Marketwatch.com

7:59 p.m. EST Feb. 15, 2008

OVERSTOCK.COM OBTAINS ANOTHER POSITIVE RULING IN PRIME BROKERAGE LITIGATION

Court Gives Overstock.com the Okay to Continue to Proceed on California's Securities Anti-Fraud Cause of Action and Portions of California's Unfair Business Practices Act Cause of Action

Salt Lake City, Feb, 15, 2008/PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTES/-Overstock.com,Inc. (OSTK) (http://www.overstock.com) announced today another favorable ruling in the lawsuit pending in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco against most of the largest prime brokerage firms in the country, including Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Swisse(USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., UBS Financial Services, Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

On February 15, 2008, Judge John Munter of the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco denied defendants' motion to strike Overstock's claims under California's Securities Anti-Fraud statute. Judge Munter also denied defendants' motion to strike Overstock's common law punitive damages claims. Judge Munter granted in part the defendants' motion to strike Overstock's claims under California's Unfair Business Practices Act, but allowed Overstock's claims for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Business Practices Act.

"This case continues forward for us," said Jonathan Johnson, Overstock Senior Vice President of Legal. "We are eager to start the next round of discovery and obtain trading records from the defendants, records which we expect will expose in detail the defendants' misconduct."

The suit alleges that the defendants, who control over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in a massive, illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering such orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as "fails to deliver." The suit also alleges that the defendants' actions caused and continue to cause dramatic distortions with regard to the nature and amount of trading in the company's stock which caused the share price of the company's stock to dramatically drop. The suit asserts that a persistant large number of "fails to deliver" creates large downard pressure on the price of a company's stock and that the amount of "fails to deliver" has exceeded the company's entire supply of outstanding shares. The company is seeking damages of $3.48 billion.