The world of finance is a sticky place. Recently THQ declared backruptcy and is ready to sell off all of its assets to a private equity firm called Clearlake Capital Group. However, the company’s debt holders feel that this is not in their best interest. THQ was essentially sold off in one gigantic bundle with all of its IPs rolled into the package. However, the debt holders argue that if the company was sold off in peices, they may have received a better financial recovery. In addition, they argued that the company should have had a longer bidding process. Instead, it seems that THQ itself hindered the bidding process, preventing companies other than Clearlake from purchasing the whole company.
Of course, the biggest proof that THQ didn’t have their debt holders interests in mind comes in the form of a letter that THQ president Jason Rubin wrote to THQ’s fans which stated: “the goal throughout the sale process has been to preserve our teams and our products.” It continued, “no matter what the outcome in 30 days, as long as we have accomplished this goal, I will be satisfied.” This has lead some to believe that Rubin was looking out for the interests of gamers and the integrity of the THQ brands rather than the interests of debt holders.
Supposedly, Rubin is doing what’s best for the company in terms of allowing its IPs to survive, but this does not synch up with the interests of those who lost their investment money. So what is the “right” thing to do here? Should THQ protect its games even if it means snubbing its investors, or should THQ satisfy its investors even if it means the death of some of its games?