| Silicon Alley Insider The pissing match between Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne and his former accounting firm continues. Last week, in a very unusual move, Byrne announced that he had fired Grant Thornton because the firm had changed its mind about how Overstock should account for a $785,000 payment that boosted the company's bottom line in Q1. Then, in an even more unusual move, Grant Thornton said Byrne was lying. It also explained clearly, which Byrne hadn't, that Overstock's accounting treatment had improved the company's bottom line in Q1 and that Grant Thornton believed this accounting was incorrect. Now Byrne says that it is Grant Thornton that is lying: Grant Thornton Letter: "We disagree with the Company's statement inparagraph 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... It was only after we received the SEC's November 3 letter, which questioned our accounting treatment for the overpayment recovery and asked whether we had consulted with our auditors' national offices, that Mr. Eldredge (as well as the managing partner of the Grant Thornton Salt Lake office, Gordy Haycock) took the position we had incorrectly accounted for the partner overpayment recovery. When we pointed out that we had asked that their initial advice be confirmed by national office, and had in fact received that confirmation, Grant Thorton's position became that the local engagement team's discussions with the regional and national offices had only been "informal," and that it had not been a "formal request" for national review. To us, it appears that either the Grant Thornton local office was overruled by its regional and national offices, or Grant Thornton became concerned that the SEC would review its conclusions, and only then did Grant Thornton decide to disavow its previous advice. So what happens now? Not much:
|
|