Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Overstock Lowers Lawsuit Damages?

Recs

3

February 08, 2007 – Comments (5)

-----------

-----------

http://www.f...damages.aspx

-----------

-----------

The headlines should be announcing that Overstock is lowering its damages claim. After all, since the meaningless brokerage upgrade this week on Overstock.com (Nasdaq: OSTK), the stock has been pushed up to $17 a share.

Since Patrick Byrne's latest lawsuit seeks $3.5 billion in damages, as of the time when the stock was trading at $14.50 per share, we should expect to see that damages request reduced by an amount proportional to the subsequent rise in the stock price, right? (Just as the damage request should go up once Overstock dips below $14.50 per share.)

We'd hate to think that America's Most Transparent CEO, a Ph.D. who gave another pile of fairly specific operating targets for Overstock for 2007 and beyond, had a habit of just pulling numbers out of thin air, wouldn't we?

Overstock is a former Rule Breakers pick. Check out the current lineup with a free, 30-day trial.

At the time of publication, Seth Jayson had no positions in company mentioned here. See his latest blog commentary here. View his stock holdings and Fool profile here. Fool rules are here.

5 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 09, 2007 at 2:11 PM, Parsad (< 20) wrote:

Hi Seth,

Just wondering what was the reasoning behind the article? Did you provide value to your reader in any manner? I mean with things like New Century occurring, or the IPO of Fortress, this is the topic you chose to spend your time on? Could you clarify? Thanks very much!

Sanjeev Parsad

Report this comment
#2) On February 09, 2007 at 2:36 PM, TMFBent (99.82) wrote:

Well, it was either that or rate the superhunks. I chose that.

Got a real question?

Report this comment
#3) On February 09, 2007 at 3:36 PM, Parsad (< 20) wrote:

More like "got a real answer!" I'm trying to come to grasp with why you didn't try and put anything of substance into your article. It's an article that goes out to the mainstream media...out for public consumption. There was just nothing of value...fluff journalism. You're a student of Buffett and Graham, you can do better than that!

Report this comment
#4) On February 09, 2007 at 3:42 PM, Parsad (< 20) wrote:

More like "got a real answer!" I'm trying to come to grasp with why you didn't try and put anything of substance into your article. It's an article that goes out to the mainstream media...out for public consumption. There was just nothing of value...fluff journalism. You're a student of Buffett and Graham, you can do better than that!

Report this comment
#5) On February 09, 2007 at 3:46 PM, Parsad (< 20) wrote:

Seth, please ignore the double-post. This thing posted twice when I clicked "backspace." Thanks!

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement