From Usana’s 8-K:

In connection with GT’s review of the Company’s unaudited financial statements that were included in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for quarter ended March 31, 2007, the Audit Committee and GT disagreed as to the scope of the procedures to be performed by the auditors and disagreed as to the extent to which the Audit Committee should engage new, independent consultants to respond to what the Company and its Audit Committee deemed to be unfounded and unwarranted accusations leveled against the Company by a third-party detractor. These disagreements led to further discussions between the Audit Committee and GT, which were resolved to the satisfaction of GT, the Company, and the Audit Committee. As a result of these discussions, the Audit Committee engaged select advisers to render advice with respect to certain of the third party allegations, and GT completed its review of the Company’s first quarter 2007 financial statements. The Company has authorized GT to respond fully to any inquiries of a successor accountant.

So the auditors wanted a different scope (amount or depth) of procedures performed. One can assume the auditors wanted more and Usana wanted less. No company in its right mind would object to if the auditors wanted it the other way around.

It also seems that Grant Thornton suggested that Usana should engage independent consultants to help respond to the fraud allegations in the report done by Barry Minkow and Fraud Discovery Institute (including me).

All in all, it still appears that Grant Thornton wanted more examination of the financials and Usana wanted less, so they fired the auditors.

Note also that Grant Thornton reviewed first quarter numbers, and not the record setting second quarter numbers just announced by the company.