Showing posts with label Jonathan Johnson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jonathan Johnson. Show all posts

Monday, March 30, 2015

Overstock.com Hatchet Man Judd Bagley's Downward Spiral: Junkie, Confessed Criminal, Admitted Adulterer

As a criminal myself, in my many years managing the Crazy Eddie fraud, I learned to be careful about employing people with mental problems or substance abuse issues. Byrne himself, of course, was completely unhinged, with his paranoid rants and sometimes anti-Semitic and misogynist comments, making him a laughingstock. In January 2013, Byrne was arrested for having a handgun concealed in his luggage as he tried to board a commercial flight at Salt Lake City airport, and he told police he sleeps with a gun. He hired paid goons like Bagley (currently employed as the Director of Communications at Overstock.com) to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet.

In the years that I’ve written extensively about Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK), I have always been amazed about its bizarre CEO Patrick Byrne and the gang of misfits he has surrounded himself with. By far, the worst was a real loser named Judd Bagley. He dredged up that character from the bowels of the Internet, hiring him as a kind of all-purpose stalker and cybercriminal, harassing and intimidating certain investigative reporters and critics of Overstock.

Over the years, as Byrne lied to investors, used illegal accounting tactics to overstate profits, defrauded consumers, and viciously attacked his critics, he used Bagley as a kind mafia hitman to assassinate the reputations of critics and journalists who questioned in actions, a role that Bagley clearly relished.

Though Byrne managed to charm a tiny number of idiots in the media, mostly members of the Utah press corps, it was plain to me from the start that Bagley clearly had “issues.” His obsessions and the vicious hatred that he exhibited in his online postings, combined with his protestations of purity and phony “piously religious family man” image, raised alarm bells. But only recently have I been able to learn what an absolute horror show, hypocrite and creep this Byrne employee was, and is.

It turns out that Judd Bagley is an admitted criminal and adulterer according to publicly filed court documents I’ve obtained [State of Utah vs. Judson Montgomery Bagley and Plaintiff Husband vs. Judson Montgomery Bagley]. (Note: Bagley, Byrne and Overstock.com are enmeshed in a libel suit brought by one of the targets of his “Deep Capture” website, but I emphasize that I was initially tipped off about Bagley's crime by an Internet sleuth, not the people suing him. During my research, I discovered another court case involving his adulterous affair. I obtained the court documents from both cases on my own.)

Meanwhile, Overstock.com’s former President and current Board Chairman, Jonathan Johnson is planning on running for Governor in Utah, while Judd Bagley remains on the payroll as its chief spokesman to the media and investors.

How Judd Bagley Stalked Critics


A bit of background first.

In 2005, Patrick Byrne made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter suggesting that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders after she published an article that he disliked. Two years later, investigative journalist Roddy Boyd from the New York Post reported that Patrick Byrne used Judd Bagley to secretly stalk and conduct a smear campaign against critics on the web. Bagley used anonymous aliases on stock chat boards to attack critics of Byrne. He hacked into the accounts of stock chat board posters and implanted spyware in emails to improperly gain personal information on critics. Bagley retaliated by attempting to blackmail the tech savvy blogger who initially exposed his activities. Then in 2009, Patrick Byrne used Judd Bagley to pretext journalists and critics (including me) to gather information about their family members (including minor children) and friends by setting up a phony profile on Facebook under the name Larry Bergman. That resulted in a spate of bad publicity and got Bagley kicked off Facebook.
Patrick Byrne Mugshot

In February 2009, I exposed certain violations of accounting rules by Overstock.com that allowed it to fabricate a Q4 2008 profit rather than properly report a loss in that quarter and overstate its reported income in later quarters. Patrick Byrne retaliated by personally attacking me on a stock market chat board, during various earnings calls, and in the press in an effort to discredit me. During that time, Judd Bagley injected himself into divorce proceedings by contacting my former spouse who ignored him. Bagley used illegal pretexting tactics to "friend" my children and relatives on Facebook using his phony account. Bagley’s illegal actions was a clear retaliation for my pointing out the company's accounting violations. My work was vindicated when at my request the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated Overstock.com and forced it to restate its financial reports to correct its illegal accounting practices.

Judd Bagley: Admitted Forger, Drug Addict and Adulterer


Judd Bagley should have been thrown in jail a long time ago for violating a host of federal laws. But our captured regulators have generally ignored Overstock’s serial law violations. Eventually, though, the drug-addicted misfit wound up behind bars.

On April 1, 2013, Judd Bagley was charged with eight felony counts of “Obtaining a Prescription Under False Pretenses, a Third Degree Felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann § 58-37-8(3)(a)(ii)….” According to Court Documents, Bagley altered the same prescription nine times by forging the dates and altering the names of substances he was looking to obtain illegally:

B. Kirkham, Lehi Police Department, having probable cause to believe a crime was committed, submitted evidence in support of the filing of this Information: On May 4, August 30, October 29, and December 11, 2012, the defendant presented a script for controlled substances (Lortab and Adderall) at the Macey's Pharmacy in Lehi. The script had originally been written in December, 2010, to be used one time. The defendant had altered the dates and/or the substance in order to receive the substances fraudulently. He did the same thing with the same original script, filling prescriptions for Lortab and Adderall on June 4 and August 30, 2012 and January 2 and January 31, 2013 at the WalMart pharmacy in American Fork. He presented the script again in February, 2013, but the pharmacy refused to fill it. Defendant admitted his conduct when interviewed by police. [Emphasis added.]

According to the arrest record, that lowlife Judd Bagley brought along his minor daughter with him to the WalMart pharmacy where he attempted to obtain medications with the forged prescription (page 13 of 17).

Police "suspect" Judd Bagley brings minor daughter to obtain drugs with forged prescription

On April 4, 2013, Judd Bagley was ordered to report to Utah County Jail for arrest and to have his mugshot and fingerprints taken by the police. On June 4, 2013, Bagley pleaded guilty to three Class A criminal misdemeanors. He was ordered to wear a GPS tracking device in lieu of spending time in jail before his sentencing.


On July 1, 2013, Bagley was sentenced to a one year jail sentence for each criminal misdemeanor, to be served concurrently. He was fined $7,500 ($2,500 for each misdemeanor). The Judge suspended his jail sentence and $6,641 of fines. He was required to complete 120 hours of community service and placed on probation for one year.

While all this was happening, Bagley’s downward spiral continued. He is married and has four young children. Apparently his criminal conduct took a toll on his marriage, because Bagley decided that as long as he was destroying his own family, he might as well destroy an innocent family as well. What follows reminds me a great deal of the serial infidelity of my cousin Eddie Antar, who cheated on his wife and spread misery wherever he went.

On December 13, 2013, Judd Bagley was sued by the husband of a woman he had seduced. It was not the sad excess of a man in midlife crisis, but the vicious act of an out-of-control drug addict, a tawdry affair that smacks of sexual harassment--in addition to exposing Bagley as an absolute hypocrite. The man accused Bagley of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and alienation of affections. Not mentioned in the suit, obviously, is the toll this open adultery with a married woman wrought on Bagley's long-suffering wife Kristen and their young children.

According to the lawsuit, Bagley took advantage of his position as a sponsor at the Karl G. Maeser Preparatory Academy in Lindon, Utah by conducting an extramarital affair with the plaintiff's wife. In the course of ruining this man's marriage, the woman “admitted to having sex” with Judd Bagley “at local hotels, his home in Lehi, and [the woman's] home....” It's not known how the officials of the Karl G. Maeser Preparatory Academy feel about Bagley's predatory activity, but we can only guess.

On January 2, 2014, Bagley initially sought to cover up the affair by denying it in his response to the lawsuit filed in court. Bagley further attempted to cover up the affair by refusing certain discovery requests for documents and information, and denying wrongdoing in his answer.

That turned out to be a lie.

On July 18, 2014, the husband filed an amended complaint and on that same day, faced with a mountain of evidence proving his guilt, Bagley finally admitted to having a “consensual relationship” with the woman starting in “April or May 2012.”

Judd Bagley’s lawyers sought to dismiss the lawsuit by blaming the victim and throwing mud at the man he had victimized. Somehow, to Bagley's addled junkie's logic, there was nothing wrong with Bagley cheating on his wife and engaging in an affair with a parent at the Karl G. Maeser Preparatory Academy because, he claimed, the woman was in a troubled marriage:

This case airs the "dirty laundry" of an unfortunate personal and family matter. But the judicial system is not the proper venue for retribution after spouses have been unfaithful, particularly when Plaintiffs marriage was already troubled.

In other words, the plaintiff and his wife had marital problems, so it was okay for Bagley to waltz in and break up that marriage.

Bagley's lawyer went on to claim that:

Bagley’s participation in a consensual relationship with [the woman], while unwise and regrettable, does not rise to the “outrageous and intolerable” standard required by Utah law for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Bagley fought the suit for months with similar rationalizations, evasions and lies. In one written interrogatory, the husband asks Bagley to “identify how many times you have had intimate contact, including but not limited to kissing and sexual intercourse with [his wife]." Bagley responded “Defendant does not know the answer to this question” and refused to provide any responsive information to the question.

Maybe he lost count. I believe that Bagley was probably having multiple affairs at the time that he was cheating on his wife, being an addicted individual with nothing resembling a conscience.

Bagley’s lawyers concluded that:

Bagley does not assert that he behaved admirably in participating in a relationship with [the plaintiff's wife]. However, his actions do not rise to the level of the causes of action alleged in the Complaint, and Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to show each of the requisite elements. Bagley respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion for summary judgment on all causes of actions and dismiss the case.

On September 3, 2014, the lawsuit was dismissed by a mutual agreement between the parties. It is not clear from the court file if Bagley had to pay money to get it withdrawn. Nor can it be quantified how much pain this disgusting junkie inflicted on everybody involved, something that no amount of money can make up for.

I’m no angel myself. I’ve committed crimes and all sorts of sins. But I’ve faced up to them. Bagley has not. A document filed with the court in May 2013 indicates that Bagley has undergone treatment in a Twelve Step program, in the course of shaking off his drug addiction, a very serious misery that I have no doubt whatsoever contributed to his vicious criminal conduct at Overstock, which Byrne exploited for his own ends.

Obviously the treatment didn't take. The Twelve Steps call for a person to have a spiritual reawakening and turn his or her life around. Yet at the time that letter was written and for months afterwards, Bagley was conducting a brazen affair, preying on another man's wife.

Step Eight of the Twelve Steps reads as follows: “Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.” Bagley would have a very long list of people to make amends for his years of lies, most of which were much worse than the forgeries he conducted to fuel his addiction. I don’t expect him to even attempt to live up to the Eighth step, because he is an unrepentant criminal as well as a dope addict.

Written by,

Sam Antar

This post was updated to include a mugshot of Judd Bagley in police custody for forgery, police arrest record, and police interrogation video obtained by investigative journalist Gary Weiss under the Utah Freedom of Information Act

Worthy Reading: Closing the File on a Criminal and Junkie Named Judd Bagley by Gary Weiss

Disclosure:

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. Today, I advise law enforcement agencies and professionals about white-collar crime and train them to catch the crooks. I perform forensic accounting services for law firms and other clients.

I have no investment position in Overstock.com, long or short.

Monday, March 05, 2012

Is Overstock.com in a Death Spiral?

Last Friday, Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) reported a fourth quarter net loss of $3.4 million compared to net income of $14.9 million in the previous year’s fourth quarter. Its revenues declined 10% to $314.1 million compared to $348.9 million in the previous year's fourth quarter. Details of the fourth quarter financial results were so bad, that Overstock.com did not present a full income statement for that quarter in its press release. Instead it only provided key metrics of its fourth quarter numbers and presented a full year income statement. For the entire year, Overstock.com reported a net loss of $19.4 million compared to net income of $13.9 million in the previous year. Its 2011 revenues decreased 3% to $1.054 billion compared to $1.090 billion in the previous year.

As of December 31, 2011, the company reported a net working capital deficit (current assets less current liabilities) of $14.1 million. Overstock.com's negative net working capital balance indicates that it’s having problems paying its bills as it entered into its traditionally weakest quarter of the year (the first quarter of 2012). Overstock.com common stock closed at $6.11 per share, down $0.77 per share as investors reacted to the company’s horrible earnings report.

Overstock.com inserted new language in its 2011 10-K report warning investors that, “We may not be able to achieve profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.” In addition, the company warned that its poor financial performance could disrupt its relationships with suppliers concerned about getting paid.

Overstock.com will have to raise substantial amounts of new cash to pay its bills and avoid possible insolvency. The company's direct and indirect costs of raising new funds could be so onerous that the company and its current shareholders could be left in even worse financial straits. It's known as a "death spiral."

If the company raises equity, the amount of new funding required by it to stay afloat could significantly dilute the value of its existing common shares and send its stock price spiraling down even further. If Overstock.com tries to raise cash in the form of debt its interest rates could be much higher because of its deteriorating financial condition and the looming possibility of bankruptcy. Higher interest costs would increase future losses.

Overstock.com faces an ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission after it was discovered that the company violated various accounting rules to inflate earnings in past years. District Attorney’s from seven California Counties are suing Overstock.com for alleged consumer fraud and are seeking over $15 million of restitution, fines, penalties, and cost reimbursements from the company. Last May, the Judge in that case had to compel Overstock.com to turn over information to the California District Attorneys after they complained to the court that it was illegally withholding subpoenaed documents. On December 28, 2011, The Huffington Post reported that a study found, “The site with the dubious honor of proffering the worst customer service in 2011 was Overstock.com, those ubiquitous merchants of discounted furniture, clothes and home furnishing.”

Suppliers concerned about getting paid

In its 2011 10-K report, Overstock.com warned investors that its suppliers may require it to prepay for its purchases and might suspend doing further business with the company due to its poor financial performance:

Financial performance concerns may cause fulfillment partners or other suppliers to limit or suspend doing business with us, or require prepayments.
We rely upon our fulfillment partners and other suppliers for the product offerings sold on our website and other products and services we use to run our business. Our ability to retain or attract new fulfillment partners and other suppliers may depend in part on our financial performance. Poor financial performance may create concern about our creditworthiness, which could result in suppliers choosing to limit or suspend doing business with us or require us to prepay for our purchases, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. [Emphasis added.]

Overstock.com's inventory decreased $9.121 million to $22.993 million as of December 31, 2011 compared to $32.114 million in the previous year. Its accounts payable increased $3.021 to $70.332 million from $67.311 million in the previous year. When a company owes out more money to its suppliers despite a drop in inventory, it indicates that the company delayed payments to its suppliers. Overstock.com was able to temporarily spruce up its reported cash flows from operations and free cash flows by $12.142 million because it's taking a longer amount of time to pay its suppliers ($9.121 million from reduction of inventory plus $3.021 million increase in accounts payable). However, the window dressing of cash flow numbers is only temporary since it will have to pay those vendors during the first quarter of 2012. (Note: There is a $77,000 discrepancy between the increase in accounts payable on the balance sheet and the increase in accounts payable in the statement of cash flows.)

Is Overstock.com in a death spiral?

Patrick Byrne
Overstock.com could require approximately $50 million to cover its $14.1 million working capital deficit and provide a cushion to keep it afloat. As of February 10, 2012, there were 23.387 million shares of outstanding common stock. Since the company is expected to continue losing money in the next few quarters, it may have to raise all its funds in the form of equity instead of debt. With new equity instead of debt, the company won't have to pay potentially onerous interest costs and risk higher losses.

On Friday, Overstock.com common stock closed at $6.11 per share, down $0.77 per share. Based on Friday’s stock price, $50 million of new common equity would require Overstock.com to issue at least 8.183 million new common shares ($50 million new equity divided by $6.11 per share) which could dilute existing shareholders by 35% (23.387 million outstanding shares divided by 8.183 million new shares). A potential 35% dilution of existing shareholders stakes could send the stock spiraling below $5 per share and force Overstock.com to issue even more shares.

Many institutions will not own stock that is trading under $5 per share. If certain institutions sell their stock or other institutions cannot buy the stock due to that limitation, Overstock.com shares could spiral down even further. Most stocks cannot be margined under $5 per share and other investors may choose to avoid buying its shares if they cannot borrow against it.

Canadian fund manager Francis Chou takes a bath on Overstock.com investments

Francis Chou
One person who has taken a bath while trying to support Overstock.com's stock price is Canadian fund manager Francis Chou. From January 1, 2011 to January 6, 2012, Chou's funds purchased 1,041,029 Overstock.com thinly traded common shares as it dropped from $16.48 per share on December 31, 2010 to $6.99 per share on January 6, 2012. Chou's funds paid an average price of $10.63 per share.

At Overstock.com's closing stock price of $6.11 per share last Friday, Chou's funds are down $4.54 per share (26%) on its recent investments in common stock. To date, Chou's funds have invested approximately $57 million in the company’s common stock and own approximately 14% of all its outstanding common shares. Chou's total investment is losing over $35 million (over 60%).

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne had better timing than Francis Chou. Back on May 20 to May 24, 2010, Byrne's 100% controlled High Plains Investments LLC dumped 140,000 common shares at an average price of $22.11 per share and collected over $3 million in proceeds.

Is Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne on his way out?

In the 2010 10-K report, Overstock.com stated that:

Our performance is substantially dependent on the continued services and on the performance of our senior management and other key personnel, including Patrick M. Byrne, our Chief Executive Officer. [Emphasis added.]

While, in the 2011 10-K report, Overstock.com stated that:

Our performance is substantially dependent on the continued services and on the performance of our senior management and other key personnel.

The 2011 10-K report omitted Byrne’s name. It could be a subtle hint that he could be on his way out. His leadership has been a liability to the company.

Lies to investors and accounting shenanigans

On December 11, 2001, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne appeared on Fox News claimed, “We're profitable.” Brenda Buttner asked, "Your real honest-to-goodness profit, not pro forma?" Patrick Byrne responded, "None of that stuff." On March 1, 2002, Business 2.0 Magazine reporter Owen Thomas asked, "Are you profitable? Patrick Byrne responded, "Yes, that's real GAAP profit, not Amazon-bullshit-accounting profit."

On March 5, 2002, Overstock.com filed an S-1 registration statement in connection with its planned initial public offering. It contradicted Byrne’s claim to Fox News that his company was anywhere near “profitable.” At that time, the company lost money in each and every quarter since its inception. It lost $13.8 million in 2001 and lost $2.997 million in the quarter ended December 31, 2001. In February 2003, Overstock.com filed its 2002 10-K report. It contradicted Byrne claim to Business 2.0 that Overstock.com was profitable. Overstock.com reported a loss of $9.725 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2002.

When Patrick Byrne could no longer lie about Overstock.com’s profitability, he resorted to breaking accounting rules to create fictitious earnings.

Over the last several years, this blog has detailed various illegal accounting shenanigans used by Overstock.com to materially overstate its financial performance. From Q2 2007 to Q2 2008, the company used improper EBITDA calculations to materially inflate its pro forma earnings in violation of S.E.C. Regulation G. For example, in the quarter ended June 30, 2008 Overstock.com reported a positive $1.117 million EBITDA using an improper calculation instead of a negative $0.430 million EBITDA had it complied with Regulation G. From Q4 2008 to Q3 2009, the company violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and materially inflated its reported earnings. For example, in the quarter ended December 31, 2008, the company improperly reported a $1.014 million profit by violating GAAP instead of a $0.705 million loss.

In both cases I alerted the company by providing detailed information about its accounting irregularities. However, its CEO Patrick Byrne chose to retaliate against me rather than immediately correct its financial reports. For example, during various conference calls with investors he personally attacked me while claiming that his company was complaint with accounting rules. My accounting analysis was eventually proven correct by Overstock.com's later revisions of financial reports.

In September 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission started an investigation of the company after I complained to the regulator. In March 2010, Overstock.com was forced to restate its financial reports to correct various GAAP violations initially identified in this blog. The S.E.C. investigation of Overstock.com is ongoing. In its recent 2011 10-K report, Overstock.com disclosed that, "...unfavorable resolution of this matter could materially affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations."

In February 2011, Overstock.com was penalized by Google for cheating on its search engine optimization code to boost its search ranking and increase revenues. Overstock.com blamed Google for contributing to its drop in 2011 revenues. However, if the company did not cheat on its search engine optimization, it would have reported lower revenues in previous years and its revenues would not have dropped in the current year.

On December 6, 2011, a California Judge dismissed Overstock.com's long running litigation against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). In its 2011 10-K report, Overstock.com disclosed that Goldman Sachs could, "...seek reimbursement from us of their allowable court costs."

Loan defaults, failure to make timely disclosures, and poor excuses

On December 27, 2011, Overstock.com paid U.S. Bank $20.329 million (including a $1.428 million prepayment penalty) to terminate a Master Lease Agreement (Sale-leaseback transaction) to avoid a default based on its dismal fourth quarter financial results. On January 6, 2012, Overstock.com filed an amended 8-K report informing investors of its decision to hold shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation every three years. The company failed to disclose that its amended 8-K report was filed late. Overstock.com’s failure to file a timely amended 8-K report caused its December 9, 2011 Form S-3 registration statement seeking badly needed capital to be rendered invalid. Its failure to file a timely 8-K report caused it to default on a $20 million credit facility from U.S. Bank.

However, the company did not notify investors of the loan default. Under S.E.C. rules, an “event of default” is required to be disclosed within four business days (8-K General Instructions and Item 2.04). Overstock.com improperly delayed disclosure of its failure to file timely reports with the S.E.C. and its loan default until February 17, 2012, a day after it resolved its default issues with U.S. Bank. The bank granted the company a waiver of default “effective as of September 30, 2011”, the same day that the amended 8-K report was supposed to be filed.

I asked Overstock.com to explain why it didn’t disclose that its amended 8-K report was filed late, why it delayed disclosing the credit facility default to investors for several weeks, what steps it was taking to handle its invalid S-3 registration statement.

Jonathan Johnson
During the Friday March 2, 2012 conference call with investors, company President Jonathan Johnson responded that it was not necessary to disclose that the January 6, 2012 amended 8-K filing was filed late because it was “obviously late.” However, company disclosures about the frequency of shareholder advisory votes are frequently filed using amended 8-K reports, so the fact that an amended 8-K report was filed does not imply that it was filed late. Nothing contained in the amended 8-K report made it “obvious” that it was filed late.

Jonathan Johnson also claimed that Overstock.com delayed informing investors of the default in its $20 million credit facility with U.S. Bank because:

…we determined it was not material, U.S. Bank agreed and quickly provided a waiver when we requested in that.

However, U.S. Bank did not “quickly” provide a waiver. The late amended 8-K report was filed on January 6, 2012. U.S. Bank did not grant a waiver of default stemming from the late filing until several weeks later on February 16, 2012. Until Overstock.com resolved its regulatory issues and U.S. Bank granted the waiver of default, the bank could have accelerated payment on the $17 million due under the credit facility.

The issue of materiality is determined when the loan default occurred, not weeks later when it was later resolved. It's possible that Overstock.com did not know about the default for several weeks after the late amended 8-K report was filed and U.S. Bank quickly granted the company a waiver of default after it was informed of the breach of loan covenants. However, any delay in notifying U.S. Bank of the default would indicate that Overstock.com has issues monitoring its compliance with loan covenants (a possible material weakness in internal controls).

Coincidently, a few hours after the Friday conference call, Overstock.com filed an 8-K report to inform investors that it provided the wrong phone number for them to listen to the audio replay of the call. I guess that Overstock.com thinks that a wrong telephone number is more important to disclose to investors than a default on a $20 million credit facility. In big or small matters, this company can't seem to do anything right.

Since Overstock.com's inception over a decade ago, the company has accumulated over $260 million in losses and restated its financial reports three times to correct violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The company revised its financial reports numerous times to correct violations of S.E.C. disclosure rules. Despite Overstock.com's repeated violations of accounting and S.E.C rules and retaliation against its critics, the S.E.C. granted it a waiver and allowed it to be eligible to use a Form S-3 registration to raise new capital. If Overstock.com crashes and burns, the S.E.C. may explain to angry investors why it waived its rules to permit the company to issue more common stock and raise new capital.

Written by:

Sam E. Antar

Recent Interviews

March 5, 2011: Forbes - When Sam Antar Speaks, People Listen...and Speak Their Mind by Walter Pavlo

March 5, 2012: Trusted Professional - Reformed ‘Crazy Eddie’ fraudster reveals tricks of the trade by Chris Gaetano

March 3, 2012: Wall Street Journal - Psychos on Wall Street, by Al Lewis (Print Story and Video)

Other Overstock.com Coverage

March 5, 2012: William K. Wolfrum Chronicles - Rush Limbaugh and Overstock.com’s Patrick Byrne: Misogynists getting their due

Disclosure

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped my cousin Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. I committed my crimes in cold-blood for fun and profit, and simply because I could. If it weren't for the heroic efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector's Office, US Attorney's Office, and class action plaintiff's lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today.

There is a saying, "It takes one to know one." Today, I work very closely with the FBI, IRS, SEC, Justice Department, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies in training them to identify and catch white-collar criminals. Often, I refer cases to them as an independent whistleblower. I teach white-collar crime classes for various government entities, professional organizations, businesses, and colleges and universities. I do not seek or want forgiveness for my vicious crimes from my victims. My past sins are unforgivable.

I do not own any Overstock.com securities long or short.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Overstock.com Facing Dismal Fourth Quarter Numbers?

Yesterday, Overstock.com (NASDAQ:OSTK) disclosed that it was forced to pay off its existing obligations under a Master Lease Agreement with U.S. Bank to avoid an anticipated default under its covenants on December 31, 2011. So far, Overstock.com has lost $16 million in the first nine months of the year compared to only a $1.1 million loss during the previous year's nine month period. The termination of the Master Lease Agreement by Overstock.com to avoid a pending default appears to confirm that it will report dismal fourth quarter 2011 numbers.

According to the 8-K report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission after the market closed on December 28, 2011:

On December 27, 2011 Overstock.com, Inc. (the “Company”) and U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance, Inc. — Technology Finance Group (“Lessor”), agreed to terminate a Master Lease Agreement, dated September 17, 2010 (“Master Lease Agreement”) and all related schedules. The Company paid approximately $20.1 million to Lessor in connection with the amendment and agreement to terminate the Master Lease Agreement, including approximately $1.2 million in prepayment premiums. The aggregate amount the Company paid to amend the Master Lease Agreement and terminate the schedules associated with the Master Lease Agreement was less than the amount the Company would have been required to pay over the scheduled life of the Master Lease Agreement and all related schedules. By this transaction, the Master Lease Agreement was first amended to eliminate all financial covenants, effective immediately. Lessor also committed to convey to the Company all of the equipment and other assets covered by the Master Lease Agreement for no additional consideration.

The Company amended the Master Lease Agreement in order to eliminate the total fixed charge coverage ratio covenant under the Master Lease Agreement. As disclosed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, based on the Company’s results for the first three quarters of 2011, management considered it likely at that time that the Company would be out of compliance with the Master Lease Agreement’s total fixed charge coverage ratio covenant at December 31, 2011. In order to avoid a covenant violation, the Company amended the Master Lease Agreement to eliminate the financial covenants.
Lessor is an affiliate of U.S. Bank National Association (the “Bank”). The Company has a $20 million cash-secured credit facility with the Bank. The Bank or its affiliates have also provided other commercial services to the Company from time to time. [Emphasis added.]

Overstock.com tried to spin its termination of the Master Lease Agreement as positive news by claiming that the amount paid to US Bank was “was less than the amount the Company would have been required to pay over the scheduled life of the Master Lease Agreement and all related schedules." However, the company apparently agreed to pay the full obligation of $18.9 million that was due under the Master Lease Agreement as of December 31, 2011 plus applicable taxes and a stiff $1.2 million prepayment penalty. It was unable to restructure its Master Lease Agreement and obtain less stringent terms from U.S Bank.

As of September 30, 2011, OSTK owed US Bank $20.329 million under the Master Lease Agreement. $1.428 million of that amount was payable during the quarter ending December 31, 2011. (See Quarter Ended September 30, 2011 10-Q report page 17). Therefore, Overstock.com would have owed US Bank $18.901 million as of December 31, 2011 ($20.329 million less $1.428 million). The prepayment penalty amounts to approximately 6% of Overstock.com's obligation to U.S. Bank under the Master Lease Agreement as of December 31, 2011. That prepayment penalty will be reflected as charge to its otherwise expected dismal fourth quarter financial results. Furthermore, the company will have to take additional depreciation charges in future periods since it will take title to the equipment and other assets covered under the Master Lease Agreement.

Liquidity problems

As of September 30, 2011, Overstock.com reported that it had only $18.4 million in working capital. However, the company would have reported a mere $1.4 million of net working capital (current assets minus current liabilities) had it not played a shell game and window dressed its balance sheet during the third quarter.

On September 21, 2011, Overstock.com borrowed $17 million under a separate Financing Agreement (line of credit) with U.S. Bank and used $7.5 million of internal cash to redeem $24.5 million of convertible debt before its December 1, 2011 due date (10-Q report page 16 and 33). The convertible debt was classified on the company's balance sheet as a current liability. The $17 million that it borrowed under its Financing Agreement (line of credit) is a long term debt (noncurrent liability) because payment is due on December 31, 2012 (10-Q report page 42). Had Overstock.com not borrowed that $17 million from U.S. Bank to redeem its convertible debentures before the end of the third quarter (September 30, 2011), it would have ended the quarter with a mere $1.4 million in working capital (current assets less current liabilities). In any case, its balance sheet window dressing is temporary, since the $17 million it borrowed will become a current liability by the end of the first quarter of 2012 (March 31, 2012) which is traditionally a weak quarter for the company.

As of December 31, 2011, $12.959 million of Overstock.com's $18.901 million obligation under the Master Lease Agreement would have been classified as a long term liability. Since the company paid $20.1 million, including a $1.2 million prepayment penalty to terminate the Agreement, its working capital was apparently depleted by another $7.1 million ($20.1 million less $12.959 million).

In December 9, 2011, Overstock.com filed a shelf registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would allow it to sell up to $200 million of its debt securities, common stock, warrants and other securities. It appears likely that Overstock.com will need to do some sort of equity related offering in the first quarter of 2012 to stay afloat and avoid further liquidity problems. Such an offering will likely significantly dilute the value of existing common shares. (See Davian Letter "Overstock.com is Overstocked.")

On December 14, 2011, the company unloaded millions of dollars of excess inventory in a public auction and generated a mere $150,000 in cash, just pennies on the dollar.

Other issues

Patrick Byrne
Overstock.com also has to contend with an ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into securities law violations after this blog exposed it fabricating its earnings numbers. So far, every single financial report issued from its inception in 1999 to the third quarter of 2009 had to be restated up to three times due to violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The company is being sued by District Attorneys from seven California District Attorneys who are alleging consumer fraud. They are seeking at least $15 million of restitution, fines, penalties, and cost reimbursements from the company for allegedly defrauding consumers. The Judge in that case had to compel an uncooperative Overstock.com to turn over information to the California District Attorneys.

Earlier in the year, Google penalized Overstock.com because it improperly gamed its search algorithm to boost its search rankings.

In October 2011, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, his hedge fund High Plains Investments LLC, Deep Capture LLC, and Mark Mitchell, a writer for Deep Capture, were sued in a Canadian court for defamation. Deep Capture LLC is an affiliate of Overstock.com and its website was used to promote Byrne's delusional conspiracy theories and libel company critics.

Latest deceptions

Back in January 2011, Overstock.com changed its name to O.co and directed its customers to use the O.co domain. As late as September 30, 2011, Patrick Byrne claimed in a press release that, "Our customers associate 'O' with Overstock.com, which made the transition to O.co seamless."

However, in the third quarter ended September 30, 2011, Overstock.com reported a $7.8 million loss compared to a $3.4 million loss in the previous year's quarter. Revenues during that quarter had declined by 2% to $239.7 million from $245.4 million dollars in the previous year. The company revealed that, "We also believe that our current efforts to rebrand ourselves from Overstock.com to O.co may have contributed to the decline in revenue." (See 10-Q page 33). Apparently, Overstock.com's transition to O.co was not as "seamless" as previously claimed by Byrne at the end of that same quarter. During a conference call with analysts, Patrick Byrne now admitted that customers found the transition was "confusing."

Jonathan Johnson
On November 14, 2011, Ad Age reported that the company's president, Jonathan Johnson also backpedaled on remarks made by Byrne at the end of its third quarter:

The online retailer's president, Jonathan Johnson, said it is stepping back from the O.co name "for now," though not abandoning it outright...."
Confused? So were customers. Mr. Johnson said customers responded well to the O.co advertising, but after watching the spots, "a good portion" of those who sought out the website went to O.com, instead of O.co. (O.com is one of the off-the-market single letter domain names still held by ICANN.)
"We were going too fast and people were confused, which told us we didn't do a good job," Mr. Johnson said.

Marketing Magazine put Overstock.com's rebranding efforts at the top of its list of 2011 marketing blunders.

Worst customer service in 2011

Just yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that, “The site with the dubious honor of proffering the worst customer service in 2011 was Overstock.com, those ubiquitous merchants of discounted furniture, clothes and home furnishing.”

Byrne sold shares before decline

Yesterday, Overstock.com common stock closed at $7.77 per share. Back on May 20 to May 24, 2010, Patrick Byrne's 100% controlled High Plains Investments LLC dumped 140,000 company shares at an average price of $22.11 per share and collected over $3 million in proceeds. Despite Byrne's optimistic forecasts, the company surprised investors and failed to meet analysts' consensus earnings expectations in the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Since the time Byrne has sold his stock, Overstock.com’s shares have dropped about 65% in market value and its market capitalization has dropped approximately $330 million.

Written by,

Sam E. Antar

Recommended Reading

Seeking Alpha: Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Surpasses Overstock.com As Worst Stock of 2011, By Gary Weiss

Disclosure

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped my cousin Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. I committed my crimes in cold-blood for fun and profit, and simply because I could.

If it weren't for the heroic efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector's Office, US Attorney's Office, and class action plaintiff's lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today.

There is a saying, "It takes one to know one." Today, I work very closely with the FBI, IRS, SEC, Justice Department, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies in training them to identify and catch white-collar criminals. Often, I refer cases to them as an independent whistleblower. I teach white-collar crime classes for various government entities, professional organizations, businesses, and colleges and universities.

I do not seek or want forgiveness for my vicious crimes from my victims. I plan on frying in hell with other white-collar criminals for a very long time. My past sins are unforgivable.

I do not own any Overstock.com securities long or short.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Overstock admits to deceptive advertising

O.co, also known as Overstock.com, (NASDAQ: OSTK) has admitted to a key allegation leveled against it in a lawsuit brought by several California District Attorneys alleging consumer fraud, according to court documents. In those court filings, the California District Attorneys say that Overstock.com has admitted that it "knowingly" used false comparison prices on its website, a practice that deceives customers into thinking they are getting better prices than they actually did. Further, those documents reveal that the company is continuing to stonewall compliance with a court order compelling it to turnover contact information of former employees with potential knowledge of alleged wrongdoing.

Background

On November 17, 2010, District Attorneys from seven California counties sued Overstock.com alleging that it engaged in fraudulent advertising practices after a two year investigation. The District Attorneys are seeking at least $15 million of restitution, fines, penalties, and cost reimbursements from Overstock.com. The lawsuit alleged that:

9. ...Overstock routinely and systematically made untrue and misleading comparative advertising claims about the prices of its products…. 11. …Overstock used various misleading measures to inflate the comparative prices, and thus artificially increase the discounts it claimed to be offering consumers…. 22. Often Overstock has not been determining or verifying the price other merchants charge for those identical products. Rather, Overstock has been using various misleading methods to make up its own “straw-man” prices which it claims other merchants are charging for those products, and then claiming that its own prices are significantly lower. 23. Overstock has advertised comparative prices which do not exist (i.e., simply making up the prices charged by other merchants).

A day after the lawsuit was filed, Chris Morran from the Consumerist blog remarked:

Apparently, the "O" in Overstock.com stands for "Overstating discounts and misleading customers," at least according to the district attorneys in seven California counties.

Best-selling author and financial columnist Gary Weiss noted in his personal blog that Overstock.com was still making up its competitor's prices:

Just for the heck of it I checked out Overstock's price for the paperback edition of Andrew Sorkin's Too Big to Fail. The price at Overstock is $11.06 and the search page for the book fraudulently says "compare at $20.55" and "you save 46%."
Baloney. The biggest online retailer, Amazon, lists the book at $9.90 and gives the list price as $18.00, not "$20.55." Barnes and Noble also prices the book at $9.90, and gives the correct list price.

Overstock.com President Jonathan Johnson argued that it was being "singled-out" by the California District Attorneys.

California District Attorneys say company admits to key allegation

On June 24, 2011, the People of the State of California and Overstock.com filed a “Joint Case Management Statement” which states:

Even at this early stage of the litigation, Overstock has admitted that in many cases it knowingly advertised comparison prices that were often significantly higher than “street prices” at which other merchants sold the identical products. Compare Overstock’s Verified Second Amended Answer to the Complaint ¶ 46, with People’s Complaint, ¶¶ 45-46.

In court papers, the company claims that “….virtually every retailer does it.” That's like someone who is stopped by a State Trooper for speeding arguing with the cop that they shouldn’t get a ticket because everyone else speeds from time to time.

Further, Overstock.com's excuse appears to conflict with its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which clearly states that:

Obeying the law, both in letter and spirit, is the foundation on which the Company's ethical standards are built. All employees must respect and obey the laws of the cities, states, and counties in which we operate.

If the company's senior officers condoned illegal advertising practices, it is required to disclose a waiver from its Code of Ethics under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Stonewalling compliance with court order

On April 1, 2011, the District Attorney of Alameda County filed a motion to compel Overstock.com to turn over the present or last known contact information for certain former employees with knowledge of alleged fraudulent advertising practices:

Specifically, the People will and do hereby move for an order compelling Overstock.com to further respond to Special Interrogatories 8 and 14 by providing current contact information for the former employees whose names Overstock disclosed in response to these Interrogatories.
The People met and conferred via email in good faith in an attempt to informally resolve this dispute and have offered to enter into a protective order as a means of satisfying Overstock.com’s asserted privacy objections. Nevertheless, Overstock.com has refused to provide the People with the information sought. [Emphasis added.]

Afterwards, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne accused the California District Attorneys of not acting in good faith:

It is not our job to host DA’s on a no-limits fishing trip, especially when they have not acted in good faith in the past.

Patrick Byrne
On May 17, 2011, Judge Robert B. Freeman rejected Overstock.com's arguments and Byrne’s accusations. The Judge issued a court order granting the California District Attorney’s motion to compel the company to turn over the contact information of certain former employees:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Motion of Plaintiff The People of the State of California (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Further Responses to First Set of Interrogatories is ruled on as follows:
At issue are the responses of defendant Overstock.com, Inc. (“Defendant”) to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (“SI”) 8 and 14 which seek identifying information regarding Defendant’s former employees who set “SET COMPARISON PRICES” and those who “worked as an OVERSTOCK BUYER” during the relevant time period. Defendant supplied Plaintiff with names, but refused to provide current contact information, asserting the privacy rights of these former employees.
The Motion is GRANTED. On balance, the importance to Plaintiff of obtaining contact information of Defendant’s former employees, all of whom may be fairly characterized as potential witnesses in this case, outweighs the privacy interests that these persons have in this information. [Emphasis added.]

However, court documents reveal that Overstock.com is continuing to stonewall compliance with the Judge’s order. The company wants the California District Attorneys to agree to “immediately destroy or return materials following final disposition of this case.” The California District Attorneys have complained to the Judge that:

The District Attorneys, acting on behalf of the People, are law enforcement agencies having a duty to maintain evidence relating to law enforcement actions for purposes, among others, of enforcing any injunctions that may be entered. Agreeing to destroy or return evidence at the conclusion of the case would make it more difficult to enforce such an injunction months, or even years, later, and thereby amount to an abdication of that law enforcement duty. [Emphasis added.]

Financial disclosures reveal “probable” recognition of liability arising from California litigation claims

On June 11, 2010, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance reviewed Overstock.com's 2009 10-K report and Q1 2010 10-Q report and found that its disclosures did not fully comply with applicable disclosure rules concerning its litigation risks (See question 30).

At that time, Overstock.com had disclosed that it was under investigation by District Attorneys from seven California counties for alleged consumer fraud. The SEC required Overstock.com to add a disclosure that it had accrued $1.2 million in loss contingencies to cover its potential litigation risks.

Overstock.com revealed to the SEC Division of Corporation Finance reviewers that its loss contingency accruals only covered two matters:

There are two matters for which we have established accrued liabilities, namely, the California district attorneys’ investigation and the administrative proceeding before the Ohio Tax Commissioner.

In the Ohio tax proceeding, Overstock.com disclosed that it faces potential claims of $612,784 in taxes, interest, and penalties. Therefore, at the very minimum, Overstock.com had accrued $587,216 in loss contingencies for claims arising from the California District Attorneys' investigation, before the lawsuit was filed. Note: Loss contingency of $1.2 million minus $612,784 potential claims in Ohio tax proceeding equals $587,216.

According to the company’s 10-Q report for the quarter ended March 31, 2011:

In the normal course of business, we are involved in legal proceedings and other potential loss contingencies. We accrue a liability for such matters when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When only a range of possible loss can be estimated, the most probable amount in the range is accrued. If no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range, the minimum amount in the range is accrued. We expense legal fees as incurred. [Emphasis added.]

Therefore, Overstock.com's disclosures acknowledge “it is probable that a loss has been incurred” in connection with consumer fraud claims made by the California District Attorneys. The company accrued only the “minimum amount” of loss contingency allowed under accounting rules.

The amount of money that Overstock.com has so far set aside to resolve claims by the California District Attorneys may be too low. Back in June 2010, the company’s correspondence with the SEC Division of Corporation Finance reviewers emphasized (in underlined and italicized type font) that:

It is reasonably possible that the potential loss may exceed our accrued liability. 

Afterwards, the company rejected a $7.5 million dollar offer by the California District Attorneys to settle the investigation, before the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit seeks over $15 million of restitution, fines, penalties, and cost reimbursements from the company. Since the lawsuit started, the company has increased its total loss contingency reserves (which include the Ohio tax matter) by a mere $100,000 to $1.3 million, according to its latest 10-Q report.

Ongoing SEC investigation

Overstock.com also has to contend with an ongoing investigation by the SEC Enforcement Division into securities law violations by the company. In 2009, this blog identified certain violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) by Overstock.com that allowed it to fabricate a Q4 2008 profit rather than a properly reported loss. I sent emails to Overstock.com and the SEC alerting them about the company’s illegal accounting practices. I urged the company to restate its financial reports to correct its improper accounting practices. Instead of properly complying with GAAP, Overstock.com continued to materially overstate its income in Q1, Q2, and Q3 2009.

In September 2009, the SEC started investigating Overstock.com. In October 2009, the company fired Grant Thornton as its auditor after it finally agreed with my recommendation to restate its financial reports. In March 2010, Overstock.com finally admitted that it violated GAAP and restated its financial reports to correct its violations, as I recommended a year earlier.

Conclusion

In June 2011, Overstock.com changed its name to O.co in an effort to improve its tarnished image.  However, there is an old saying, “You can’t put lipstick on a pig.” The company may have changed its name, but the same people are still running the show.

Written by,

Sam E. Antar

Disclosure

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped my cousin Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. I committed my crimes in cold-blood for fun and profit, and simply because I could.

If it weren't for the heroic efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector's Office, US Attorney's Office, and class action plaintiff's lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today.

There is a saying, "It takes one to know one." Today, I work very closely with the FBI, IRS, SEC, Justice Department, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies in training them to identify and catch white-collar criminals. Often, I refer cases to them as an independent whistleblower. I teach white-collar crime classes for various government entities, professional organizations, businesses, and colleges and universities.

I do not seek or want forgiveness for my vicious crimes from my victims. I plan on frying in hell with other white-collar criminals for a very long time. My past sins are unforgivable.

I do not own any Overstock.com securities long or short.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Patrick Byrne Absent From Third Quarter Earnings Call

Updated on 11/12/10 to include other blog feedback

Yesterday, Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) finally held its scheduled conference call with analysts to discuss the company's dismal third quarter earnings report which was released last Friday. On that day, Overstock.com stunned investors and reported a Q3 2010 $3.381 million loss or a loss of $0.15 per share compared to a Q3 2009 reported loss of $1.379 million or a loss of $0.06 per share. It was the second consecutive quarter that Overstock.com failed to meet Wall Street analysts’ consensus expectations for earnings.

However, instead of facing the music, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne was absent from the call. According to company President Jonathan Johnson:

Patrick Byrne, he is not with us today. He came in this morning and took ill and is unable to be on the call and he apologizes. So Steve and I will go forward without him.

The onset of such sudden illnesses is common among the targets of an SEC investigation, like Patrick Byrne.

Back in the Crazy Eddie days, it was known as "SEC induced sudden illness syndrome" or by the short acronym SIS. Common symptoms include panic attacks, headaches, nausea, cold sweats, trembling, stomach pains, vomiting, and worst of all, diarrhea. At least the weight loss isn't so bad. However, the SEC commonly refers to anyone suffering from SIS as a SISsy.

Patrick Byrne self-medicating through intoxication
Patrick Byrne could have avoided all of this. He should have listened to me in early 2009 about certain GAAP violations identified in my blog and promptly taken steps to correct them. However, his arrogance and vanity got in the way of rationality and reason.

Instead, Patrick Byrne publicly disparaged me, sent his paid stalker Judd Bagley to interfere with my divorce, and even had Bagley pretext my children and relatives on Facebook after I pointed out the company's accounting violations. Some of those relatives stalked by Bagley were minor children.

Patrick Byrne fired Grant Thornton as Overstock.com's auditors after they agreed with me and recommended that the company correct those GAAP violations. Eventually, the SEC started investigating Overstock.com and the company was forced to restate its financial reports for the third time in three years.

More recently, I've raised questions of possible illegal insider trading by Patrick Byrne. Last May, Byrne's 100% controlled High Plains Investments LLC dumped 140,000 company shares at an average price of $22.11 per share and collected over $3 million in proceeds, according to SEC filings.

After Byrne sold his stock, Information Week interviewed him and reported that Overstock.com:

...can roll up its profit-and-loss position in two hours, giving executives accurate, up-to-date insight for fast decision-making.

However, investors were not privy to such timely inside information.

Both before and after Byrne sold his stock, he hyped Overstock.com's prospects by leading investors to believe that the company would break even in its second and third quarters and beat Wall Street analysts' consensus expectations for Q2 and Q3 2010. However, in both quarters Overstock.com stunned investors by losing money and failing to meet analysts' expectations for financial performance.

In the time since Byrne sold his stock, Overstock.com’s shares have dropped about 41% in market value from his average selling price of $22.11 per share to $13.02 yesterday. The company’s market capitalization (shares outstanding multiplied by market price per share) has dropped approximately $200 million since Byrne sold his shares.

I have no doubt that Patrick Byrne will play deaf and dumb or what the SEC refers to as "D & D" when the investigators ask him what he knew when he sold his stock and profited handsomely off the backs of unsuspecting investors. Even a "SISsy" like Byrne will eventually have to face the music.

Written by,

Sam E. Antar

Recommended Reading

November 11, 2010: William K. Wolfrum Chronicles - Has Patrick Byrne been abducted by Russian Mobsters? Sith Lords? Sure, why not? by William K. Wolfrum

Of course, while all these abduction and SIS scenarios are likely true – even simultaneously in the fevered mind of Byrne – it’s probably more likely that his lawyers, his Daddy, and others have him under orders to keep his mouth shut. Because you never know what Patrick Byrne will say next, except for the fact it won’t be the truth about how he’s criminally mismanaged Overstock.com.

November 8, 2010: The Street.com - 3 Ways companies Try to Trick Investors by Gary Weiss

In contrast to previous quarters when the company had something positive to say, Overstock's usually hyperactive corporate PR machinery, ranging from Twitter feeds to a Facebook page to a PR website personally financed by the CEO -- all were silent.

Overstock's no-release earnings announcement was the latest example of how companies nowadays manage the bad news that has been showering over corporate America in abundance. Overstock's approach was perhaps more extreme than most, but it was an example of one of the common ways company's handle bad news. They ignore it.

Disclosure

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped my cousin Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. I committed my crimes in cold-blood for fun and profit, and simply because I could.

If it weren't for the heroic efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector's Office, US Attorney's Office, and class action plaintiff's lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today.

There is a saying, "It takes one to know one." Today, I work very closely with the FBI, IRS, SEC, Justice Department, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies in training them to identify and catch white-collar criminals. Often, I refer cases to them

For example, I exposed GAAP violations by Overstock.com which caused the company to restate its financial reports for the third time in three years. The SEC is now investigating Overstock.com and its CEO Patrick Byrne for securities law violations (Details here, here, and here).

I do not seek or want forgiveness for my vicious crimes from my victims. I plan on frying in hell with other white-collar criminals for a very long time.

I do not own any Overstock.com securities long or short. My investigation of that company is a freebie for securities regulators to get me into heaven, though I doubt I will ever get there. My past sins are unforgivable.

Monday, April 05, 2010

Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (Part 8): Bring Enforcement Action Against Overstock.com for False and Misleading Disclosures

The SEC must get Patrick Byrne sober
Updated at 9:42 PM Eastern

To Mary Schapiro (Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission):

I respectfully recommend that the Securities and Exchange Commission bring an enforcement action against Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) for violations of securities laws and retaliation against its critics. Otherwise, the SEC will send a clear message that violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), making false and misleading statements to investors, and retaliation against critics who uncover financial reporting irregularities will be tolerated and go unpunished.

On January 29, 2010, Overstock.com disclosed that the company was restating its financial reports for the third time in three years. In Overstock.com's recently filed 2009 10-K report, the company falsely tried to place the entire blame for its recent restatement of financial reports on the following:

We lacked a sufficient number of accounting professionals with the necessary knowledge, experience and training to adequately account for and perform adequate supervisory reviews of significant transactions that resulted in misapplications of GAAP.
Information technology program change and program development controls were inadequately designed to prevent changes in our accounting systems which led to the failure to appropriately capture and accurately process data.

I doubt that Overstock.com, led by CEO Patrick M. Byrne, will ever come clean with investors and admit that they deliberately violated GAAP and other SEC disclosure rules. As I will summarize below, the above disclosure omits material information in violation of Rule 10-5.

In addition, Overstock.com made false disclosures and certain corporate officers made false claims in violation of Rule 10b-5 to support the company's improper accounting for recoveries from underbilled and overpaid fulfillment partners. The company deliberately failed to correct those GAAP violations, after being notified by me.

Instead, CEO Patrick Byrne orchestrated a vicious retaliation campaign against me by smearing me, interfering in my divorce, and pretexting me, my family, and other critics. Overstock.com fired Grant Thornton as its auditors after they recommended that the company restate its financial reports to comply with GAAP, as I recommended.

If anyone at Overstock.com should be held fully responsible for the company's GAAP violations, it is the Audit Committee, CEO Patrick Byrne, and company President Jonathan E. Johnson. They all kept their positions at Overstock.com, while apparently scapegoating former CFO David Chidester and former Treasurer Rich Paongo, both who are no longer employed by the company.

From its inception in 1999 to date, each and every initial financial report for every reporting period has violated GAAP or some other SEC disclosure rule. Overstock.com even increased bonuses in 2009, while KPMG, its auditors, cited the company for material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting.

Brief Background

Starting on February 4, 2009, I correctly reported in my blog that Overstock.com violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) in its accounting for recoveries of amounts due from underbilled fulfillment partners. Overstock.com should have restated its financial reports to reflect income when it was actually earned from those fulfillment partners, less a reasonable estimate for uncollectable amounts (See SFAS No. 154 and SFAS No. 5).

Instead, Overstock.com improperly deferred income that it earned but underbilled its fulfillment partners during prior reporting periods (Q3 2008 and before) by moving such income to future reporting periods (Q4 2008, Q1 2009, Q2 2009, and Q3 2009). In other words, Overstock.com took income that should have been reported in prior reporting periods (Q3 2008 and before) and moved it to future reporting periods (Q4 2008 and later) to materially overstate its financial performance in those later reporting periods. In effect, Overstock.com created an illegal "cookie jar" reserve to inflate its future financial performance.

I correctly reported that Overstock.com ridiculously claimed that the collection of the entire amount of its underbillings (every single penny) “was not assured” and instead falsely claimed that a "gain contingency" existed, rather than make a reasonable estimate of uncollectable amounts as required under SFAS No. 5.

I correctly reported that Overstock.com's improper accounting for recoveries from underbilled fulfillment partners resulted in the company reporting Q4 2008 profit, rather than a properly reported Q4 2008 loss.

Starting in February 2009, I sent emails to Overstock.com that were cc'd to the Securities and Exchange Commission, expressing my concerns about the company's GAAP violations. Instead of listening to me in February 2009, Overstock.com continued to violate GAAP in its Q1, Q2, and Q3 2009 financial reports.

Note: More details in: 08/05/09: Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission: Stop Overstock.com GAAP Violations Now!

In September 2009, the SEC Enforcement Division re-opened its investigation of Overstock.com followed by a parallel probe by the SEC Division of Corporation Finance.

In October 2009, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance discovered that Overstock.com overpaid a fulfillment partner $785,000 during 2008. The company recovered that overpayment in Q1 2009 and improperly reported the overpayment recovery as income in that same quarter, rather than properly restate its 2008 financial reports to correct that error. Overstock.com used the same false "gain contingency" excuse again to justify the company's improper accounting treatment for its recovery of the overpayment.

Overstock.com improperly concealed the recovery of the overpayment by including that amount in recoveries from underbilled fulfillment partners in Q1 2009 instead of separately disclosing the overpayment recovery in its financial reports.

In November 2009, Overstock.com even fired Grant Thornton as its auditors and both Patrick Byrne and Jonathan Johnson publicly vilified them when they recommended that the company restate its financial reports to comply with GAAP, as I recommended in my blog and emails to Overstock.com that were cc'd to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 29, 2010, Overstock.com finally admitted that its accounting for recoveries from underbilled and overpaid fulfillment partners was "inappropriate" and that no gain contingency existed, as I previously reported in my blog.

On March 31, 2010, Overstock.com's 2009 10-K report restated the company's Q4 2008 financial report to show a properly reported net loss rather than an improper net profit, as I correctly said it should in my blog more than a year earlier.

In other words, this convicted felon, who Patrick Byrne has called on many occasions "Sam the crook", was right about Overstock.com's GAAP violations and the company's former auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers, its Audit Committee, and its management team were all wrong.

Overstock.com Corporate Sponsored Campaign to Intimidate Me and Family Members

Soon after I started exposing Overstock.com's recent GAAP violations in my blog, Patrick Byrne responded by escalating his vindictive corporate sponsored retaliation campaign against me, other critics who agreed with my correct analysis, and others he perceived as being part of his deluded conspiracy theory involving the "Sith Lord."

In April 2009, Patrick Byrne sent his paid cyberstalker Judd Bagley to interfere with my divorce proceeding and attempted to blackmail me into settling that case and even tried to contact my ex-spouse in an attempt to intimidate me.

Starting around May or June 2009 Judd Bagley "Facebook friended" me, journalists, bloggers, and other critics on Facebook to collect personal information on them and their family members and violated their terms of service by using a false identity. Bagley even attempted to "Facebook friend" my son and family members of other critics, too.

In December 2009, Judd Bagley posted the names of over 7,000 critics and their "Facebook friends" which included family members under age 18 (including my minor relatives) on Byrne's funded and controlled Deep Capture website as part of his pretexting scheme to harass and intimidate Overstock.com's critics.

Note: More details provided in: How Patrick Byrne Stalked Critics and the Media on Facebook by Gary Weiss

I tried to call into Overstock.com's quarterly conference calls to ask relevant questions about accounting issues, only to be refused access and ridiculed by Byrne on those same calls.

False Statements and Innuendo Made by Certain Corporate Officers to Justify Overstock.com's Improper Accounting

Soon after I correctly indentified certain GAAP violations by Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne and Jonathan Johnson made certain false statements to investors, as described below.

On February 6, 2009, Patrick Byrne responded to my original February 4 blog post identifying the GAAP violations described above on the InvestorVillage message board by claiming that:

Antar's ramblings are gibberish. Show them to any accountant and they will confirm. He has no clue what he is talking about.

A September 25, 2009, Salt Lake Tribune article quoted Patrick Byrne as saying:

"Gary Weiss and Sam Antar are goniffs," Byrne declared, using a yiddish term that he says means "a con man, a hustler and a scoundrel."
If the SEC is listening to them, their next step is to let Bernie Madoff write their indictment of me." Byrne was referring to the mastermind, now in prison, of a multibillion-dollar fraud whose case helped show how laissez faire Wall Street regulators had become.

On November 18, 2009, during a conference call with analysts and investors, Patrick Byrne falsely claimed:

In fact, we as I understand it, this doesn't change any positive quarter to a negative quarter or any negative quarter to a positive quarter.

In a November 25, 2009 Salt Lake Tribune article, company President Jonathan Johnson was quoted as saying:

None of these changes that they [Grant Thornton] are talking about, or that people at the SEC are now asking about, make any of our quarters go from negative to positive or from positive to negative.

As it turns out, all of the above explanations claimed by Patrick Byrne and Jonathan Johnson were false, misled investors into believing that Overstock.com properly complied with GAAP, and violated Rule 10b-5. The company actually lost money in Q4 2008 rather than make a profit as previously claimed. Overstock.com deliberately violated GAAP and as evidenced by its ridiculous "gain contingency" claim, its retaliation against me and other critics, and false statements made by Byrne and Johnson to support the company's improper accounting treatment for recoveries from underbilled and overpaid fulfillment partners.

Conclusion

As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I respected the SEC as an adversary, even as it brought me to my knees. Unfortunately, the public has lost confidence in the SEC because of its failure to listen to Harry Markopolos about Bernie Madoff and David Einhorn about Lehman Brothers and Allied Capital. The SEC has an excellent chance on its second investigation of Overstock.com to regain that lost public confidence by bringing a successful enforcement action against Overstock.com, its Audit Committee, and its management team for securities law violations, including Rule 10b-5.

In addition, you have an excellent opportunity to show that issuer retaliation by public companies against critics will not be tolerated. If you fail to address that issue, you are warned that America will be deprived of future independent whistleblowers like Ralph Nader and books like "Unsafe at Any Speed."

From a former adversary and respectfully,

Sam E. Antar

Update: Associated Press reporter Paul Foy permitted Patrick Byrne to continue lying to investors in an article published today about Overstock.com's GAAP violations, even though I documented Byrne's lies when interviewed by Foy and in our emails. The article states:

Byrne, who owns nearly 30 percent of the company's shares, says Overstock's accounting errors were generally conservative. The latest involved 0.1 percent of revenue and gave the company no advantage, he said.

"No advantage," he says? That is a flat out lie and Foy permitted Byrne to say it unchallenged in the article, even though he had information from Overstock.com's own SEC filings and from me showing that Byrne lied.

Nowhere does the article mention that Overstock.com's GAAP violations enabled the company to improperly report a Q4 2008 net profit, rather than a properly reported net loss. The article fails to mention that Overstock.com restated its Q4 2008 financial report to correct those GAAP violations and changed its previously reported net profit to a properly reported net loss.

Patrick Byrne went on to personally attack me. The AP article quotes Byrne as saying:
Byrne responds that "it's like hearing Bernie Madoff say I'm a bad guy."
No matter what Patrick Byrne calls me whether it is "Sam the crook" or "Bernie Madoff", this convicted felon was right about Overstock.com's GAAP violations and the company, its Audit Committee, its management including Byrne, and its auditors were all dead wrong.

At the very least, Overstock.com should immediately retract Byrne's false remarks so that investors reading the Associated Press article will not be misled about the real scope of the company's accounting errors.

Patrick Byrne will continue lying to investors unless the SEC puts a stop to his shenanigans and holds him accountable for his actions.

For additional information, please read Gary Weiss blog here and Going Concern blog here.

Note to Readers: Please order "Selling America Short: The SEC and Market Contrarians in the Age of Absurdity" by Richard Saurer and especially read Chapter Twelve: The Overstock Flame Wars.

My previous open letters to the SEC (please note that each letter is based on Overstock.com's deliberately vague, incoherent, and inconsistent, and often contradictory disclosures at the time each one was issued):

08/05/09: Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission: Stop Overstock.com GAAP Violations Now!

11/22/09: Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission Part 2: New Information on Overstock.com's GAAP and SEC Disclosure Violations

11/23/09: Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission Part 3: Overstock.com Lied About Grant Thornton and Concealed Error

11/26/09: Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission Part 4: Patrick Byrne Ignores Real Issues As He Vilifies Grant Thornton

12/14/09: Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission Part 5: Issuer Retaliation Complaint Against Overstock.com

01/03/10: Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission Part 6: Conflicting Disclosures by Overstock.com Reveal Improper Audit Opinion Shopping

02/02/10: Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission Part 7: Why Overstock.com and David Chidester Parted Ways

Disclosure

I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. I committed my crimes, simply because I could.

If it weren't for the efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector's Office, US Attorney's Office, and class action plaintiff's lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today.

I do not own Overstock.com securities short or long. My research on Overstock.com and in particular its lying CEO Patrick Byrne is a freebie for securities regulators and the public in order to help me get into heaven, though I doubt that I will ever get there anyway. I will probably end up joining corporate miscreants such as fifth rate crooks like Patrick Byrne in hell.

In any case, exposing Overstock.com's financial reporting violations is a lot of fun and analyzing the company's financial reporting is a forensic accountant's wet dream.