Skip to main content

Jason C. Lindsey backdates his resignation: Proof

In two previous blog posts entitled, "Why did Overstock.com President and COO Jason C. Lindsey really resign?' and "Did former Overstock.com President, Chief Operating Officer, and Director Jason C. Lindsey backdate his resignation?" I raised the question about Jason C. Lindsey's possible backdating of his sudden resignation from Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK). According to his resignation letter, Jason C. Lindsey claimed to resign on December 31, 2007. However, according to documents relating to Overstock.com's amended credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank entered and executed a day later, on January 1, 2008, Jason C. Lindsey was still listed as a person authorized to make advances on behalf of Overstock.com.

Recently, Jason C. Lindsey filed an a sworn declaration in connection with a Special Motion to strike Copper River's countersuit against Overstock.com and certain director defendents. (See my last blog item entitled, "Are certain former Overstock.com directors jumping ship on Patrick Byrne?") According to Jason C. Lindsey's sworn declaration to the court:

I was a member of the Board of Directors of Overstock.com ("Overstock") between October 1999 and between October 2005 and January 2008. I was also Overstock's Chief Financial Officer from 1999 until August 2003 and served as Overstock's President from April 2006 until January 2, 2008.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

Therefore, according to Jason C. Lindsey's sworn declaration, he was still a board member until "January 2008" and Overstock.com's President until "January 2, 2008." However, Jason C. Lindsey's sworn declaration contradicts his own resignation letter:

December 31, 2007

Dr. Patrick M. Byrne
Chairman of the Board Overstock.com, Inc.
6350 South 3000 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121

Dear Patrick:

As we discussed this afternoon, it has been two years since I came out of retirement to return to Overstock. Much to my satisfaction, Overstock has accomplished a lot during those two years and I am pleased that I was able to participate in the company's turn around. However, as we discussed, we both believe that it is no longer necessary that I be as intimately involved in the day to day operations of the company. I would like to reduce my participation in the company so that I can spend more time with my family and be more involved with some outside business ventures. Thus, effectively immediately, I hereby resign as a director and as the president and chief operating officer of Overstock.com, Inc. As we discussed, I will remain a part-time employee of the company and work on special projects under your direction.

Sincerely,

Jason C. Lindsey

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

In addition, Overstock.com apparently filed a false 8-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, claiming that Jason c. Lindsey resigned on December 31, 2007, since according to Jason C. Lindsey's sworn declation he was a board member until January 2008 and Overstock.com's President until January 2, 2008.

On December 31, 2007, Mr. Jason C. Lindsey resigned, effective immediately, from his positions as President, Chief Operating Officer (principal operating officer) and a member of the Board of Directors of Overstock.com, Inc. (the “Company”). Mr. Lindsey intends to spend more time with his family, but also intends to remain a part-time employee of the Company and to work on special projects as requested from time to time by the Company.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

Sounds like fraud to me. I wonder what Wells Fargo Bank and the SEC will think about this latest lie by Overstock.com, too?

Written by:

Sam E. Antar (former Crazy Eddie CFO and a convicted felon)

Comments

hector said…
This whole thing is just bizarre? If this was fraud, why? What was the purpose? If it was an intentional deception it had to serve some kind of purpose, but what? Additionally, if it was intentional, surely they knew that it wouldn't go unnoticed. Surely they know that they have a thousand eyes on them right now.

So maybe it was just sloppiness. Both patterns exist with this company to be sure, but it is an odd and all too obvious oversight.

Sincerely,
Anxious to Hear More
hector said…
I had a thought today on a possible reason for the backdating. Actually, maybe it was a forward dating. Maybe after he'd had a few too many late new years eve, he fired off a resignation to Patrick Byrne. Then on Tuesday Morning when he woke from his drunken stupor he suddenly realized he had no health insurance (most group health insurance expires the last day of the month in which one resigns).

So perhaps then in a panic he called up Patrick and pleaded with him to forward date his resignation to the 2nd so he could get another month of health insurance on the shareholders dime while he makes other arrangements.

Sincerely,
Anxious to Hear More

Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had …

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

Suggested Reading: Overstock.com Hatchet Man Judd Bagley's Downward Spiral: Junkie, Confessed Criminal, Admitted Adulterer by Sam Antar (here), and Closing the File on a Criminal and Junkie Named Judd Bagley by Gary Weiss (here)

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that Overstock.com CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic commen…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…