My view is it's clear that Lindsay back dated his resignation - for what purpose only Overstock knows. It is quite fishy isn't it? And didn't HP get slapped by the SEC for not truthfully disclosing the reason(s) for Director resignations? Doesn't seem to me like Lindsey's resignation was truthful either.....
The other part of that story is the BOD, in affidavit form - publicly and completely absolving themselves from any responsibility in the Rocker action in order to wiggle out of being co-defendents in Rocker's counter-claims.
At Overstock, the term "Fiduciary Duty" is apparently regarded as a rank obsenity, on par with 'F.U.'
When the time comes, (and I am really surprised this hasn't happened yet) that affidavit will come back to haunt them when the inevitable shareholder lawsuits start arriving like hard rain.
There is no soap opera, or cheesy reality TV show anywhere that can top this stuff.
The backdating isn't so clear. The resignation was announced January 2 and he could be referring to the reported date in the "until January 2". It's not like he specifically says that he served "until I resigned effective January 2".
There was a lot of activity going on that weekend and it's hard to make sense of it all. But it's hard to see how it makes more sense when you assume a backdated resignation.
Which group does Prem Watsa side with? The directors that failed to protect his interests? Or the grifter CEO he funded?
I don't buy Prem's conspiracy theories. But, he is an astute investor. Surely he doesn't like seeing his money flushed down the toilet by a CEO that made material misstatements in financial statements that Prem relied upon in deciding whether or not to provide funding.
To Sam Antar:
You must be on to something. Otherwise the basherbuster crew and other Bagley agents wouldn't be attacking you so viciously right now. Keep up the good work. Their conduct means that you are on the right track.
Gary, the difference between December 31 and January 2 is the News Years Holiday correct. Now, he could have very easily discussed the retirement on the 31st or, even on January 2nd but making his effective date December 31st with no working days in between.
Not exactly a backdating as opposed to making the effectivity date the end of the year. Either way, it is a non-event and certainly not the event you and Sam have made of it. I am sure the SEC is laughing at how hard you guys are trying to discredit.
Dave,
Maybe you can answer the age old question for me. You certainly have the right experience. Why do liars lie?
Dave, I think that it would have been an easy matter for Mr. Lindsey to write in "Dec. 31," if that was the date he resigned.
This reminds me of past confrontations between Overstock and the truth, such as Byrne's waiting for a year before disclosing the subpoena served upon him. His explanations on that are classic. I see that he has wisely not attempted to explain away this one.
Gary I also posted this over at Sam's blog but what do you think about the Gradient suit? The theory seems to be that fraudulently inflating the stock price gives a cause of action to a short seller. Has anyone argued that before? It would be a shame if a whole new class of aggrieved parties ends up taking cases to court.
What if someone bought the stock and shorted the calls during a period when a company was making deceptive claims. Should they be able to sue twice?
I guess my feeling would be that fraudulently inflating the share price should be sufficient to give a cause of action to any aggrieved party.
As for the example you cite: Off the cuff, I'd say that, yes, the manipulation would affect the price of the calls, so that person would have a legitimate beef against the company. That's my personal opinion, as I am not a lawyer.
John,
If the Overstock directors get their way, it will be impossible even for longs to sue for false and misleading statements. By filing a SLAPP motion, he directors seem to be arguing that materially false and misleading statements are protected speech.
I'm no lawyer either. But that sure seems like a dangerous precedent, if it works.
It sure would create demand for California domiciles though. It would make Nevada and Delaware look like second tier players in the corporate headquarters game.
Commenting by HaloScan
