his B.A. in Economics from Cornell University and an M.B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

Grover C. Brown, Esq. has been a director of the Company since March 2006 and Chairman of its Corporate Governance Committee since December 2006. Mr. Brown, a former judge, has been special counsel at the law firm of Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A. since March 2000. Previously, Mr. Brown was a Partner at the law firm of Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams from 1985 to 2000. Mr. Brown served as Chancellor and Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery from 1973 until 1985 and was a Family Court Judge for the State of Delaware prior to that time. Mr. Brown is admitted to practice before the Federal District Courts in Delaware and the District of Columbia, and the United

17

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Brown is a director of Cablevision Systems Corporation, a publicly traded leading media, entertainment and telecommunications company. He received his law degree from The George Washington University and is a member of the American Bar and Delaware Bar Associations.

Todd Emmel has been a director of the Company since February 2002 and was interim Chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee from January 2006 until March 2006. Mr. Emmel served as Chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee from April 2004 to July 2004. Since August 2003, Mr. Emmel has served as Director, Structured Products for John Hancock Financial Services, a financial and insurance services company. From November 1999 until June 2002, Mr. Emmel was a First Vice President at Ambac Assurance Corporation, a financial insurance company. Mr. Emmel received an M.B.A. from Carnegie Mellon University and a B.S. in Accounting from Miami University.

Robert Flug has been a director of the Company since February 1998 and interim non-executive Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors since January 2006. Since September 1987, Mr. Flug has held various executive positions with S.L. Danielle Survivor (formerly S.L. Danielle), a women’s apparel company, most recently as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Flug received a B.S. in Business Administration from New York University.

Oliver R. Grace, Jr. has been a director of the Company since April 1997. Since 1990, Mr. Grace, a private investor, has been the Chairman of the Board of Moscow Cablecom Corp. (formerly known as Anderson Group, Inc.), which provides broadband cable services to the city of Moscow. Mr. Grace is a general partner of Anglo American Security Fund, L.P., a private investment fund. Mr. Grace received a B.A. in Business Administration from Vanderbilt University.

John F. Levy has been a director of the Company and Chairman of its Audit Committee and Compensation Committee since March 2006 and December 2006, respectively. Since May 2005, Mr. Levy has served as the Chief Executive Officer of Board Advisory Services, a consulting firm which advises public companies in the areas of corporate governance, corporate compliance, financial reporting and financial strategies. From November 1997 to August 2004, Mr. Levy served as chief financial officer of MediaBay, Inc., a NASDAQ company and leading provider of premium spoken word audio content. While at MediaBay, he also served for a period as its Vice Chairman. Mr. Levy is a Certified Public Accountant with nine years experience with the national public accounting firms of Ernst & Young, Laventhol & Horwath and Grant Thornton. Mr. Levy is a director and Chairman of the Audit Committee of Gilman+Cioccia, Inc., a publicly traded company which provides tax preparation and financial planning services to individuals. Mr. Levy has a B.S. degree in Economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and received his M.B.A. from St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.

Mark Lewis has been a director of the Company since May 2001. For the fifteen years prior to February 2001, Mr. Lewis held various positions with Electronic Arts, Inc., a company engaged in publishing video games, most recently as Senior Vice President of International Operations. Mr. Lewis has been a director of Muse Communications Corp., a broadband technology company, since November 1997. Mr. Lewis received a B.A. in English and graduated Cum Laude from Yale University.

Michael J. Malone has been a director of the Company since January 2006. From May 2001 through February 2005, Mr. Malone served as non-executive Chairman of Maxide Acquisition, Inc., a holding company for DMX Music, Inc. (formerly AEI Music Network, Inc.), a supplier of music services that he founded in 1971. In February  2005, Maxide Acquisition, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 protection with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. From 2001 through 2004, Mr. Malone served as non-executive Chairman of DMX Music, and from 1971 through 2001, Mr. Malone served as Chief Executive Officer and non-executive Chairman of AEI Music Network, Inc. From 1995 through 2005, Mr. Malone served as Chairman of MTM Management, a national hotel management company. Since 1985, Mr. Malone has served as Chairman of Erin Air, Inc., a national jet charter company based in Seattle.

18

Since 1999, Mr. Malone has served on the Board of Directors and Audit Committee of Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., a publicly traded global logistics services company. Mr. Malone received a B.A. in Business Administration from the University of Washington.

Steven Tisch has been a director of the Company since April 2002. Since 1986, Mr. Tisch has been an independent motion picture producer. Mr. Tisch is the Oscar Award winning producer of Forrest Gump, the 1994 winner for Best Picture. Since May 2000, Mr. Tisch has been a partner of Escape Artists, a private independent film company, and a director of Classic Media, an owner of franchise entertainment properties. Since June 2002, Mr. Tisch has been a director of Film Roman, Inc., a publicly traded television and motion picture production company. From 1976 to 1986, Mr. Tisch was a principal of Tisch/Avnet Productions, a production company with credits such as Risky Business. Mr. Tisch is a member of the Board of Directors of the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University and The Geffen Theatre in Los Angeles. Mr. Tisch received a B.A. in Sociology from Tufts University.

Item 1A.                Risk Factors

Our business is subject to many risks and uncertainties, which may affect our future financial performance. Because of the risks and uncertainties described below, as well as other factors affecting our operating results and financial condition, past financial performance should not be considered to be a reliable indicator of future performance and our business and financial performance could be harmed and the market value of our securities could decline.

The matters relating to the investigation by the Special Committee of our Board of Directors and the restatement of our consolidated financial statements may result in additional SEC inquiries, litigation and governmental enforcement actions.

In June 2006, our Board of Directors directed a Special Committee consisting of three independent members of the Board of Directors to conduct an independent investigation relating to our past stock option grants. The Special Committee was assisted in the investigation by outside independent legal counsel and independent accountants. On December 11, 2006, we announced that the Special Committee preliminarily found that there were improprieties in the process of granting and documenting stock options and that incorrect measurement dates for certain stock option grants were used for financial accounting purposes. As described in the Explanatory Note immediately preceding Part I, Item 1, and in Note 2 “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements” in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K, as a result of the internal review and independent investigation, management has concluded, and the Audit Committee agrees, that incorrect measurement dates were used for financial accounting purposes for stock-based compensation awards made in certain prior periods. As a result, we have recorded additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense, and related tax effects, with regard to certain past stock-based awards, and we have restated certain previously filed financial statements included in this Form 10-K.

The internal review, the independent investigation, and related activities have required us to incur substantial expenses for legal, accounting, tax and other professional services, have diverted management’s attention from our business, and could in the future harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

While we believe that we have made appropriate judgments in determining the correct measurement dates for our stock-based compensation awards, the SEC may disagree with the manner in which we have accounted for and reported the financial impact. Accordingly, there is a risk that we may have to further restate our prior financial statements, amend prior filings with the SEC, or take other actions not currently contemplated.

19

Our past stock option granting practices and the restatement of prior financial statements have exposed us to greater risks associated with litigation, regulatory proceedings and government enforcement actions. As described in Part I, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings”, several derivative complaints and a class action complaint have been filed in state and federal courts against our directors and certain of our executive officers pertaining to, among other things, allegations relating to stock option grants. In addition, we have responded to the previously disclosed subpoenas and informal requests for documents and additional information from these agencies. We intend to continue to fully cooperate with these investigations. No assurance can be given regarding the outcomes from litigation, regulatory proceedings or government enforcement actions relating to our past stock compensation practices. The resolution of these matters will be time consuming, expensive, and will distract management from the conduct of our business. Furthermore, if we are subject to adverse findings in litigation, regulatory proceedings or government enforcement actions, we could be required to pay damages, fines or penalties or have other remedies imposed, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

In August 2006, we received a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter stating that, as a result of the delayed filing of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2006 (the “Third Quarter Form 10-Q”), we were not in compliance with the filing requirements for continued listing as set forth in Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and were therefore subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. On December 29, 2006, the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel granted our request for continued listing, subject to our filing of the Third Quarter Form 10-Q, and any required restatements, with the SEC by March 19, 2007, holding our combined 2005 and 2006 annual meeting by March 27, 2006 and providing certain information regarding the Special Committee’s independent investigation to NASDAQ by on or about January 15, 2007, which we have provided. We anticipate filing our Third Quarter Form 10-Q with the SEC promptly following the filing of this Form 10-K. We anticipate holding our annual meeting on or about March 23, 2007. We believe that when we hold our combined 2005 and 2006 annual meeting, we will have remedied our non-compliance with Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and other applicable Marketplace Rules, subject to NASDAQ’s affirmative completion of our compliance protocols. However, if the SEC disagrees with the manner in which we have accounted for and reported, or not reported, the financial impact of past stock-based compensation awards, there could be further delays in filing subsequent SEC reports that might result in delisting of our common stock from the NASDAQ Stock Market.

We have incurred significant losses for the year ended October 31, 2006, and we may incur future losses.

Although we achieved increasing levels of revenue and generated profits in each of the years ended October 31, 2002 through 2005, we incurred a significant loss for the year ended October 31, 2006. We expect to incur increased levels of expenses associated with significant product development and licensing commitments over the next year in connection with the diversification of our product offerings and the transition to next-generation platforms. We anticipate that we will continue to incur losses until such time as we generate sufficient levels of revenue to offset these increased costs. Continued losses could adversely affect the price of our common stock and our business.

Our business is highly dependent on the success, timely release and availability of new video game platforms, on the continued availability of existing video game platforms, as well as our ability to develop commercially successful products for these platforms.

We derive most of our revenue from the sale of products for play on video game platforms manufactured by third parties, such as Sony’s PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3 and PSP; and Microsoft’s Xbox and Xbox 360. The success of our business is driven in large part by the availability of an adequate supply of current generation video game platforms (such as the PlayStation 2), the adequate supply, and, increasingly, the success of new video game hardware systems (such as the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and the Wii), our ability to accurately predict which platforms will be successful in the marketplace, and our ability to develop

20

commercially successful products for these platforms. We must make product development decisions and commit significant resources well in advance of the anticipated introduction of a new platform. A new platform for which we are developing products may not succeed or may have a shorter life cycle than anticipated. Alternatively, a platform for which we have not devoted significant resources could be more successful than we had initially anticipated, causing us to miss a meaningful revenue opportunity. If the platforms for which we are developing products are not available in adequate quantities to meet consumer demand or are lower than our expectations, or do not attain wide market acceptance, our revenue will suffer, we may be unable to fully recover the investments we have made in developing our products, and our financial performance will be harmed.

We expect the average price of current generation software titles to continue to decline.

Consumer demand for software for current generation platforms has declined as newer and more advanced hardware platforms achieve market acceptance. As the gaming software industry transitions to next-generation platforms, we expect few, if any, current generation titles will be able to command premium price points and we expect that these titles will be subject to price reductions earlier in their product life cycles than we have seen in prior years. As a result, we have reduced prices for our current generation software titles and we expect to continue to reduce prices for our current generation software titles which will have a negative impact on our operating results.

The market for our titles is characterized by short product life cycles. Delays in product releases or disruptions following the commercial release of our products may have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

The market for our titles is characterized by short product life cycles and frequent introductions of new products. New products may not achieve significant market acceptance or generate sufficient sales to permit us to recover development, manufacturing and marketing costs associated with these products. The life cycle of a title generally involves a relatively high level of sales during the first few months after introduction followed by a rapid decline in sales. Because revenues associated with an initial product launch generally constitute a high percentage of the total revenue associated with the life of a product, delays in product releases or disruptions following the commercial release of one or more new products could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and cause our operating results to be materially different from expectations. We have experienced delays in product releases and in fiscal 2005 our revenue was negatively impacted by product returns due to the re-rating by the ESRB of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas from “M” (age 17 and older) to “AO” (age 18 and older). Such delays and disruptions may occur in the future.

We are dependent on the future success of our Grand Theft Auto products and we must continue to publish “hit” titles in order to successfully compete in our industry.

Grand Theft Auto and certain of our other titles are “hit” products and have historically accounted for a substantial portion of our revenues. If we fail to continue to develop and sell new commercially successful hit titles or experience any delays in product releases or disruptions following the commercial release of our “hit” titles, our revenues and profits may decrease substantially and we may incur losses. For the years ended October 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 our Grand Theft Auto titles accounted for 22.4%, 38.2% and 34.3% of our total revenue, respectively, and our ten best selling titles accounted for approximately 38.4%, 48.2% and 46.3% of our net revenues, respectively. In addition, competition in our industry is intense and a relatively small number of hit titles account for a large portion of total revenue in our industry. Hit products offered by our competitors may take a larger share of consumer spending than we anticipate, which could cause revenue generated from our products and services to fall below our expectations. If our competitors develop more successful products or services at lower price points or based on payment models perceived as offering better value (such as pay-for play or subscription-based models), or if we do

21

not continue to develop consistently high quality and well-received products and services, our revenue and profitability will decline.

Our software titles compete for the leisure and entertainment time of consumers, which has intensified in part due to advances in technology.

We face increasing competition for the leisure and entertainment time of consumers. Our publishing business competes with all other sources of information and entertainment, including television, movies, music, live events, radio broadcasts, home video products, print media and the Internet. Technological advancements, such as new streaming capabilities and downloading entertainment via the Internet, have increased the number of media and entertainment choices available to consumers and presents challenges as our audience becomes more fragmented. The increasing number of choices available to consumers could negatively impact demand for our products, or require us to use additional resources to develop more sophisticated software, or both. If we do not respond effectively to increases in the leisure and entertainment choices available to consumers, it could have an adverse effect on our competitive position and revenues.

If we fail to retain creative and product development personnel, our business could be seriously harmed.

We are highly dependent on the expertise, skills and knowledge of certain of our Rockstar employees responsible for content creation and development of Grand Theft Auto and other titles. Although we entered into employment agreements with our key Rockstar employees, and we have granted them incentives including an internal royalty program based on sales of Rockstar published products, we may not be able to continue to retain these personnel at current compensation levels, or at all. The compensation arrangements with such Rockstar employees could result in increased expenses and have a negative impact on our operating results. In addition, if one or more of these individuals leave our company, we may lose additional personnel, experience material interruptions in product development and delays in bringing products to market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

We depend on our key management personnel.

Our continued success will depend to a significant extent on our senior management. The loss of the services of our executive officers could significantly harm our business, financial condition and operating results. In addition, if one or more key employees join a competitor or form a competing company, we may lose additional personnel, experience material interruptions in product development, delays in bringing products to market and difficulties in our relationships with licensors, suppliers and customers, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition and operating results. Additionally, failure to continue to attract and retain qualified management personnel could adversely affect our business and prospects.

Our ability to acquire licenses to intellectual property, especially for sports titles, impacts our revenue and profitability. Competition for these licenses may make them more expensive and increase our costs.

Many of our products are based on or incorporate intellectual property owned by others. For example, our 2K Sports products include rights licensed from major sports leagues and players’ associations. Similarly, some of our other titles are based on key film and television licenses. Competition for these licenses is intense. If we are unable to maintain these licenses or obtain additional licenses with significant commercial value, our revenues and profitability will decline significantly. Competition for these licenses may also drive up the advances, guarantees and royalties that we must pay to the licensor, which could significantly increase our costs.

22

Our business is dependent on our ability to enter into successful software development arrangements with third parties.

Our success depends on our ability to continually identify and develop new titles on a timely basis. We rely on third-party software developers for the development of certain of our titles. Quality third-party developers are continually in high demand. Software developers who have developed titles for us in the past may not be available to develop software for us in the future. Due to the limited number of third-party software developers and the limited control that we exercise over them, these developers may not be able to complete titles for us on a timely basis or within acceptable quality standards, if at all. We have entered into agreements with third parties to acquire the rights to publish and distribute interactive entertainment software as well as to use licensed intellectual properties in our titles. These agreements typically require us to make advance payments, pay royalties and satisfy other conditions. Our advance payments may not be sufficient to permit developers to develop new software successfully, which could result in material delays and significantly increase our costs to bring particular products to market. Software development costs, promotion and marketing expenses and royalties payable to software developers and third-party licensors have increased significantly in recent years and reduce potential profits derived from sales of our software. Future sales of our titles may not be sufficient to recover advances to software developers and licensors, and we may not have adequate financial and other resources to satisfy our contractual commitments to such developers. If we fail to satisfy our obligations under agreements with third-party developers and licensors, the agreements may be terminated or modified in ways that are burdensome to us, and materially adversely affect our operating results.

We are subject to product development risks which could result in delays and additional costs, and we must adapt to changes in software technologies.

We depend on third-party software developers and our internal development studios to develop new interactive entertainment software within anticipated release schedules and cost projections. The development cycle for new titles ranges from twelve to thirty-six months and is expected to increase in connection with the development of next-generation software. After development of a product, it may take between nine to twelve additional months to develop the product for other hardware platforms. If developers experience financial difficulties, additional costs or unanticipated development delays, we will not be able to release titles according to our schedule and at budgeted costs. Certain of our licensing and marketing agreements also contain provisions that would impose penalties in the event that we fail to meet agreed upon software release dates.

Additionally, in order to stay competitive, our internal development studios must anticipate and adapt to rapid technological changes affecting software development. Any inability to respond to technological advances and implement new technologies could render our products obsolete or less marketable.

The interactive entertainment software industry is highly competitive both for our publishing and distribution operations.

We compete for both licenses to properties and the sale of interactive entertainment software with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, each of which is a large developer and marketer of software for its own platforms. Each of these competitors has the financial resources to withstand significant price competition and to implement extensive advertising campaigns, particularly for television spots. These companies may also increase their own software development efforts or focus on developing software products for third-party platforms. We also compete with domestic game publishers such as Electronic Arts, Activision, THQ, Midway Games and Atari and international publishers, such as SEGA, Vivendi, Ubisoft, SCi Entertainment, Capcom, Konami and Namco-Bondai. As our business is driven by hit titles, which require increasing budgets for development and marketing, the availability of significant financial resources has become a major competitive factor in developing and marketing software games. Some of our competitors

23

have greater financial, technical, personnel and other resources than we do and are able to finance larger budgets for development and marketing and make higher offers to licensors and developers for commercially desirable properties. Our titles also compete with other forms of entertainment such as motion pictures, television and audio and video products featuring similar themes, online computer programs and forms of entertainment which may be less expensive or provide other advantages to consumers.

Our distribution business also operates in a highly competitive environment. Competition is based primarily on breadth, availability and quality of product lines; price; terms and conditions of sale; credit terms and availability; speed and accuracy of delivery; and effectiveness of sales and marketing programs. Our competitors include regional, national and international distributors, as well as hardware manufacturers and software publishers. We may lose market share or be forced in the future to reduce our prices in response to our competitors. Our distribution business has been adversely affected by lower sales volume of software titles, a decrease in average selling prices of interactive entertainment products as our industry transitions to next-generation technology and increased competition in the value software market.

A number of software publishers who compete with us have developed and commercialized or are currently developing online games for use by consumers over the Internet. Future increased consumer acceptance and increases in the availability of online games or technological advances in online game software sales or the Internet could result in a decline in platform-based software sales and negatively impact sales of our products. Direct sales of software over the Internet by our competitors could materially adversely affect our distribution business.

Increased competition for limited shelf space and promotional support from retailers could affect the success of our business and require us to incur greater expenses to market our titles.

Retailers have limited shelf space and promotional resources, and competition is intense among newly introduced interactive entertainment software titles for adequate levels of shelf space and promotional support. Competition for retail shelf space is expected to increase, which may require us to increase our marketing expenditures to maintain desirable levels of sales of our titles. Competitors with more extensive lines and popular titles may have greater bargaining power with retailers. Accordingly, we may not be able, or we may have to pay more than our competitors, to achieve similar levels of promotional support and shelf space.

A limited number of customers account for a significant portion of our sales. The loss of a principal customer could seriously hurt our business.

A substantial portion of our product sales are made to a limited number of customers. Sales to our five largest customers accounted for approximately 49.4% and 40.7% of our net revenues, for the year ended October 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, with Wal-Mart, GameStop and Best Buy accounting for 15.4%, 12.6% and 10.2%, respectively, of such revenues for the year ended October 31, 2006. Our sales are made primarily pursuant to purchase orders without long-term agreements or other commitments, and our customers may terminate their relationship with us at any time. Certain of our customers may decline to carry products containing mature content. The loss of our relationships with principal customers or a decline in sales to principal customers, including as a result of a product being rated “AO” (age 18 and over), could materially adversely affect our business and operating results. Bankruptcies or consolidations of certain large retail customers could seriously hurt our business.

24

Returns of our published titles by our customers and price concessions granted to our customers may adversely affect our operating results.

We are exposed to the risk of product returns and price concessions with respect to our customers. Our distribution arrangements with customers generally do not give them the right to return titles to us or to cancel firm orders. However, we sometimes accept product returns from our distribution customers for stock balancing and negotiate accommodations to customers which include credits and returns, when demand for specific products falls below expectations. We accept returns and grant price concessions in connection with our publishing arrangements and revenue is recognized after deducting estimated reserves for returns and price concessions. While we believe that we can reliably estimate future returns and price concessions, if return rates and price concessions for our published titles exceed our reserves, our revenues could decline.

Failure to collect our accounts receivable on a timely basis will negatively impact our cash flow.

Our sales are typically made on credit. We do not hold any collateral to secure payment by our customers. As a result, we are subject to credit risks, particularly in the event that a significant amount of our receivables represent sales to a limited number of retailers or are concentrated in foreign markets. Although we continually assess the creditworthiness of our customers, which are principally large, national retailers, if we are unable to collect our accounts receivable as they become due, it could adversely affect our financial condition and cash flow. From time to time we purchase insurance from financial institutions on our receivables, with certain limits, to help protect us from loss in the event of a customer’s bankruptcy or insolvency.

We are subject to the rating of our content by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. Failure to obtain a target rating for certain of our products could negatively impact our sales as could a game re-rating.

We submit our game products to the ESRB, a voluntary ratings organization that requires publishers to submit game content for rating. The ESRB system provides consumers with information about game content using a rating symbol that suggests the appropriate player age group, and content descriptor information, such as graphic violence, profanity, or sexually explicit material. The ESRB rating is printed on each game package and retailers may use the rating to restrict sales to the recommended age groups. The ESRB may impose significant penalties on game publishers for violations of its rules on rating or marketing a game, including revocation of a rating or monetary fines. Certain countries have also established similar rating systems as prerequisites for product sales in those countries. We believe that we comply with rating system requirements and properly display the designated rating symbols and content descriptors. In some instances, we may have to modify our products in order to market them under the expected rating, which could delay or disrupt the release of our products. Sales of some of our titles, however, have been prohibited in certain countries. In the United States, we expect our software titles to receive ESRB ratings of “E” (age 6 and older), “E10+” (age 10 and older), “T” (age 13 and over) or “M” (age 17 and over). In addition to these ratings, the ESRB may also rate a game as “AO” (age 18 and over). Many of our Rockstar titles and certain of our 2K Games titles have been rated “M” by the ESRB. If we are unable to obtain “M” ratings as a result of changes in the ESRB’s ratings standards or for other reasons, including the adoption of legislation in this area, our business and prospects could be negatively affected. In the event any of our games are re-rated by the ESRB, we may be required to record a reserve for anticipated product returns and inventory obsolescence which could expose us to additional litigation, administrative fines and penalties and other potential liabilities, and could adversely affect our operating results.

25

We entered into a Consent Order with the Staff of the Federal Trade.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has concluded its previously reported inquiry regarding the advertising claims for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas following the re-rating of the title by the ESRB. In July 2006, we entered into an agreement with the staff of the FTC containing a Consent Order that settled all outstanding matters pending before the FTC. Under the terms of the Consent Order, we established, and must implement, and maintain a comprehensive system reasonably designed to ensure that all content in an electronic game is considered and reviewed in preparing submissions to a U.S. rating authority. The companies also agreed to accurately represent the rating and content descriptors for games they publish and to disclose to consumers the presence of any content relevant to the rating that was not disclosed to the rating authority. If we fail to comply with the terms of the Consent Order, we could be required to pay substantial fines, penalties and judgments and our operations could be significantly harmed.

We are currently in litigation that could negatively impact our financial results.

We are currently named as a defendant in class actions complaints alleging consumer deception, false advertising and common law fraud, class action and derivative complaints alleging violations of certain federal securities laws, an action brought by the City Attorney of Los Angeles and actions brought by the estates of certain individuals claiming violations of State manufacturing liability and wrongful death statutes.

We cannot predict the outcome of these pending matters, which could result in the imposition of significant fines and penalties and/or judgments that could negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, we have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant legal and other professional fees and expenses in connection with pending litigation as well as pending regulatory matters which have also diverted management’s attention from our business. See Item 3—“Legal Proceedings”.

We have received requests for information from certain state and federal regulatory authorities.

We have received grand jury subpoenas issued by the District Attorney of the County of New York requesting production of documents covering various periods beginning on January 1, 1997, including those relating to, among other things: the so-called “Hot Coffee” scenes in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas; the work of  our Board of Directors, all Board Committees, and the Special Litigation Committee; certain acquisitions entered into by  us ; billing and payment records relating to Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLC (“PWC”) and the termination of PWC as  our  auditors; communications to financial analysts and stockholders about acquisitions and financial results; compensation and human resources documents of certain  of our  directors and employees; stock-based compensation; the SEC ’s  June 2006 inquiry; legal services performed for employees; corporate credit card and expense records of certain individuals; the SEC bar of  our  former Chief Executive Officer, Ryan Brant; and ethics, securities, and conflict of interest policies and questionnaires.  We are fully cooperating and providing the documents and information called for by the subpoenas.

We have also received notice from the SEC that it is conducting an informal non-public investigation into certain stock option grants made by us from January 1997 to the present. We and the Special Committee are fully cooperating with the SEC.

We have also received requests for documents and information relating to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas from certain state Attorneys General, which matters have been dormant for some time.

We have also received a request for information from the Internal Revenue Service that includes a request for records relating to the grant and exercise of options and tax deductions taken by us pursuant to Internal

26

Revenue Code Section 162(m) for the period from October 31, 2000 to October 31, 2004. We are fully cooperating and providing the requested documents.

These regulatory matters could divert resources away from our business, which could undermine our ability to effectively compete and seriously hurt our business and prospects. While under review, our ability to enter into capital-raising, strategic and other potential corporate transactions on favorable terms could be severely hampered. We cannot predict the outcome of these pending reviews, which could ultimately result in the imposition  of significant fines and other penalties and/or judgments  that could negatively impact our results of operations and  financial condition.

Our business and products are subject to increasing potential legislation. The adoption of such proposed legislation could limit the retail market for our products.

Several proposals have been made for federal legislation to regulate our industry, including a Senate bill, referred to as The Family Entertainment Protection Act. This bill proposes to prohibit the sale of “M” rated, “AO” rated and “Rating Pending” products to under-17 audiences. If the bill is adopted into law, it may limit the potential market for our “M” rated products, and adversely affect our operating results. Other countries, such as Germany, have adopted laws regulating content both in packaged games and those transmitted over the Internet that are stricter than current United States laws. In the United States, proposals have also been made by numerous state legislators to regulate the sale of interactive entertainment software products containing violent or sexually explicit material by prohibiting the sale of such products to under 17 or 18 audiences and proposing penalties for noncompliance, and certain states have recently sought to adopt laws regulating “M” or “AO” rated products or products otherwise depicting violent or sexually explicit materials. While such legislation has been successfully enjoined by industry and retail groups, the adoption into law of such legislation in federal and/or in state jurisdictions in which we do significant business could severely limit the retail market for our “M” rated titles.

Content policies adopted by retailers, consumer opposition and litigation could negatively impact sales of our products.

Retailers may decline to sell interactive entertainment software containing graphic violence or sexually explicit material or other content that they deem inappropriate for their businesses. If retailers decline to sell our “M” rated products or products containing graphic violence or sexually explicit material or other objectionable content generally, or if our “M” rated products are rated “AO,” we might be required to significantly change or discontinue particular titles, which in the case of our best selling Grand Theft Auto titles could seriously hurt our business. Consumer advocacy groups have opposed sales of interactive entertainment software containing graphic violence or sexually explicit material or other objectionable content by pressing for legislation in these areas and by engaging in public demonstrations and media campaigns. Additionally, although lawsuits seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered by third parties as a result of video games have been unsuccessful in the courts, claims of this kind have been asserted against us from time to time. See Item 3. “Legal Proceedings.”

We cannot publish our console titles without the approval of hardware licensors who are also our competitors.

We are required to obtain a license from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, who are also our competitors, to develop and publish titles for their respective hardware platforms. Our existing platform licenses require that we obtain approval for the publication of new titles on a title-by-title basis. As a result, the number of titles we are able to publish for these hardware platforms, and our ability to manage the timing of the release of these titles and, accordingly, our net revenues from titles for these hardware platforms, may be limited. If any licensor chooses not to renew or extend our license agreement at the end of its current term, or if the licensor were to terminate our license for any reason, we would be unable to publish additional

27

titles for that licensor’s platform. Termination of any such agreements could seriously hurt our business and prospects.

Microsoft released its next-generation hardware platform into the North American marketplace in November 2005, and each of Sony and Nintendo introduced their respective next-generation platforms into the marketplace during November 2006. Certain platform licensors have retained the right to change fee structures for online gameplay, and each licensor’s ability to set royalty rates makes it difficult for us to forecast our costs. Increased costs could negatively impact our operating margins. We may be unable to enter into license agreements for certain next-generation platforms on satisfactory terms or at all. Failure to enter into any such agreement could also seriously hurt our business.

Our quarterly operating results are highly seasonal and may fluctuate significantly, which could cause our stock price to decline.

We have experienced and may continue to experience wide fluctuations in quarterly operating results. The interactive entertainment industry is highly seasonal, with sales typically higher during the fourth calendar quarter (our fourth and first fiscal quarters), due primarily to increased demand for games during the holiday buying season. Our failure or inability to introduce products on a timely basis to meet seasonal fluctuations in demand could adversely affect our business and operating results. The uncertainties associated with software development, manufacturing lead times, production delays and the approval process for products by hardware manufacturers and other licensors make it difficult to predict the quarter in which our products will ship and therefore may cause us to fail to meet financial expectations. In future quarters, our operating results may fall below the expectations of securities analysts and investors and the price of our stock could decline significantly.

Our expansion and acquisitions may strain our operations, and we may not have sufficient financial resources to continue to expand our operations at previous levels.

We have expanded through internal growth and acquisitions, which has placed and may continue to place a significant strain on our management, administrative, operational, financial and other resources. We have expanded our publishing operations, significantly increased our advances to licensors and developers and manufacturing expenditures and enlarged our work force. To successfully manage this growth, we must continue to implement and improve our operating systems as well as hire, train and manage a substantial and increasing number of management, technical, marketing, administrative and other personnel. We may be unable to effectively manage our expanding and geographically dispersed operations.

We have acquired rights to various properties and businesses, and we intend to continue to pursue opportunities by making selective acquisitions consistent with our business strategy. We may be unable to successfully integrate new personnel, properties or businesses into our operations. If we are unable to successfully integrate personnel, properties or businesses into our operations, we may incur significant charges.

Our publishing and distribution activities require significant cash resources. We may be required to seek debt or equity financing to fund the cost of continued expansion and there is no guarantee that could obtain additional financing on acceptable terms. The issuance of equity securities would result in dilution to the interests of our stockholders.

Our business is subject to risks generally associated with the entertainment industry, and we may fail to properly assess consumer tastes and preferences.

Our business is subject to all of the risks generally associated with the entertainment industry and, accordingly, our future operating results will depend on numerous factors beyond our control, including

28

the popularity, price and timing of new hardware platforms being released; economic, political and military conditions that adversely affect discretionary consumer spending; changes in consumer demographics; the availability and popularity of other forms of entertainment; and critical reviews and public tastes and preferences, which may change rapidly and cannot be predicted. In order to plan for acquisition and promotional activities, we must anticipate and respond to rapid changes in consumer tastes and preferences. A decline in the popularity of certain game genres or particular platforms could cause sales of our titles to decline dramatically. The period of time necessary to develop new game titles, obtain approvals of platform licensors and produce finished products is unpredictable. During this period, consumer appeal for a particular title may decrease, causing product sales to fall short of expectations.

We cannot be certain of the future effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting or the impact of the same on our operations or the market price for our common stock.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we are required to include in our Annual Report on Form 10-K our assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. Furthermore, our independent registered public accounting firm is required to audit our assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and separately report on whether it believes we maintain, in all material respects, effective internal controls over financial reporting. Although we believe that we currently have adequate internal control procedures in place, we cannot be certain that future material changes to our internal controls over financial reporting will be effective. If we cannot adequately maintain the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, we might be subject to sanctions or investigation by regulatory authorities, such as the SEC. Any such action could adversely affect our financial results and the market price of our common stock.

We may not be able to protect our proprietary rights or avoid claims that we infringe on the proprietary rights of others.

We develop proprietary software and have obtained the rights to publish and distribute software developed by third parties. We attempt to protect our software and production techniques under copyright, trademark and trade secret laws as well as through contractual restrictions on disclosure, copying and distribution. Our software is susceptible to piracy and unauthorized copying. Unauthorized third parties may be able to copy or to reverse engineer our software to obtain and use programming or production techniques that we regard as proprietary. Well organized piracy operations have also proliferated in recent years resulting in the ability to download pirated copies of our software over the Internet. Although we attempt to incorporate protective measures into our software, piracy of our products could negatively impact our future profitability.

With advances in technology, game content and software graphics are expected to become more realistic. As a result, we believe that interactive entertainment software will increasingly become the subject of claims that such software infringes the intellectual property rights of others. From time to time, we receive notices from third parties or are named in lawsuits by third parties alleging infringement of their proprietary rights. Although we believe that our software and technologies and the software and technologies of third-party developers and publishers with whom we have contractual relations do not and will not infringe or violate proprietary rights of others, it is possible that infringement of proprietary rights of others has or may occur. Any claims of infringement, with or without merit, could be time consuming, costly and difficult to defend. Moreover, intellectual property litigation or claims could require us to discontinue the distribution of products, obtain a license or redesign our products, which could result in additional substantial costs and material delays.

29

Our software is susceptible to errors, which can harm our financial results and reputation.

The technological advancements of new hardware platforms result in the development of more complex software products. As software products become more complex, the risk of undetected errors in products when first introduced increases. If, despite testing, errors are found in new products or releases after shipments have been made, we could experience a loss of or delay in timely market acceptance, product returns, loss of revenues and damage to our reputation.

Gross margins relating to our distribution business have been historically narrow which increases the impact of variations in costs on our operating results.

As a result of intense price competition, our gross margins in our distribution business have historically been narrow and may continue to be narrow in the future. Accordingly, slight variations in operating costs and expenses could result in losses in our distribution business from period to period.

We may not be able to adequately adjust our cost structure in a timely fashion in response to a sudden decrease in demand.

A significant portion of our selling and general and administrative expense is comprised of personnel and facilities. In the event of a significant decline in revenues, we may not be able to exit facilities, reduce personnel, or make other changes to our cost structure without disruption to our operations or without significant termination and exit costs. Management may not be able to implement such actions in a timely manner, if at all, to offset an immediate shortfall in revenues and profit. Moreover, reducing costs may impair our ability to produce and develop software titles at sufficient levels in the future.

Our distribution business is dependent on suppliers to maintain an adequate supply of products to fulfill customer orders on a timely basis.

Our ability to obtain particular products in required quantities and to fulfill customer orders on a timely basis is important to our success. In most cases, we have no guaranteed price or delivery agreements with suppliers. In certain product categories, limited price concessions or return rights offered by publishers may have a bearing on the amount of product we may be willing to purchase. Our industry may experience significant hardware supply shortages from time to time due to the inability of certain manufacturers to supply certain products on a timely basis. As a result, we have experienced, and may in the future continue to experience, short-term hardware inventory shortages. Further, manufacturers or publishers who currently distribute their products through us may decide to distribute, or to substantially increase their existing distribution, through other distributors, or directly to retailers.

If manufacturers do not supply us with finished titles on favorable terms without delays, our operations would be materially interrupted, and we would be unable to obtain sufficient amounts of our product to sell to our customers. If we cannot obtain sufficient product supplies, our net revenues will decline and we could incur losses.

We are subject to the risk that our inventory values may decline and protective terms under supplier arrangements may not adequately cover the decline in values.

The interactive entertainment software and hardware industry is characterized by the introduction of new and enhanced generations of products and evolving industry standards. These changes may cause inventory to decline substantially in value over time or to become obsolete. We are exposed to inventory risk in our distribution business to the extent that supplier price concessions are not available to us on all products or quantities. In addition, suppliers may become insolvent and unable to fulfill price concession obligations.

30

We are subject to risks and uncertainties of international trade, including fluctuations in the values of local foreign currencies against the dollar.

Sales in international markets, primarily in the United Kingdom and other territories in Europe, have accounted for a significant portion of our net revenues. Sales in international markets accounted for approximately 39.4% and 39.8%, respectively, of our net revenues for the years ended October 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. We are subject to risks inherent in foreign trade, including increased credit risks; tariffs and duties; fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; shipping delays; and international political, regulatory and economic developments, all of which can have a significant impact on our operating results. All of our international sales are made in local currencies, which could fluctuate against the dollar. While we may use forward exchange contracts to a limited extent to seek to mitigate foreign currency risk, our results of operations could be adversely affected by unfavorable foreign currency fluctuations.

The market price for our common stock may be highly volatile as a result of, among other things, factors affecting the industry.

The market price of our common stock has been and may continue to be highly volatile. Factors such as our operating results, announcements by us or our competitors and various factors affecting the interactive entertainment software industry may have a significant impact on the market price of our common stock.

We seek to manage our business with a view to achieving long-term results, and this could have a negative effect on short-term trading.

We focus on creation of shareholder value over time, and we intend to make decisions that will be consistent with this long-term view. As a result, some of our decisions, such as whether to make or discontinue operating investments, manage our balance sheet and capital structure, or pursue or discontinue strategic initiatives, may be in conflict with the objectives of short-term traders. Further, this could adversely affect our quarterly or other short-term results of operations.

Item 1B.               Unresolved Staff Comments

Not Applicable.

Item 2.                        Properties

Our principal executive offices are located at 622 Broadway, New York, New York in approximately 48,000 square feet of space under a ten-year lease expiring in 2012, which provides for annual rent of approximately $1,605,000. We also sublease an additional 16,000 square feet at this location under a lease expiring in 2010 for an annual rent of approximately $368,000.

Take-Two Interactive Software Europe leases 12,500 and 11,200 square feet of office space in Windsor, United Kingdom and Geneva, Switzerland, respectively. The Windsor lease provides for a current annual rent of approximately $654,000 plus taxes and utilities, and expires in 2011. The Geneva lease provides for a current annual rent of approximately $461,000 plus taxes and utilities, and expires in 2011. Rockstar North currently leases 42,000 square feet of office space in Edinburgh, Scotland, at an annual rent of approximately $2,173,000. The lease expires in 2014.

2K Games leases approximately 14,000 square feet of office space in New York, New York under an eight-year lease expiring in 2013, which provides for annual rent of approximately $563,000. In January 2006, a fire in a lower floor of this building caused significant damage to these offices and we have temporarily relocated all of the employees based in these offices, consisting primarily of marketing and administrative personnel, and to a limited extent, product testing personnel. We did not experience any significant effect on our business as a result of the fire.

31

Our Jack of All Games subsidiary leases 400,000 square feet of office and warehouse space in Cincinnati, Ohio. The lease provides for annual rent of approximately $1,064,000, plus taxes and insurance, and expires in September 2014.

In addition, our other subsidiaries lease office space in Sydney and Braddon, Australia; Mississauga, Toronto and Vancouver, Canada; Paris, France; Munich, Germany; Breda, Netherlands; Madrid, Spain; Milan, Italy; Auckland, New Zealand; London, Lincoln, Leighton Buzzard, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Leeds, UK; Hong Kong and Shanghai, China; Camarillo, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Rafael and West Village, California; Baltimore and Hunt Valley, Maryland; Quincy, Massachusetts; and Bellevue, Washington; for an aggregate annual rent of approximately $14,769,000.

Item 3.                        Legal Proceedings

In July 2005, we received three purported class action complaints against us and Rockstar Games, two of which were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and one such complaint which was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 8, 2005, another similar complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial District, St. Clair County, Illinois and then removed to United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of our Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game, allege that we and Rockstar Games engaged in consumer deception, false advertising and common law fraud and were unjustly enriched as a result of the alleged failure of us and Rockstar Games to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content, which resulted in the game receiving an “M” rating from the ESRB rather than an “AO” rating. The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various violations of law and litigation costs. The New York and Pennsylvania actions, together with an action commenced against us and Rockstar Games in the United States District for the Southern District of New York in August 2006, have been consolidated in the Southern District of New York under the caption In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, (05-CV-6734 (BSJ)) and the Illinois action has been transferred to the Southern District of New York for coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant to an Order of Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. These cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings under the caption In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD). On June 7, 2006  plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended Complaint. On July 31, 2006, we and Rockstar Games filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss those claims brought under the laws of states other than states where the named plaintiffs reside and were purportedly injured. By an Opinion and Order dated October 25, 2006, the Partial Motion to Dismiss was denied. On November 10, 2006 we and Rockstar Games filed a Motion to Deny Certification of the proposed nationwide class. On November 17, 2006 we and Rockstar Games served an answer denying the allegations in the Consolidated and Amended Complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. On January 24, 2007, the Plaintiffs cross-moved for certification of the proposed nationwide class. Consolidated discovery in these actions is proceeding.

In November 2006, a complaint was filed against us and Rockstar Games in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that we and Rockstar Games engaged in consumer deception, were unjustly enriched and in breach of warranty as a result of the alleged failure of us and Rockstar Games to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content, which resulted in the game receiving an “M” rating from the ESRB rather than an “AO” rating. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, declarations of various violations of law and litigation costs. We and Rockstar Games have filed a Notice of Tag-along Action with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, requesting that the case be transferred to the Southern District of New York for pretrial consolidation with In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD). On January 26, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order, transferring this action to the Southern District of New York for pre-trial consolidation with In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD).

32

In January 2006, the City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint against us and Rockstar Games in the Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint alleges that we and Rockstar Games violated sections of the California Business and Professions Code prohibiting untrue and misleading statements and unfair competition and that we and Rockstar Games were unjustly enriched as a result of the alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content which should have resulted in the game receiving an Adults Only (“AO”) rating from the ESRB rather than a Mature (“M”) rating. The complaint also alleges that we made misleading statements as to the origin of the “hidden” content. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution for purchasers of the game and civil fines. The action has been removed to the United States District Court, Central District of California and we moved to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff has moved to remand the action to state court and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued an order transferring the action to the Southern District of New York  and the action was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD).

In February and March 2006, an aggregate of four purported class action complaints were filed against us, our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Global Operating Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “New York Actions”) and one such purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “Michigan Action”). The New York plaintiffs are Max Kaplan, John Fenninger, David Andrews and David Toth and the Michigan plaintiff was The City of Flint and Daniel J. Hall on behalf of The City of Flint Employees’ Retirement Pension Fund. The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) by making or causing us to make untrue statements or failing to disclose in certain press releases and SEC periodic reports that, among other things: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content which should have resulted in the game receiving an Adults Only (“AO”) rating from the ESRB rather than a Mature (“M”) rating; the defendants attempted to bolster sales of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas by concealing the “adult content” from retailers who refused to carry AO material; our management failed to keep our Board of Directors informed of important issues or failed to do so in a timely fashion; and we were misstating capitalized software development costs and amortization expense and had inadequate internal controls and procedures to ensure accuracy in our reported financial results. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and their costs. The plaintiffs in the Michigan Action voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice. On July 12, 2006, the Court entered Orders appointing the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiff and directing the filing of a consolidated amended complaint within sixty (60) days. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint on September 11, 2006. The amended complaint added claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act related to allegedly improper stock option granting practices at the Company. On December 11, 2006, we announced the preliminary results of an internal investigation into our historical stock option granting practices. The preliminary findings showed that there were improprieties in the process of granting and documenting stock options, and that incorrect measurement dates for certain stock option grants were used for financial accounting purposes. We further announced that we will need to restate previous financial statements and that our financial statements between 1997 and April 30, 2006, are not reliable. As a result of these announcements the parties have entered into a stipulation modifying the current scheduling order. Pursuant to the stipulation, all pending deadlines have been stayed pending a decision by plaintiffs as to whether they will file a second amended complaint reflecting our recent announcements.

In January 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System filed a purported class and derivative action complaint in the Southern District of New York against us, as nominal defendant, and certain of our officers and directors and certain former officers and directors. The factual allegations in this action are similar to the allegations contained in the New York Actions. Plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duty by selling their stock while in possession of certain material non-public information and breached their fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the

33

Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in our 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which we solicited approval to increase share availability under our 2002 Stock Option Plan. Plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold our stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest and their costs in the action. A motion to stay the action pending the determination of an investigation by the Special Committee was filed with the Court. On October 4, 2006, the Court issued an order granting the motion and staying the proceedings for a period of 150 days from the date of the Order. On January 17, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for an order granting limited relief from the Court’s October 4, 2006 stay of the proceedings in order to file an Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint.

In July 2006, Richard Lasky filed a purported derivative action complaint in the Southern District of New York against us, as nominal defendant, and certain of our officers and directors and certain former officers and directors. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state law, including violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment that allegedly occurred between January 2000 and the present. The complaint also asserts claims alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the granting of stock options to certain officers and directors since 1997. The complaint seeks unspecified damages against all of the individual defendants, reimbursement from certain of the defendants of bonuses or other incentive or equity based compensation paid to them by us during our fiscal year ended October 31, 2003, equitable and other relief relating to the proceeds from certain of the defendants’ alleged improper trading activity in our stock, adoption of certain corporate governance proposals and recovery of litigation costs.

On August 22, 2006, a purported derivative complaint was filed by Raeda Karadsheh in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York against us, as nominal defendant, and certain of our current and former officers and directors. The Karadsheh Complaint asserts claims related to our stock option granting practices. On November 22, 2006, the Court entered an Order consolidating the Lasky and Karadsheh actions and providing plaintiffs with forty-five (45) days from the date of the Order to file a consolidated complaint. The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 22, 2007. The consolidated complaint focuses exclusively on our historical stock option granting practices.

In January 2006, Todd Veeck filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against us pursuant to 8 DEL. C. § 220 to compel inspection of our books and records in order to “investigate” possible breaches of fiduciary duties with regard to the creation, development, marketing and sale of our Grand Theft Auto line of products. The parties were able to amicably resolve this action, which was dismissed with prejudice on December 11, 2006.

In February 2005, the personal representatives of the Estates of Arnold Strickland, James Crump and Ace Mealer brought an action in the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Alabama against us, Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. (“SCEA”), Sony Corporation of America (“SCA”), Wal-Mart, GameStop and Devin Moore alleging under Alabama’s manufacturers’ liability and wrongful death statutes that our video games designed, manufactured, marketed and/or supplied to Mr. Moore resulted in “copycat violence” that caused the death of Messrs. Strickland, Crump and Mealer. The suit seeks damages (including punitive damages) against all of the defendants in excess of $600 million. Wal-Mart, SCEA and SCA have tendered their defense and requested indemnification from us, and we have accepted such tender. Our motion to dismiss the action was denied and we moved to have certain issues certified for an immediate interlocutory appeal before the Alabama Supreme Court. We also separately pursued a petition to dismiss claims against us and Rockstar Games, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court declined to accept the interlocutory appeal, but agreed to hear the petition to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Briefing has been completed on such petition, and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint to add a claim for civil conspiracy; we and our co-defendants have moved to dismiss that claim and the motion is pending. In

34

October  2006, the trial court amended a prior Scheduling Order to set (a) a hearing on the admissibility of Plaintiffs’ expert opinions for April 6, 2007; (b) completion of all fact and expert discovery by October 12, 2007; (c) mediation for November 8, 2007; and (d) trial (if necessary) to commence no earlier than January 14, 2008.

In September 2006, the personal representatives of the Estates of Verlin Posey, Tryone Posey, and Marilea Schmid brought an action in the Second Judicial District of Bernalillo County, New Mexico in Albuquerque against us; Rockstar Games; SCEA; SCA and Cody Posey (“Posey”), alleging under New Mexico’s products liability and wrongful death statutes that our video games resulted in “copycat violence” that caused Posey to shoot and kill his father (Verlin Posey), stepmother (Tryone Posey) and stepsister (Marilea Schmid). At his criminal trial, Posey argued self-defense, and presented extensive testimony of long-term substantial physical abuse by his father. Posey was convicted of manslaughter in his father’s death, second degree murder for his stepmother’s death, and first degree murder for his stepsister’s death. At sentencing in April 2006, the judge concluded that Posey suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and had “snapped” when he committed the killings; rather than sentence Posey to life in prison, the judge sentenced him to a juvenile facility until he turns twenty-one. The suit seeks damages (including punitive damages) against all of the defendants in excess of $600 million. SCEA and SCA have tendered their defense and requested indemnification from us, and we have accepted such tender. Copies of the Complaint and Summonses were received by us in December 2006; and we moved to dismiss the Complaint on January 19, 2007.

We intend to vigorously defend and seek dismissal of these matters and, with respect to the derivative actions, we have been advised that the individual defendants will vigorously defend such actions. However, we cannot predict the outcome of these matters and, if determined adversely to us, such matters, either singly or in the aggregate, could result in the imposition of significant judgments, fines and/or penalties which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

We have received notice from the SEC that it is conducting an informal non-public investigation into certain stock option grants made by us from January 1997 to the present. Prior to receiving the notice, we had initiated an internal review of our option grants, led by a committee consisting of independent board members who have retained independent legal counsel and accountants to assist in the review. We and the Special Committee are fully cooperating with the SEC.

We have received grand jury subpoenas issued by the District Attorney of the County of New York requesting production of documents covering various periods beginning on January 1, 1997, including those relating to, among other things: the so-called “Hot Coffee” scenes in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas; the work of  our Board of Directors, all Board Committees, and the Special Litigation Committee; certain acquisitions entered into by  us ; billing and payment records relating to Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLC (“PWC”) and the termination of PWC as  our  auditors; communications to financial analysts and stockholders about acquisitions and financial results; compensation and human resources documents of certain  of our  directors and employees; stock-based compensation; the SEC ’s  June 2006 inquiry; legal services performed for employees; corporate credit card and expense records of certain individuals; the SEC bar of  our  former Chief Executive Officer, Ryan Brant; and ethics, securities, and conflict of interest policies and questionnaires.  We are fully cooperating and providing the documents and information called for by the subpoenas.

We have also received a request for information from the Internal Revenue Service that includes a request for records relating to the grant and exercise of options and tax deductions taken by us pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) for the period from October 31, 2000 to October 31, 2004. We are fully cooperating and providing the requested documents.

We are also involved in other routine litigation in the ordinary course of business, which in our opinion will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

35

Item 4.                        Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report.

PART II

Item 5.                        Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Stock Split.   In April 2005, we effected a three-for-two stock split in the form of a stock dividend. Accordingly, all share and per share data in this report, including the accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, give retroactive effect to the stock split.

Market Information.   Our common stock has traded on NASDAQ under the symbol “TTWO” since April 15, 1997 and is currently listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the range of the high and low sale prices for the common stock as reported by NASDAQ.

The number of record holders of our common stock was 131 as of February 16, 2007.

Dividend Policy.   To date, we have not declared or paid any cash dividends. The payment of dividends, if any, in the future is within the discretion of the board of directors and will depend upon future earnings, capital requirements and other relevant factors. We presently intend to retain all earnings to finance continued growth and development of our business and we do not expect to declare or pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Stock Repurchases.   In January 2003, the Board of Directors authorized a stock repurchase program under which we may repurchase up to $25.0 million of our common stock from time to time in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. During June and August 2005, we repurchased 520,341 and 405,000 shares, respectively, of our common stock at an aggregate cost of $24.9 million and subsequently retired these shares in August 2005. No such repurchases were made during the year ended October 31, 2006 and we remain authorized to repurchase an additional $71,000 of shares under the program as of such date.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans.   The table setting forth this information is included in Part III—Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

36

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The consolidated balance sheet as of October 31, 2005 and the consolidated statements of operations for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2005 and October 31, 2004 have been restated as set forth in this 2006 Form 10-K. The data for the consolidated balance sheets as of October 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002 and the consolidated statements of operations for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2003 and 2002 have been restated to reflect the impact of the stock-based compensation adjustments, but such restated data have not been audited and is derived from the books and records of the Company. The information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of results of future operations, and should be read in conjunction with Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K to fully understand factors that may affect the comparability of the information presented below. The information presented in the following tables has been adjusted to reflect the restatement of the Company’s financial results, which is more fully described in the “Explanatory Note” immediately preceding Part I, Item 1 and in Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements” in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-K (dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts).

(1)                Includes $28.3 million of non-cash impairment charges for the write-off of intangibles, fixed assets and software development costs and other assets, of which $21.1 million was related to studio closures, and $5.3 million of severance and other costs, primarily associated with studio closures. Also includes an $8.1 million non-cash impairment charge for the write-down of goodwill and fixed assets of our Joytech subsidiary. In addition, we increased the valuation allowance on deferred tax assets by $63.5 million and reversed a corresponding amount of income tax benefit in the 2006 period due to uncertainty surrounding the realizability of such deferred tax assets.

(2)                Sales of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas in North America during fiscal 2005 were negatively impacted by product returns and related costs as a result of the re-rating of this title from “M” to “AO.” In July 2005, we initially recorded a provision of $32.6 million for product returns and related costs as a result of the re-rating. The provision was subsequently reduced by approximately $8.2 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 due to better than expected sell-through of the product and lower processing costs related to product returns. The resulting impact on our consolidated results of operations in fiscal 2005 was a reduction of $24.5 million, $5.9 million, and $18.6 million for net revenues, cost of goods sold and income from operations, respectively. At October 31, 2005, our accounts receivable balance is net of reserves of approximately $7.7 million for remaining product returns primarily related to our North American retail inventory of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

37

(3)                The Company reached a settlement and paid a $7.5 million civil penalty to the SEC in fiscal 2005 related to certain accounting practices that resulted in restatements of the Company’s financial statements as of and for the years ended October 31, 2000 and 2002. Such penalties were accrued and expensed as of October 31, 2004.

(4)                The following adjusts the Company’s statements of operations for the years ended October 31, 2003 and 2002 for the restatements as described in the “Explanatory Note” immediately preceeding Part I, Item 1 and in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements:

38

(5)                The following adjusts the Company’s balance sheets as of October 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 for the restatements as described in the “Explanatory Note” immediately preceeding Part I, Item 1 and in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements: