Hasbro CEO Cocks and Execs Sued for Alleged Securities Violations

aiouh

Adventurer

A small excerpt because the original article is much much longer

The lawsuit specifically concerns Hasbro’s “Magic: The Gathering” brand, which the plaintiffs argue is its “most important line of products.”


“Magic is a popular card game which notably features rare cards highly sought after by collectors,” according to the lawsuit. “Such cards may fetch upwards of thousands of dollars on the secondary market.”


“Given the nature of Magic’s secondary market, the rate at which new Magic card sets are printed and sold directly impacts the value of existing Magic cards to collectors. As such, the overprinting of new Magic sets would reduce the value of existing Magic sets. Although analysts and investors consistently inquired as to whether the Company was in fact overprinting Magic sets, the Individual Defendants repeatedly denied such speculation,” the lawsuit maintains.


The lawsuit says that a damning report by Bank of America in 2022, however, found that Hasbro was “overproducing Magic cards, which have propped up Hasbro’s recent results but are destroying the long-term value of the brand.”


The lawsuit contends that statements and actions made by the Hasbro defendants “caused the Company substantial harm by causing it to repurchase its own shares at artificially inflated prices.”


“In total, the Company spent an aggregate amount of approximately $125 million to repurchase approximately 1.4 million shares of its own common stock at artificially inflated prices from April 2022 to July 2022,” according to the plaintiffs, who are being represented by Sarah Maneval and Saadia Hashmi of The Brown Law Firm in New York City. Affiliated local counsel is Higgins, Cavanagh, and Cooney.


“In total, this caused the Company to overpay for repurchases of its own stock by approximately $55.9 million," the lawsuit maintains.


Hasbro did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Given how Hasbro likes to hide D&D Revenue by bundling it together with MtG all the time, I am not really surprised people are pissed at their reporting and investor relations
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just saw this elsewhere ... will need someone more knowledgeable to translate.

It seems like the complaint is shareholders are losing value because ...
(1) They are printing more Magic cards which causes the secondary market to be depressed? I don't follow how that's a securities issue. If someone is gambling on Magic cards on the secondary market that's a them issue.
(2) They use income from Magic to "prop up" other parts of the company? Uh, isn't that how large companies work in general -- some parts make more revenue than others; some even lose money, but it's the value of the corporation as a whole?
(3) They bought back stock at "inflated" prices. Isn't that increasing the value of shareholder stock (or getting those who sell a greater return)?

I'm no fan of Hasbro or WotC but I'm missing the harm and actionable legal issue here.
 

Not sure if this explains anything. I see what we all know with Covid and the big bounce they had with people staying home and playing games and such. That looks like it did not stay once things returned to normal. The last year looks rather well, but trending to hit a slump and go down anytime. Not sure how much is typical market forces and how much is shenanigans.

1769170444203.png
 

My early morning not yet having caffeine input read of this is:
Someone alleges that Hasbro printed a lot of Magic The Gathering cards to take advantage of the increased demand during Covid and Hasbro has continued to print higher then normal numbers of MtG cards since due to the continued demand. Income from these higher sales was used to cover shortfalls elsewhere in the Company. This 'overprinting' is depressing the secondary market and may also depress the primary market for future Hasbro MtG sales. (Increasing supply during high demand seems to me to be what a company should do. This does carry the risk of flooding the market and tanking sales. Don't think the suit is claiming sales have tanked, just that they might).

On the stock buybacks, lawsuit claims the buybacks were when Hasbro stock price was high and perhaps priced even higher. (Oddly, a lot of stock buy backs do happen when the stock price is up. Price is up because the company is doing well and generating a lot of cash. C-Suite/Board of Directors decides to reward share holders with either dividends(goes to existing shareholders) or stock buybacks(goes to folks who sell out).). Possible the plaintiffs believe that the C-Suite/BoD dumped shares/options during the buy back, reaping a better return then the average shareholder.

In the US, a lot of these type lawsuits are brought by law firms in hopes the company will settle without a trial. Law firm pockets 30+% of the settlement, shareholders get pennies per share. Benefits the institutional investor with millions of shares.
 

They are entitled to their day in court. But given their history as well as the unrelenting and insatiable greed of the 1% that we've seen on full display in recent years, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
 

I think the real key factor here is how Revenue is recorded for MtG which I have no insight in. Since MtG is sold through distributors, they MIGHT get Revenue no matter what, it is just that Distributor and Retailer relationships are harmed when it sits around unsold. Again, I have no idea what contract terms Hasbro has with Distributors, but I am going to hinge my napkin argument on this hypothesis.

1769172267241.png

Namely the Spiderman set was rumoured to sell poorly because they oversatiated the market with too many universes beyond products, causing some retail managers to order less in the future.

The way I understand it, the lawsuit alleges that Hasbro executives are burning brand and retailer goodwill to "cash-in" on short term gains, without regard that future revenues/brand value will suffer from it. Seeing how executives are often renumerated on medium-term incentives within 2-3 years this is a classic conflict of interest between executives and shareholders.

Meaning that the suing party says "you're messing with our long term money so you can get your own short term bag, this isn't fair, and probably illegal" and wants either to be compensated for that or have a new CEO.
 

(1) They are printing more Magic cards which causes the secondary market to be depressed? I don't follow how that's a securities issue. If someone is gambling on Magic cards on the secondary market that's a them issue.
The brand has value which is represented in $HAS balance sheet. If they devalue the brand by tanking secondary market value they harm their intellectual property and future revenue

(2) They use income from Magic to "prop up" other parts of the company? Uh, isn't that how large companies work in general -- some parts make more revenue than others; some even lose money, but it's the value of the corporation as a whole?
They're arguing that their financial reports are misleading in the sense that they try to portray the company is on a profitable trajectory as a whole when in reality, MtG is keeping the company afloat and if MtG were to cease to be a profitable segment or brand, the company as a whole starts bleeding cash.

(3) They bought back stock at "inflated" prices. Isn't that increasing the value of shareholder stock (or getting those who sell a greater return)?
Buying something low for high instead of investing it into operations is textbook value destruction. It also messes with EPS/Share which is also a common executive renumeration metric
 

Namely the Spiderman set was rumoured to sell poorly because they oversatiated the market with too many universes beyond products, causing some retail managers to order less in the future.
I'm not really into Magic, but I do follow some MtG-related things online. As I understand it, there are three main issues with the Spider-Man set:
  1. Quite a few people are feeling a lot of Universes Beyond fatigue, with Universes Beyond sets matching or even exceeding regular Magic sets in numbers. This is worsened by the recent decision to make UB sets Standard-legal as well as making cards stay in Standard for longer.
  2. Spider-Man in particular was originally designed to be a much smaller set, but when Wizards started ratcheting up Universes Beyond stuff it got increased in size. But Spider-Man isn't really that deep a property on its own, so a lot of the set feels like filler with numerous alternate-reality versions of Spider-Man and things like "Bagel and shmear".
  3. Because of rights issues, Wizards can't put Spider-Man cards as such into their online offering Arena. Instead they reskin the cards, so when playing online you don't get Spectacular Spider-Man, you get Ademi of the Silkchutes. This annoys a lot of people who use Arena to practice, because the cards they see online are not the same as the ones they'll be playing IRL, even if they're mechanically identical.
1769176199891.png
1769176184222.png
 

I mean, as someone who has actively been turned off from returning to MtG due to the fortnightification* of the game... yeah, I can't disagree with the premise that they're burning the long term for short term profit.

*Relentless IP tie-ins, even when said IP makes zero sense in the context of the property.
 

If I'm reading the argument correctly, the plaintiffs are saying that current practice is leading to a 90's style Comics crash, executives aren't oblivious to this, and they used stock buy backs at inflated values to personally extract value while the getting was good.
 

Remove ads

Top