Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Patrick Byrne: Noooo, Grant Thornton, You’re Lying

Thumbnail image for patsy_byrne.jpgOkay you guys, this Thornton cat fight is getting real mature.
Your humble servant Patrick Byrne has responded to Grant Thornton’s letter stating, in no uncertain terms that he is a L – I – A – R by saying, “I know you are but whatami? I know you are but whatami? I know you are but whatami?”
In the latest OSTK press release, Patsy lists nine points of contention that he has with Grant Thornton’s letter to the SEC which started all this “You’re a liar!” business. We’ve presented some of our favorite moments after the jump for your enjoyment (all emphasis is ours):

4. Grant Thornton Letter: “Further, paragraph 4 references a report on the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2009. As we have not performed an audit of the Company’s financial statements for any period, this reference is incorrect.”
We know that Grant Thornton never performed an audit of our 2009 financial statements and, again, we never said otherwise: as it is currently November, 2009, our 2009 financial statements do not exist. The SEC requirement is that we disclose what Grant Thornton would have disagreed with had it performed what our audit committee engaged them to do – an audit of our 2009 financial statements. We complied with the SEC requirement. I’m not sure what Grant Thornton expected us to say in prefacing the explanation of our disagreements with Grant Thornton.

6. Grant Thornton Letter: “We disagree with the Company’s statement in paragraph 7 ‘that upon further consultation and review within the firm, Grant Thornton revised its earlier position’ regarding the previously filed 2009 interim financial statements. This statement is not accurate. The Company brought the overpayment to a fulfillment partner to Grant Thornton’s attention in October. After additional discussions with the Company, the predecessor auditor and receipt of additional documentation from the Company we determined that the Company’s position as to the accounting treatment for the overpayment to a fulfillment partner was in error.”
This is a falsehood. On several occasions Grant Thornton discussed with and provided guidance on the accounting for the $785,000 fulfillment partner overpayment during and prior to October…
7. Grant Thornton Letter: “Further the Company’s statement does not address the fact that the consultation noted in paragraph 5 was in relation to the ongoing incomplete review of the September 30, 2009 interim financial statements.”
This is a curious statement given that on October 30 Grant Thornton sent a final report dated November 5 (for a November 6 audit committee meeting) to our audit committee stating that “[w]e have concluded our review of the most recent interim quarter. Our review procedures identified certain immaterial differences,” all of which “are currently being addressed by management or will naturally be corrected by year-end.” These immaterial differences amounted to a net $35,000 for the first nine months of 2009.
8. Grant Thornton Letter: “We have also read Item 4.02 of Form 8-K of, Inc. (‘the Company’) dated November 16, 2009 and disagree with the statements concerning our Firm contained therein. During the course of our incomplete review of the Company’s September 30, 2009 financial statements, we advised the Company that disclosure should be made to prevent future reliance on its March 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009 financial statements. We advised the company [sic] to make the disclosure because we became aware that material modifications should be made to the previously filed 2009 interim financial statements to conform with US GAAP.”
This is incorrect. As noted above, on October 30, Grant Thornton sent a report to our audit committee stating that “[w]e have concluded our review of the most recent interim quarter,” and nowhere in its October 30 report is there any advice from Grant Thornton that we should make disclosure to prevent future reliance on our Q1 or Q2 2009 financial statements. Such an omission from such a report seems conclusive of the fact that this was not an issue until our audit committee dismissed Grant Thornton. In addition, on November 13 – after our audit committee dismissed Grant Thornton – our Senior Vice President, Finance specifically asked Mr. Haycock (the managing partner of the Grant Thornton Salt Lake office) whether Grant Thornton had communicated to our audit committee that we should take actions or make disclosures concerning our Q1 and Q2 2009 financial statements, and we noted that any such communications would trigger a Form 8-K filing requirement for us. Mr. Haycock answered that Grant Thornton had not made any such communications. Grant Thornton only gave us such advice later on November 13 in a letter to the chairwoman of our audit committee.

Byrne wraps it up this way, naturally:

As I said in my November 16 letter, our finance and legal teams continue to work with the SEC on the issues addressed in its comment letters, and once these issues are resolved (and we have engaged another independent audit firm), we will file a reviewed Q3 Form 10-Q/A.
Your humble servant,
Patrick M. Byrne

Oh yeah, did we mention they’re still looking for an auditor? Shockingly, there are still no takers.
The final numbers from our poll show that KPMG is the winner of auditor most likely to be fired next by We’re still waiting to hear who’s actually entertaining the idea of sabotaging their own firm with this little treat of a company. Stay tuned.
GC Coverage of Thornton:
Grant Thornton: Patrick Byrne’s Pants Are on Fire Receives Delisting Notice, Really, Really, Really Needs an Auditor Fires Grant Thornton, Files Unreviewed 10-Q, CEO Remains Humble
Also see: Overstock: Actually, Grant Thornton Is Lying [Silicon Alley Insider]