Seeking Alpha
( followers)  
When (NASDAQ:OSTK) announced on May 9 of last year that it had received a subpoena and a notice of investigation, CEO Patrick Byrne said, "I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena." Subsequent SEC filings referred only to the subpoena received by the company, which requested a broad range of document related to such things as the company's accounting policies, targets, projections, estimates and restatements.

Now hear this: In the company's just-filed 10-Q, Overstock disclosed that on May 17 of last year Byrne received a separate subpoena. (Kudos to confessed crook Sam Antar, of, for being first to spot this.)

Why did Byrne wait nearly one full year to disclose that he, too, had received a subpoena?

UPDATED: Byrne responded on Overstock's website. As you might guess, his response was mostly incomprehensible, classic Patrick Byrne mumbo-jumbo that didn't answer the question. Rather than try to summarize it, you can read it here. This truly is one for the books.

Turns out Floyd Norris from the New York Times (read his subscriber-only blog here) and Roddy Boyd of the New York Post asked a question similar to the one I posed: Why did it take you a year to disclose your subpoena? Three reporters asking the same question? Oh my, oh my!

Gary Weiss, who has his own blog, isn't part of Byrne's latest alleged conspiracy because he hadn't lobbed in the same question Floyd, Roddy and I had. But he does put a delicious spin on the story.

Source: Overstock's Byrne Gets SEC Subpoena, Goes Wild