Skip to main content Proxy Reveals Exit Payment to Departing Director James V. Joyce's Company is Equivalent to Three and One-Half Year's Fees


According to's (NASDAQ: OSTK) proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, April 2, the company's $1,250,000 payment to terminate a management consulting agreement with Icent LLC, a company headed by departing Board Member James V. Joyce, was 3.5 times the amount of annual fees of $360,000 paid to Icent. In other words, the company paid Icent an equivalent to three and one-half year's fees to terminate its consulting agreement.

As I described in my last blog post, on Wednesday, April 1, James V. Joyce unexpectedly resigned from's Board of Directors. failed to mention the huge $1,250,000 termination payment to Joyce's consulting firm in its press release that announced Joyce's resignation. Instead, left investors with the mundane task of finding out about the $1,250,000 termination payment by disclosing it in a separate SEC filing.

See's recent proxy disclosure below:

James V. Joyce, who served on our Board of Directors from February 2008 through April 1, 2009, also has served as a consultant to us, through Icent LLC, a management consulting company of which Mr. Joyce serves as chief executive officer, for several years. We paid Icent LLC $360,000 annually, and paid approximately $75,187 of reimbursable expenses to Icent in 2008. On January 14, 2008 we granted 15,000 restricted stock units to Mr. Joyce, at which date the market price of the common stock was $12.21. On January 13, 2009 we granted 10,000 restricted stock units to Mr. Joyce, at which date the market price of the common stock was $9.89. The restricted stock units vest over a three-year period commencing on the date of grant at the rate of 25% at the end of year one, 25% at the end of year two, and 50% at the end of year three. On April 1, 2009, we terminated our consulting arrangement with Icent LLC, and Mr. Joyce resigned from the Board. Consequently, Mr. Joyce forfeited the unvested portion of the restricted stock units previously granted to him. In connection with the termination of the Icent LLC consulting arrangement, the Company agreed to pay Mr. Joyce $1,250,000.

Note: Bold print and italics added by me.

Let's compare $1,250,000 termination payment to Icent LLC to other payments made by the company in 2008:

  • Fees paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers (recently replaced by Grant Thornton): $820,100
  • Total salaries paid to principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and three most highly compensated executive officers: $809,760.

Therefore,'s $1,250,000 termination payment to Icent was about 1.5 times the amounts paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers and its five senior executive officers.

As I described in my last blog post, a shrewd person posting on the Yahoo message board noted:

And another thing - why does a retailer that's been in business a decade need "management" consulting services (rhetorical question, I know the answer)? What aspect of "management" was Mr. Joyce consulting on? How many FTE's were consulting under Joyce's banner that would require a contractual payout of a whopping 1.25 million? How many man hours does that payout represent?

Let's see, the avg cost of a non top-tier name "management consultant" has gotta be billed at around $150/hr or so these days.

Sooooooo, that's a payoff of over 8,000 man hours.

Ok hec, let's say Joyce was worth every penny of $500/hr - that's a payout of 2,500 man hours. Under most standard per-diem consulting contracts, the contracting company only has to provide 2-weeks termination warning or forfeit 2 weeks of billings. Let's see...80 hours of billable hours at the fantastic rate of $500/hr = $40,000.

Ok longs - speak up - is THIS the kind of shareholder equity stewardship you are expecting from Patrick Byrne?

Stinky, stinky CEO Patrick Byrne has not fully explained why such a large payment was made to James Joyce's consulting company or explained the exact nature of services provided by his company.

Update: Unlike other directors who received $60,000 in annual compensation, all fees paid for James V. Joyce's services were paid to Icent LLC, his consulting company. James Joyce was an board member for only about a year and two months.

If we factor out the $60,000 in annual fees that can be attributed to Joyce's services as a director, Icent LLC was paid $300,000 ($360,000 total fees minus $60,000 director fees) in annual compensation for so-called consulting services rendered to

Assuming that James V. Joyce did not receive any termination fees as a board member, actually paid Icent LLC an equivalent to four year's fees to terminate its consulting agreement.

In addition, I have never heard of a public company paying a consulting company for services rendered by an individual as a Board Member. Other directors at the company received $60,000 in annual director's compensation paid to them. For Joyce, even that amount was paid to his consulting company. Why was $60,000 in director's compensation paid to Joyce's consulting company?

Written by:

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


I have no position in securities, long or short.


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 … CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that 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 comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

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…