You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
OSTK ceo
- Thread starter SWScapital
- Start date
Quote from ratboy88:
i liked buffet years ago and always thought he was legit. but the more i watched him the more suspicious i got. for him to be such a coward at this age and with his fortune, is sickening.
When the true scope of this crime is known, there will much to answer for. And the names will be well known.
Quote from ratboy88:
i liked buffet years ago and always thought he was legit. but the more i watched him the more suspicious i got. for him to be such a coward at this age and with his fortune, is sickening.
Yeah, it can't possibly be that there's no issue at all. No, it must be that Buffett is the devil.
[roll eyes]
http://gradientanalytics.com/news/GA Release 20070530 _OSTK_.pdf
Gradient didn't like it.
I wonder how the SEC is going to explain a very quick dismissal, when obviously the appelate courts thought there was some merit.
Gradient didn't like it.
I wonder how the SEC is going to explain a very quick dismissal, when obviously the appelate courts thought there was some merit.
Overstock Celebrates California Court of Appeal 3-0 Decision Affirming in Full the Judgment of Trial Court to Allow Overstock.com to Proceed in Rocker/Gradient Litigation
Overstock Celebrates Court of Appeal 3-0 Decision Affirming in Full the Judgment of Trial Court
to Allow Overstock.com to Proceed in Rocker/Gradient Litigation
Overstock.com Eager to Begin Discovery and Move to Trial on the Merits
(May 30, 2007) â Overstock.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSTK) today announced the decision of the California Court of Appeal rejecting the appeal of Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners in Overstock.com et al. v. Gradient Analytics et al. The unanimous decision rendered today by a three-judge panel affirmed in full trial courtâs decision allowing Overstock to proceed in all of its causes of action against Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners and their principals. Overstock has sued the defendants for libel, unfair business practices and tortuous interference.
Jonathan Johnson, Overstock Senior Vice President of Legal said, âThe Court of Appeal ruled strongly in our favor on every point. This is the second time that an independent court has found that Overstock has a âreasonable probabilityâ of prevailing on the merits. Now that weâre through the defendants legal smokescreens, we are eager to get this case to trial. We look forward to the day when we expose in detail the defendantsâ misconduct to a jury.â
Patrick Byrne , Chairman and CEO of Overstock said, âThis case is about criminal activities that are undermining American capital markets. For nearly 22 months, these blackguard defendants have made frivolous arguments trying to hide their actions in the skirts of the First Amendment. The trial court rejected theirs arguments on all 8 counts of the lawsuit. Unsolicited, the California Attorney General weighed in on our side with an amicus curiae brief. Now in a 3-0 decision the California Court of Appeal has unanimously ruled in Overstockâs favor.â
Byrne continued, âMost interestingly, the miscreants have had the full support of compliant financial journalists who for nearly two years have blindly parroted arguments that have now been rejected by a trial judge, an attorney general, and an appellate court. I believe that these journalistsâ willingness to engage in this behavior will someday be seen as the Gotterdammerung in the battle between Old Media and New Media.â
Editors note: Download the entire 36 page decision here: http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?SEC_IID=22786&PAGE=staticpopup&sta_id=10311&TRACK=FOOT_OI_L8
About Overstock.com
Overstock.com, Inc. is an online âcloseoutâ retailer offering discount, brand-name merchandise for sale over the Internet. The company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative inventory liquidation distribution channel. Overstock.com, headquartered in Salt Lake City, is a publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ Global Market System and can be found online at http://www.overstock.com.
# # #
Overstock.com is a registered trademark of Overstock.com, Inc.
This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding moving to trial, the results of any battle between Old Media and New Media, as well as all such other risks as identified in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, and all our subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which contain and identify important factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements.
Overstock Celebrates Court of Appeal 3-0 Decision Affirming in Full the Judgment of Trial Court
to Allow Overstock.com to Proceed in Rocker/Gradient Litigation
Overstock.com Eager to Begin Discovery and Move to Trial on the Merits
(May 30, 2007) â Overstock.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSTK) today announced the decision of the California Court of Appeal rejecting the appeal of Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners in Overstock.com et al. v. Gradient Analytics et al. The unanimous decision rendered today by a three-judge panel affirmed in full trial courtâs decision allowing Overstock to proceed in all of its causes of action against Gradient Analytics and Rocker Partners and their principals. Overstock has sued the defendants for libel, unfair business practices and tortuous interference.
Jonathan Johnson, Overstock Senior Vice President of Legal said, âThe Court of Appeal ruled strongly in our favor on every point. This is the second time that an independent court has found that Overstock has a âreasonable probabilityâ of prevailing on the merits. Now that weâre through the defendants legal smokescreens, we are eager to get this case to trial. We look forward to the day when we expose in detail the defendantsâ misconduct to a jury.â
Patrick Byrne , Chairman and CEO of Overstock said, âThis case is about criminal activities that are undermining American capital markets. For nearly 22 months, these blackguard defendants have made frivolous arguments trying to hide their actions in the skirts of the First Amendment. The trial court rejected theirs arguments on all 8 counts of the lawsuit. Unsolicited, the California Attorney General weighed in on our side with an amicus curiae brief. Now in a 3-0 decision the California Court of Appeal has unanimously ruled in Overstockâs favor.â
Byrne continued, âMost interestingly, the miscreants have had the full support of compliant financial journalists who for nearly two years have blindly parroted arguments that have now been rejected by a trial judge, an attorney general, and an appellate court. I believe that these journalistsâ willingness to engage in this behavior will someday be seen as the Gotterdammerung in the battle between Old Media and New Media.â
Editors note: Download the entire 36 page decision here: http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?SEC_IID=22786&PAGE=staticpopup&sta_id=10311&TRACK=FOOT_OI_L8
About Overstock.com
Overstock.com, Inc. is an online âcloseoutâ retailer offering discount, brand-name merchandise for sale over the Internet. The company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative inventory liquidation distribution channel. Overstock.com, headquartered in Salt Lake City, is a publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ Global Market System and can be found online at http://www.overstock.com.
# # #
Overstock.com is a registered trademark of Overstock.com, Inc.
This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding moving to trial, the results of any battle between Old Media and New Media, as well as all such other risks as identified in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, and all our subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which contain and identify important factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements.
Appellate Court Says Overstock's Complaint Isn't A SLAPP
By Christopher Faille, Senior Financial Correspondent | Wednesday, May
30, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO (HedgeWorld.com)-A state appeals court in California has
awarded a victory to Overstock.com Inc.
Overstock, a Salt Lake City-based online marketer of excess inventory, has
alleged that its stock price suffered due to a conspiracy involving hedge
fund Rocker Partners LP and research firm Gradient Analytics Inc. In an
opinion written by Associate Justice Timothy A. Reardon, the First District
Court of Appeals held that the trial court was right to deny a motion to
strike Overstock's complaint. That means Overstock's efforts to prove and
receive damages from the perpetrators of the alleged conspiracy can
continue.
That motion to strike, and this appeal, had been pressed on First Amendment
grounds, and with special reference to a California statute aimed at
discouraging strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP
litigation.
According to the statute: "A cause of action against a person arising from
any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or
free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection
with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless
the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a
probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim."
The word "probability" in that statute appears to mean something different
for this court than it means to, say, a casino manager. The court said it
isn't making a decision about which side has the better hand, but that for
purposes of deciding the motion, it accepts as true all evidence favorable
to the plaintiff.
Given that approach, the appellate court found that there is enough such
evidence to make this case a non-SLAPP case, and to send it back to the
trial court for further proceedings.
As an example of evidence favorable to the plaintiff, the court cited the
declarations of David Chidester, Overstock's senior vice president of
finance. Mr. Chidester reviewed Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Gradient's reports
on Overstock from June 2003 until December 2005, and identified (in the
court's words) "multiple statements of fact about Overstock's accounting
practices and related matters which in his opinion were 'provably false.'"
Mr. Chidester also explained how, in his view, these falsehoods damaged
Overstock, driving its stock price down from $73 a share in late 2004 to
under $30 by Jan. 2, 2006. The stock price is important to the operations of
the company because it is "a major component of its relationship with
lenders, suppliers, banks, investors, customers, and the media" the court
said, still paraphrasing Mr. Chidester.
Gradient reacted immediately, issuing a statement saying that Gradient
expects to ask the California Supreme Court to review the ruling. It quoted
Gradient's president and chief executive, Brad Forst: "[T]oday the right of
independent researchers and financial writers to publish critical
information about publicly-traded companies has been placed in jeopardy. We
feel strongly about the freedom of speech issues intertwined in this case,
and we will continue to advocate for this right."
Directorial Departure
This decision came less than a week after the resignation of a member of
Overstock's board of directors. Ray Groves, who also served on the audit
committee, resigned May 24.
In his letter to Patrick Byrne, Overstock's chairman and chief executive,
Mr. Groves said that his resignation "relates to the company's prime broker
suit." His allusion is to litigation that is separate from the action
against Gradient and Rocker-but part of the same crusade Previous HedgeWorld
Story. In a statement, Mr. Byrne said: "Ray's advice has been of immense
value to the board, the company, and me. I will always remain deeply in his
debt."
Mr. Groves' resignation was part of a trend. On Feb. 23, John A. Fisher-also
a member of the audit committee-resigned from the Overstock board. This
action, he said explicitly, was "precipitated by disagreement with the
company's pursuit of the lawsuit against the Prime Brokers."
In July 2006, John J. Byrne, Patrick Byrne's father, resigned from the board
of directors, reportedly due to his "new role at White Mountains Insurance
Group," though that departure came soon after a public airing of the elder
Mr. Byrne's unhappiness with his son's crusade against naked short selling.
It isn't clear to outsiders what is under way on the board, but it may prove
that Patrick Byrne's victory in a California courtroom is fortuitously
timed, arriving as a salve for those wounds.
CFaille@HedgeWorld.com
By Christopher Faille, Senior Financial Correspondent | Wednesday, May
30, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO (HedgeWorld.com)-A state appeals court in California has
awarded a victory to Overstock.com Inc.
Overstock, a Salt Lake City-based online marketer of excess inventory, has
alleged that its stock price suffered due to a conspiracy involving hedge
fund Rocker Partners LP and research firm Gradient Analytics Inc. In an
opinion written by Associate Justice Timothy A. Reardon, the First District
Court of Appeals held that the trial court was right to deny a motion to
strike Overstock's complaint. That means Overstock's efforts to prove and
receive damages from the perpetrators of the alleged conspiracy can
continue.
That motion to strike, and this appeal, had been pressed on First Amendment
grounds, and with special reference to a California statute aimed at
discouraging strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP
litigation.
According to the statute: "A cause of action against a person arising from
any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or
free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection
with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless
the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a
probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim."
The word "probability" in that statute appears to mean something different
for this court than it means to, say, a casino manager. The court said it
isn't making a decision about which side has the better hand, but that for
purposes of deciding the motion, it accepts as true all evidence favorable
to the plaintiff.
Given that approach, the appellate court found that there is enough such
evidence to make this case a non-SLAPP case, and to send it back to the
trial court for further proceedings.
As an example of evidence favorable to the plaintiff, the court cited the
declarations of David Chidester, Overstock's senior vice president of
finance. Mr. Chidester reviewed Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Gradient's reports
on Overstock from June 2003 until December 2005, and identified (in the
court's words) "multiple statements of fact about Overstock's accounting
practices and related matters which in his opinion were 'provably false.'"
Mr. Chidester also explained how, in his view, these falsehoods damaged
Overstock, driving its stock price down from $73 a share in late 2004 to
under $30 by Jan. 2, 2006. The stock price is important to the operations of
the company because it is "a major component of its relationship with
lenders, suppliers, banks, investors, customers, and the media" the court
said, still paraphrasing Mr. Chidester.
Gradient reacted immediately, issuing a statement saying that Gradient
expects to ask the California Supreme Court to review the ruling. It quoted
Gradient's president and chief executive, Brad Forst: "[T]oday the right of
independent researchers and financial writers to publish critical
information about publicly-traded companies has been placed in jeopardy. We
feel strongly about the freedom of speech issues intertwined in this case,
and we will continue to advocate for this right."
Directorial Departure
This decision came less than a week after the resignation of a member of
Overstock's board of directors. Ray Groves, who also served on the audit
committee, resigned May 24.
In his letter to Patrick Byrne, Overstock's chairman and chief executive,
Mr. Groves said that his resignation "relates to the company's prime broker
suit." His allusion is to litigation that is separate from the action
against Gradient and Rocker-but part of the same crusade Previous HedgeWorld
Story. In a statement, Mr. Byrne said: "Ray's advice has been of immense
value to the board, the company, and me. I will always remain deeply in his
debt."
Mr. Groves' resignation was part of a trend. On Feb. 23, John A. Fisher-also
a member of the audit committee-resigned from the Overstock board. This
action, he said explicitly, was "precipitated by disagreement with the
company's pursuit of the lawsuit against the Prime Brokers."
In July 2006, John J. Byrne, Patrick Byrne's father, resigned from the board
of directors, reportedly due to his "new role at White Mountains Insurance
Group," though that departure came soon after a public airing of the elder
Mr. Byrne's unhappiness with his son's crusade against naked short selling.
It isn't clear to outsiders what is under way on the board, but it may prove
that Patrick Byrne's victory in a California courtroom is fortuitously
timed, arriving as a salve for those wounds.
CFaille@HedgeWorld.com
Quote from CPTrader:
Flytiger, what say you about Ray Groves resignation?
He was Ernst and Young. See yesterday's news? Think he's got some problems? I dunno. But I know how these guys work. I'm watching CNBC to see how to handle this. Do you realize they all know what I know (you don't), and they totally ignore it. Byrne just stuck a huge moneywrench into themoney machine.
Here's another part of the scheme allegedly used by Rocker. They've cried and cried, and look here. Wake up folks.
Milberg Weiss's Bershad Is in Talks
To Plead Guilty in Kickbacks Case
By NATHAN KOPPEL and LAURIE P. COHEN
May 31, 2007
David Bershad of Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP is in talks with the government to enter a guilty plea in a prosecution for alleged kickbacks to class-action clients, according to a person familiar with the case.
Milberg Weiss was indicted last May, along with Mr. Bershad and Steven Schulman, a former partner who has since resigned. Mr. Bershad is on a leave of absence from the firm.
If Mr. Bershad pleads guilty, it is unclear whether he would also agree to cooperate with the government and provide evidence in the case. The trial is scheduled for January. A guilty plea generally entails more-lenient charges than the defendant originally faced. Talks can break down at any time.
Mr. Bershad and one of his lawyers declined to comment.
It isn't clear what possible cooperation by Mr. Bershad would mean for others. Prosecutors have investigated the roles that Melvyn Weiss, the head of Milberg Weiss, and William Lerach, a former partner and a leading securities litigator, may have played in the alleged kickback scheme. No charges have been filed against them.
Mr. Schulman has filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him. Milberg Weiss and Mr. Bershad face deadlines Friday to file motions to dismiss.
Lawyers say that if Mr. Bershad doesn't file a motion to dismiss, that could be a sign that an agreement may be imminent. A defendant is unlikely to criticize the government's case in a court filing -- or incur the costs of filing a motion to dismiss -- if he soon plans to strike a deal with prosecutors, lawyers say.
In the indictment, prosecutors alleged that Mr. Bershad was "primarily responsible for overseeing Milberg Weiss's financial affairs and accounting department." The indictment said Mr. Bershad used cash from a safe in a credenza in his office to pay kickbacks to plaintiffs. Access to the safe "was strictly limited," according to the indictment. The indictment also said that from 1983 to 2005, Mr. Bershad owned as much as 17% of the firm and his share of its profits was more than $160 million. At the time his lawyer denied the allegations.
Write to Nathan Koppel at nathan.koppel@wsj.com and Laurie P. Cohen at laurie.cohen@wsj.com
Byrne blistered the press in his release. Roddy is dark side. Notice, he never mentions fails, he talks about issuing stock, but never mentions the fact that the stocks go lower and lower because of the massive "supply". He says Gradient 's "work" bore fruit. Never talks about the suit where the Judges found merit in Overstock's claim that Gradient flat out lied about it's accounting claims. What amazes me, is Gradients back office is wide open. You could have read the testimony of the affiants which tells you what went on, and these guys still spin. I guess it's whistlin' past the graveyard. but the Street is in a big hurt, and everybody knows it.
APPEALS COURT SIDES WITH OVERSTOCK.COM
By RODDY BOYD
May 31, 2007 -- Overstock.com got a big boost from a California judicial panel in its fight against short-sellers.
The three-judge Marin County appeals court refused to dismiss Overstock's controversial suit against short-seller Rocker Partners and forensic research shop Gradient Analytics.
Overstock's suit argues the two conspired to maliciously spread inaccurate and defaming information.
The panel offered spirited and broad-ranging support to Overstock's claims, rejecting almost every argument made by the appellants' lawyers.
Gradient, in a press release, described the ruling as technical and said it would appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court.
Ironically, the ruling comes as Gradient's original concerns - laid out in a series of reports from 2003 to 2006 - have largely borne fruit.
Overstock.com's earnings shortfalls and inability to generate cash have forced it to issue stock - after telling investors it had no plans to do so - twice, at increasing discounts to the market price.
Three directors, including Chairman Jack Byrne - the father of Chief Executive Patrick - have resigned over concerns about Overstock's litigation. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the company and Patrick Byrne.
APPEALS COURT SIDES WITH OVERSTOCK.COM
By RODDY BOYD
May 31, 2007 -- Overstock.com got a big boost from a California judicial panel in its fight against short-sellers.
The three-judge Marin County appeals court refused to dismiss Overstock's controversial suit against short-seller Rocker Partners and forensic research shop Gradient Analytics.
Overstock's suit argues the two conspired to maliciously spread inaccurate and defaming information.
The panel offered spirited and broad-ranging support to Overstock's claims, rejecting almost every argument made by the appellants' lawyers.
Gradient, in a press release, described the ruling as technical and said it would appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court.
Ironically, the ruling comes as Gradient's original concerns - laid out in a series of reports from 2003 to 2006 - have largely borne fruit.
Overstock.com's earnings shortfalls and inability to generate cash have forced it to issue stock - after telling investors it had no plans to do so - twice, at increasing discounts to the market price.
Three directors, including Chairman Jack Byrne - the father of Chief Executive Patrick - have resigned over concerns about Overstock's litigation. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the company and Patrick Byrne.