Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY)

In June 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special committee of independent directors with authority, among other things, to conduct an investigation with respect to the setting of exercise prices for employee stock options and related matters. The review identified various deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options and restricted shares. As a result of the deficiencies, the Company revised the measurement dates for various option grants.

As a result of revised measurement dates for certain stock option grants, and the correction of various other errors, the Company determined that it had certain unrecorded non-cash equity-based compensation charges of $61.8 million, including related tax items related to fiscal years prior to 2006. In accordance with the provisions of Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 108, “Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements,” the Company decreased beginning retained earnings for fiscal 2006 by $61.8 million within the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company’s Board of Directors also approved a remediation program intended to protect over 1,600 employees from certain potential adverse tax consequences. These adverse tax consequences arise pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 409A as a result of historical deficiencies associated with certain of the Company’s stock option grants that were disclosed through the Company’s stock option review. As a result of this program, the Company made cash payments totaling approximately $30.0 million to over 1,600 employees in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006, which resulted in a non-recurring, pre-tax stock-based compensation charge. The cash outlay primarily represented payments to employees in connection with increasing the exercise prices on certain stock option grants so as to protect them from certain potential adverse tax consequences. No executive officer received such payments. The Company believes it is likely the Company will recoup a substantial portion of the anticipated cash outlay over the next several years through higher proceeds from future stock option exercises, although this recovery would not flow through the income statement.

Counsel to the special committee notified the SEC of the review. Following such self-reporting, the SEC Staff commenced an informal inquiry and the United States Attorney’s office for the District of New Jersey commenced an inquiry regarding these matters.

During fiscal 2007, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey concluded its inquiry and indicated it will take no further action related to this matter. During the fiscal first quarter of 2009, the SEC Division of Enforcement informed the Company that it concluded its inquiry and was recommending that no enforcement action be taken with respect to this matter.

The Company’s past stock option granting procedures have exposed the Company to risk factors that could have a material adverse affect on the Company’s business and financial condition, including any tax implications relating to the Company’s stock option grants.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires the Company to establish accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on other assumptions that it believes to be relevant under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. In particular, judgment is used in areas such as inventory valuation, impairment of long-lived assets, goodwill and other indefinitely lived intangible assets, accruals for self insurance, litigation, store opening, expansion, relocation and closing costs, stock-based compensation and income taxes. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

24

Review of Equity Grants and Procedures and Related Matters in Fiscal 2006

In June 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special committee of two independent members of the Board of Directors, with authority, among other things, to conduct an investigation with respect to the setting of exercise prices for employee stock options and related matters as the special committee deemed appropriate. The special committee retained independent counsel who engaged outside accounting advisors to assist with the review. This review was completed and on October 9, 2006, the special committee presented its report to the Company’s Board of Directors.

The review of stock option grants and procedures identified various deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options and restricted shares described below. As a result of the deficiencies, the special committee recommended, among other things, that the Company revise the measurement dates under APB No. 25, for 16 annual option grant dates, 26 monthly grant dates and 2 special grant dates (revisions of 2 annual, 4 monthly and 1 special grant dates have no accounting impact because prices on the revised dates were lower than on the measurement dates previously recorded by the Company). As a result of these revised measurement dates and the correction of various other errors relating to the accounting for equity-based compensation, the Company determined that from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal 2005, it had certain unrecorded non-cash equity-based compensation charges associated with its equity-based compensation plans.

40

In June 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special committee of two independent members of the Board of Directors, with authority, among other things, to conduct an investigation with respect to the setting of exercise prices for employee stock options and related matters as the special committee deemed appropriate. The special committee retained independent legal counsel who engaged outside accounting advisors to assist with the review. This review was completed and on October 9, 2006, the special committee presented its report to the Company’s Board of Directors.

The review identified various deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options and restricted shares. As a result of these deficiencies, the special committee recommended, among other things, revised measurement dates for certain stock option grants. The exercise price for most of these stock option grants was less than the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the revised measurement date.

As a result of these revised measurement dates, and the correction of various other errors, the Company determined that it had certain unrecorded non-cash equity-based compensation charges related to fiscal years prior to 2006. (See “Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements When Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements,” Note 3.)

The Company’s Board of Directors also approved a remediation program intended to protect over 1,600 employees from certain potential adverse tax consequences.

53

In June 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special committee of independent directors with authority, among other things, to conduct an investigation with respect to the setting of exercise prices for employee stock options and related matters. The review identified various deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options and restricted shares. As a result of the deficiencies, the Company revised the measurement dates for various option grants.

As a result of revised measurement dates for certain stock option grants, and the correction of various other errors, the Company determined that it had certain unrecorded non-cash equity-based compensation charges of $61.8 million, including related tax items related to fiscal years prior to 2006. In accordance with the provisions of Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 108, “Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements,” the Company decreased beginning retained earnings for fiscal 2006 by $61.8 million within the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company’s Board of Directors also approved a remediation program intended to protect over 1,600 employees from certain potential adverse tax consequences. These adverse tax consequences arise pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 409A as a result of historical deficiencies associated with certain of the Company’s stock option grants that were disclosed through the Company’s stock option review. As a result of this program, the Company made cash payments totaling approximately $30.0 million to over 1,600 employees in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006, which resulted in a non-recurring, pre-tax stock-based compensation charge. The cash outlay primarily represented payments to employees in connection with increasing the exercise prices on certain stock option grants so as to protect them from certain potential adverse tax consequences. No executive officer received such payments. The Company believes it is likely the Company will recoup a substantial portion of the anticipated cash outlay over the next several years through higher proceeds from future stock option exercises, although this recovery would not flow through the income statement.

Counsel to the special committee notified the SEC of the review. Following such self-reporting, the SEC Staff commenced an informal inquiry and the United States Attorney’s office for the District of New Jersey commenced an inquiry regarding these matters.

During fiscal 2007, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey concluded its inquiry and indicated it will take no further action related to this matter. During the fiscal first quarter of 2009, the SEC Division of Enforcement informed the Company that it concluded its inquiry and was recommending that no enforcement action be taken with respect to this matter.

The Company’s past stock option granting procedures have exposed the Company to risk factors that could have a material adverse affect on the Company’s business and financial condition, including any tax implications relating to the Company’s stock option grants.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires the Company to establish accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on other assumptions that it believes to be relevant under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. In particular, judgment is used in areas such as inventory valuation, impairment of long-lived assets, goodwill and other indefinitely lived intangible assets, accruals for self insurance, litigation, store opening, expansion, relocation and closing costs, stock-based compensation and income taxes. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

23

Review of Equity Grants and Procedures and Related Matters in Fiscal 2006

In June 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special committee of two independent members of the Board of Directors, with authority, among other things, to conduct an investigation with respect to the setting of exercise prices for employee stock options and related matters as the special committee deemed appropriate. The special committee retained independent counsel who engaged outside accounting advisors to assist with the review. This review was completed and on October 9, 2006, the special committee presented its report to the Company’s Board of Directors.

The review of stock option grants and procedures identified various deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options and restricted shares described below. As a result of the deficiencies, the special committee recommended, among other things, that the Company revise the measurement dates under APB No. 25, for 16 annual option grant dates, 26 monthly grant dates and 2 special grant dates (revisions of 2 annual, 4 monthly and 1 special grant dates have no accounting impact because prices on the revised dates were lower than on the measurement dates previously recorded by the Company). As a result of these revised measurement dates and the correction of various other errors relating to the accounting for equity-based compensation, the Company determined that from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal 2005, it had certain unrecorded non-cash equity-based compensation charges associated with its equity-based compensation plans.

39

In June 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special committee of two independent members of the Board of Directors, with authority, among other things, to conduct an investigation with respect to the setting of exercise prices for employee stock options and related matters as the special committee deemed appropriate. The special committee retained independent legal counsel who engaged outside accounting advisors to assist with the review. This review was completed and on October 9, 2006, the special committee presented its report to the Company’s Board of Directors.

The review identified various deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options and restricted shares. As a result of these deficiencies, the special committee recommended, among other things, revised measurement dates for certain stock option grants. The exercise price for most of these stock option grants was less than the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the revised measurement date.

As a result of these revised measurement dates, and the correction of various other errors, the Company determined that it had certain unrecorded non-cash equity-based compensation charges related to fiscal years prior to 2006. (See “Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements When Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements,” Note 3.)

The Company’s Board of Directors also approved a remediation program intended to protect over 1,600 employees from certain potential adverse tax consequences.

52

In June 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special committee of two independent members of the Board of Directors, with authority, among other things, to conduct an investigation with respect to the setting of exercise prices for employee stock options and related matters as the special committee deemed appropriate. The special committee retained independent legal counsel who engaged outside accounting advisors to assist with the review. This review was completed and on October 9, 2006, the special committee presented its report to the Company’s Board of Directors.

The review identified various deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options and restricted shares. As a result of these deficiencies, the special committee recommended, among other things, revised measurement dates for certain stock option grants. The exercise price for most of these stock option grants was less than the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the revised measurement date.

As a result of these revised measurement dates, and the correction of various other errors, the Company determined that it had certain unrecorded non-cash equity-based compensation charges related to fiscal years prior to 2006. (See “Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements When

47