|
|
| RBC Makes Up Its Mind |
 |
|
Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:33 PM EDT
|
Royal Bank of Canada has notified SCO it has elected to convert 10,000 shares of SCO's Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock it currently holds into a total of 740,740 shares of SCO's common stock. Further, it has sold 20,000 shares of Series A-1 stock to BayStar so that "after completion of the conversion, Royal Bank of Canada will have no equity interest in SCO other than the shares of common stock it receives from the conversion." Statement from RBC: "RBC spokesman Paul Wilson confirmed the transactions but declined to detail the bank's motives other than saying, 'It's a business decision.'" More media coverage here. Here is a BayStar statement by Bob McGrath: "RBC's move could now give BayStar more economic clout. McGrath declined to discuss the terms of the company's purchase of the additional A-1 shares or to offer details on which party initiated the deal. "'The timing and price of our purchase of RBC's holdings in SCO presented a strategic and financial opportunity for BayStar and its investors,' he said, in a prepared statement.
According to Stacey Quandt, principal analyst of Quandt, 'RBC probably went into the deal as an investment, and now they appear to have lost confidence in SCO's ability to win its case, so they've decided to cut their losses.'"
A new 8K reflecting the event is here.
Here is the press release.
**************************
The SCO Group Receives From Royal Bank of Canada Notice of Conversion and Transfer of Shares of Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock
Friday May 7, 2:00 pm ET
LINDON, Utah, May 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions and the owner of the UNIX operating system, received on May 5, 2004 notice that Royal Bank of Canada has elected to convert 10,000 shares of SCO's Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock it currently holds into a total of 740,740 shares of SCO's common stock. The conversion will occur as permitted under SCO's Certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights relating to the Series A-1 stock. The Series A-1 stock was purchased at a price of $1,000 per share, and will be converted to common stock based on a conversion price of $13.50 per share.
Additionally, Royal Bank of Canada informed SCO that it has sold 20,000 shares of Series A-1 stock to BayStar Capital II, L.P., which currently also holds shares of Series A-1 stock. After completion of the conversion, Royal Bank of Canada will have no equity interest in SCO other than the shares of common stock it receives from the conversion, and BayStar Capital II, L.P. will be the sole remaining holder of outstanding shares of Series A-1 stock.
About SCO
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com.
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of their respective owners.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
and according to my calculations, at close today scox has been under $10.50 for
twenty days[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AIB on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
| Here please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
| The usual courtesy to PJ, people. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cfitch on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
The next week or so should be VERY interesting with respect to SCO...
or at least I think it should be...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Lastaii on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
So does this mean BayStar now has 40K of A-1 stock? That should
prove...Interesting :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:02 PM EDT
- Not so fast - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: overshoot on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- Nonsense. - Authored by: EdisonRex on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Be careful what you wish for... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: sef on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: wepprop on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: crs17 on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 06:05 PM EDT
- Oh dear.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:47 AM EDT
- Oh dear.... Could Baystar go after CANOPY for being part of a Con if they lose money? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- According to LAMLAW - Authored by: tangomike on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:07 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
is it possible that there was a clause in the deal whereby BayStar would be
required to take some of the preferred shares off of RBC's hands if some
particular set of conditions were to be met?
That is, did BayStar take on the shares because they had to, or because they
think they can make money from them?
If it's the second one, and we know BS is already trying to redeem it's other
20,000 preferred shares, that has to imply that RBC took a serious bath in that
transaction too. What price do we think RBC got for each of its $1000 face-value
shares...?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KBellve on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
Royal Bank of Canada has elected to convert 10,000 shares of SCO's
Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock it currently holds into a total of
740,740 shares of SCO's common stock. The conversion will occur as permitted
under SCO's Certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights relating to the
Series A-1 stock. The Series A-1 stock was purchased at a price of $1,000
per share, and will be converted to common stock based on a conversion price of
$13.50 per share.
Does this mean that the 740,740 shares then
get converted to what the stock is worth today? For example, 740,740 shares *
13.50 = $9,999,990.00 which would buy 1,666,665 shares if the shares are
valued at $6. $$9,999,990 is more than 10% of the company. Baystar
now has 30,000 A-1 shares ($1000 each).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
Why did Baystar buy RBC shares of A-1? Today is day 20 of >$10.50 SCOX. I
would have guessed Baystar is going to be asking for some money here real quick.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
Did anybody else notice that SCO no longer claims to "be the owner of
UNIX"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
so is BS now going to be asking SCO for $40M instead of $20M?
stick a fork in SCO. They're done.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
Has anyone been to the Caldera site that is linked off the bottom-right of the
www.sco.com website? here?
I think its
hilarious that it is a picture of a catastrophic volcano erupting with a
menacing lava flow. and it says "A picture is worth a thousand
words..."
It just seems very ironic to me...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
Baystar makes noise threatening to redeem.
Baystar BUYS more preferred stock?!?!
My guess is RBC wanted out and Baystar has lots of Microsoft money to appease
them. The next step will be a carefully arranged "collapse" of SCO
when Baystar redeems with Baystar getting partially "paid" in
"intellectual property" to keep the threat alive as Darl & cronies
don the golden parachutes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RBC Makes Up Its Mind - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- RBC Makes Up Its Mind - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- RBC Makes Up Its Mind - Authored by: Nick Bridge on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- RBC Makes Up Its Mind - Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:18 PM EDT
- Call a parachute rigger! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- RBC Makes Up Its Mind - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Yeah! And then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- GREAT! - Authored by: dmscvc123 on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 06:37 PM EDT
- No, Baystar wanted control. - Authored by: gdeinsta on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- RBC Makes Up Its Mind - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: dracoverdi on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
I'm just an old FORTRAN programmer, could somebody explain how this changes SCOs
and RBCs situation? Is this a financial blow or a show of no confidence? Is RBC
reconfiguring for bailing or does this deprive SCO of litigating capital? It
looks to me like they cashed in their chips and asked Baystar to play out their
hand.
---
Pizza is an acceptable breakfast.
Just think of it as a large pepperoni danish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ray08 on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
within 1/2 hour, I saw this on Yahoo when I was checking the stock price. I
guess RBC has a vote of no confidence?? RBC should sell the common stock ASAP,
while it still has "some" value![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
Any bets on whether or not SCO shows any infringing code at this year's SCO
Forum?
The banner on their site says "Register Early and Win". I wonder if
you when the famous breif-case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT - SCO Forum - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:56 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
I hope *someone* thought to bring marshmellows.
The Flatlander
Blake Stowell: The lying infidels from BayStar claim that they are at the Salt
Lake City Airport, coming to collect their money. Nothing could be further from
the truth. They are not here. They do not want their money back. We will send
them home with an IOU. We own UNIX. We own Linux. We are the Great and
Powerful SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
An investing question from a non expert.
If RBC places an order
sell these freaking shares at any price, as fast as you can!!! for
a volume of 740,740 shares...
- would this potentially affect the
stock price?
- in what way might the price be affected?
- what effect, if
any, might this have on the long term outlook of the company?
- are there any
other concerns a wise investor should have?
Any good investing tips
appreciated. (Especially when they are from an internet site! rather than
someone qualified to give investing advice.)
Thanks!---
The price
of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
RBC once let it slip that this investment was a hedge. If they short-sold at,
say $16, they would not be losing money at all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
by the time RBC gets to redeem those 740,740 shares, SCOX will be worth about 50
cents.
corporate greed at it's best
YEAH!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
| .....nocomment.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RLP on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
Why do I envision SCOG, Baystar, RBC, Microsoft et al standing in a circle each
trying to pick the others pockets?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
Anyone know where to find out if Baystar is publicly owned? If they are,
wouldn't their purchase of the A-1 series show up on their books at some point?
RS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
Why would Baystar expose itself with $20 million more in high risk
investment in SCOG, especially after they said they wanted to 'cut & run'
from the first 10 million investment.
For the Royal Bank 20 million is
pocket change (so to speak) but for Baystar it's huge ( see www.baystarcapital.com )
There must be a lot more to this that is not public knowledge, even the first
investment flies in the face of Baystar's criteria for investments www.baystarcapital.com
/public/strategy.html
What are the missing pieces to this puzzle? on
the face it looks like Baystar is betting their reputation (and by extension
perhaps their company) on this insanely high risk play, it doesn't seem
reasonable that they would increase their exposure 3X just like
that?
from Baystar's strategy page:
Investment
criteria include:
- An experienced management team with relevant skills and
expertise.
- A well articulated, growth-oriented business plan.
Sustainable growth and increasing market share for revenue producing companies.
- Leading technology and demonstrable, objective progress for development
stage companies.
- Appropriate use of proceeds.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
About SCO
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps
millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with
UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide
network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services
provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers.
For more information on SCO products and services visit
http://www.sco.com.
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or
registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries.
UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other
countries. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of their
respective owners.
Interesting how this changes over time.
None of the usual inflammatory "we own Linux and Unix" tripe this episode. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
Remember that RBC said it took on the SCO stake to hedge a client position. It
is likely that, via a derivative, all the price risk on the SCO has been pushed
over to the client, so that (i) RBC was indifferent as to the price it realized
on the SCO stake and (ii) RBC was taking directions from its client on the
disposition of the SCO stake. Thus, in analyzing the conversion/sale, don't
think about its impact on RBC (none), but rather about its impact on the RBC
hedge client.
RBC may be delivering the conversion shares to its hedge client (likely for the
client to sell to close out its own short position) or selling the shares in the
market on behalf of the client (with the derivative providing that any RBC
losses on the sale get reimbursed by the client).
The reason only 740,000 were converted is the provision in Article XIV.A of the
Certificate of Designation of the Series A-1 Pfd Stock that limits the
conversion rights of a Series A-1 holder to 5% of SCO stock -- if the 5%
threshhold were crossed, I believe NASDAQ rules would have required a
shareholder approval. Such provision provides that the residual is to be paid
in cash. Why didn't RBC seek to have the residual paid in cash? One would
assume that either (i) BayStar paid it more to sell the remaining A-1 to it or
(ii) the contract with the hedge client provided that the hedge client could
direct the disposition and the hedge client directed the sale to BayStar for
other (non-economic) reasons (perhaps the hedge client wished to keep its hedge
in effect by having the position moved to BayStar, with the hedge contract
perhaps also being moved over from RBC to BayStar).
I question BayStar's legal rights with respect to redemption requests and/or
securities law lawsuit regarding the newly acquired shares -- BayStar will have
acquired such shares with knowledge of SCO's legal infirmities, so that perhaps
it would be deemed to have waived rights to complain about SCO's prior lack of
disclosure.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ray08 on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
| this just in, http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5208396.html?tag=nefd.top [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ray08 on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
| http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/windows_worm_tax/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gray_eminence on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
I was browsing at a local bookstore and noticed the cover story of the current
Business 2.0 all about Gates working to command the movie industry and force
Windows DRM.
What caught my eye in the article, was a quote that has been enlarged for
effect. It was a Hollywood studio exec. stating that they would prefer OPEN
STANDARDS, but for now Microsoft has the best solution.
It's interesting to watch a well concieved concept begin to seep into mainstream
collective thought.
---
-Justin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: captainhaddock on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:13 PM EDT |
Wow, RBC just spent $10 million to buy about $4.4 million worth of SCO stock.
And even that was overvalued. Just wait and see what happens to the stock price
when they try unloading it on the market!
Hey, RBC manager who decided to invest in SCO! Yeah, I'm talking to you! You
just piddled away $6 million dollars by investing in a societal leech. You gave
all that cash away so SCO could use it to threaten and harrass Linux users, and
now you have nothing to show for it. Put that on your resume, eh? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ray08 on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
http://business.newsforge.com/business/04/05/07/1942220.shtml?tid=20&tid=85
Any ideas what happened 2 weeks ago that RBC is referring to?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
Link
'In an interview today, Perens said he is joining
the board to help the group remain consistent with the ethics of the open-source
developer community.
"The open-source [community] has its own view of
what you can and cannot do with a commercial exploitation of it," he said. "If
they feel that Linux and open-source are becoming too much of a commercial
playground, they're going to stop developing."'
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
Are we looking at an old fashioned proxy-war between IBM and Microsoft? Will
this be Microsofts Vietnam?
The problem with proxy wars is that the neigbours often get hurt.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
Fortune magizine sends me a free subscription. It arrived today with
"Corporate Enemy No. 1" and a picture of Darl McBride on the cover. I
have not read it yet.
What a distorted picture it presents. It sayse he is demanding money from big
companies everywhere. It does not say he can't produce any evidence on the
cover. What editorial ignorance that they have left out the most significant
aspect of his claim off their cover.
Please let them know. www.fortune.com. Hopefully you will read the article
before I do.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rvergara on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
May be there is a flaw in my thinking, if so please comment.
What if the secret BS client is IBM or an IBM proxy?
Wouldn't this mean that after a few weeks IBM would be in possesion of most of
the surviving assets after the upcoming SCO Bankruptcy?
I mean $40M for having all charges dropped is peanuts, it is probably less than
legal fees for a multiannual court case. At the same time they would keep the
Unix claims for themselves as a back up plan just in case ...
am I becoming paranoic with the SCO case or this scenario holds any water?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
with updates gets confusing. Don't know what is new and not. Or new stuff gets
missed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
| ...in seeing some bad publicity for the fud factory (SCOX). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KentWA on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
<hat type="tinfoil>
What if Baystar did not want out when they asked for conversion, knowing that
TSCOG could not afford to cough up the cash. They really wanted someone in the
CEO position that did not give a damn about the possible damage inflicted to
others and would run with the legal front harder.
TSCOG resisted every effort to effect that change. So how do you turn up the
heat? Baystar has likely gotten other investors to agree to their tactics of
replacement of management. But maybe not enough to really force the issue. There
may be some fence sitters, etc.
So they buy the A-1 shares from RBC, RBC converts what they can to cover their
short position. This allows RBC to get out in a manner that RBC can accept. Now
Baystar can go to those fence sitters and say "If we do not get some
movement on management replacement RBC is ready to drop all 700K of shares onto
the market and make your position worth $0.00.
Now they have the power to effect a serious proxy war. Something to think
about.
</hat type="tinfoil>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What if? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 07:37 PM EDT
- What if? - Authored by: Rudisaurus on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:14 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
There are some interesting discussions happening on Yahoo at the moment
regarding the issue of how the remand to state court should be addressed.
Basically there are a couple of cases cited which are potentially helpful for
SCOX as they explain that the federal issue must arise directly from the
complaint, it can't just be something that comes up from the defense. The Yahoo
posters think SCOX could try to argue on the 11th that the complaint doesn't
contain a federal issue that is essential to the case.
I believe they are wrong, the request to transfer the copyrights that Novell
have registered to SCOX is a federal issue but it is being argued it is non
essential. I believe it is essential because unless SCOX argue that those
copyrights shouldn't be owned by Novell, Novell have clear title to at least
some copyrights in SysV and the case must fail. I don't think Novell's point
that SCOX haven't argued this point well enough in their complaint so the
complaint should be dismissed stops this from being an essential element, an
element which will get the case dismissed because it hasn't been well enough
argued clearly is essential to the case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rvenhola on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
I think that IBM discovered that the I.P. was owned by OldSCO (probably Novell
showed them) and never properly transferred to NewSCO and that both RBC and
BayStar were "informed" by IBM of the Unix95 standard and the
OpenGroup (if RBC and Baystar knew about the Open Group previously, why on earth
would they invest in SCOX?).
Darl and co. need to move the I.P, to make their cases work, but doing that
would require approval of two thirds of the preferred shareholders to agree.
RBC selling to Baystar consolidates the preferred shares so that Baystar has
100% and therefore can veto the transfer. I am guessing they would want to veto
it, as the transfer would somehow make their investment useless, which gets to
the heart of the matter why Baystar wants a change in management. I think
Baystar wants a new managment team that guts all software activities except a
dozen people doing support for existing products and the rest of the company (20
lawyers?) focused on the litigation potentials.
This is going to drag on for years.
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
I'm not a stock market expert but it seems to me that the reason that BayStar
bought the A1 stocks from RBC is that they did not want to see 1.48M shares of
common stock for sale. In my opinion this would cause SCOX to drop to $2-4 - a
much too uncontrolled drop for SCOG execs, Canopy and BS. They need more time to
bleed off the capital and assets that SCOG has. If memory serves most of the
insiders bought their SCOX stocks at $1-2 per share so they want to sell off
their holdings at at least $4-5 per share. While BS needs to try and recoup some
of their investment, the only way is to try (pray) that SCOX stablizes till they
can force SCOG to give them some of their money back. I realize that M$
recommended SCOG to BS, but if there is no document guaranteeing that BS will
recoup their investment in SCOG then BS will be left holding an empty bag.
vegast
I realize I'm only the hired help here but I don't do Windows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
RBC - An enormous financial institution which invested $30m on behalf of someone
else??? Has lost none of its own money, indeed has probably made plenty on fees
etc., but is neither the institution for, or has the interest in, a prolonged
fight over technical issues in the computer world when it can make a billion a
year handling your money and mine without sullying its reputation.
Baystar - Has already invested $20m (where did that come from??). Has said it is
not happy with the way SCOG are handling the situation. Has said they should
drop their Unix operation and concentrate on IP litigation. Has now taken over a
$20m interest from RBC on behalf of someone else??? (where did that come
from???). In theory have just doubled their exposure.(If only it were their own
money - it doesn't seem to me as if they are about to give up - this is girding
their loins for the fight and ditching the uninterested party(RBC)).
Microsoft - (where did that come from???). Whats $40m or $400m in the fight
their in. They've just spent over $2000m settling litigation they've been
fighting for years. Clearing the decks to bring up the canons.
Sun - (where did they go???). Has a lot of sympathy amongst the Unix crowd. Many
grew up with them 15 years ago when they were certainly pioneers. (Look at the
confusion, even on Groklaw, when Sun are discussed). However, they made their
money on hardware and that is now out of the window(ha! ha!). Have just been
taken over by M$.
SCOG - (where will they go???). How often have the vanguard been wiped out,
trying to find out the strength of the opposition? Baystar will wipe out Darl,
but they will keep the shell of SCOG, and fight the court case, until M$(or
those secretive $40m backers) decide its a bad idea. 2010 anyone???
This war has just started.
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
Fom the wire: "The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News),
a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions and the owner of the UNIX operating
system", are these boys leading anything? Surely it is against the rules
to say you lead (in any way), UNIX (TM), any other OS etc. if you're SCO? Is it
not factualy incorrect to imply or cause to believe that these boys will lead
you anywhere except to distruction? They lead nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
I am only guessing. I have read comments from TSG/Canopy that TSG could
be turned into a private company if conditions favor it. With much of the
equity in a few hands at BayStar and Canopy, control is concentrated.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 11:00 PM EDT |
2 weeks ago would be about the timeframe for BayStar's complaining about SCO
violating the investment contract provisions and demanding their money back,
wouldn't it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 07 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
Note that BS did not buy all the A-1 preferred.
Only enough to claim the majority of the SCO cash.
If they get an injunction and can make a succesful case
they may get their money.
Did BS pay $1000 per share for the stock? unlikely.
It is possible the BS may get a large percentage of
their money back, maybe even make a profit.
RBC may have a profit also but unlikely.
I think they got left with the 10,000 A-1 shares because
BS wouldn't take it and coversion was the best deal available.
An early filing by BS will solve this mystery.
mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rickmci on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
>>> This war has just started.
This would be true. SCOX and unix dies and Linux and IBM fight in court for
years spending the money of BayStar who was introduced by no other than
Microsoft. I smell something here.
Lets see Unix dies with BatStars demand to SCO to drop the Unix product and
fight the IP battle only, and Linux future is couded by years of law suites. Who
stands to gain the most here?
Am I the only on that things that Microsoft is behind all of this crap? Darl and
his boys are the stooges.
Microsoft is trying to kill Unix and Linux all at the same time.
Hello? Justice Department. Are you there? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JustFree on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
I think Rob Enderle has some amazing insight. This can be seen if you read The "Mystery of
BayStar, Microsoft and SCO" written on April 26, 2004. If you read the
article several times you can come to the conclusion that what he really means
is coded. He had predicted that RBC would sell all its shares in SCO, and that
BayStar would be on the hook for purchasing most of them. Just pure
brillance.
Okay, I am really being scarcastic but I could not resist.
Groklaw is the light at the end of the tunnel.
Shine
brightly Groklaw. RBC has found it way out of the tunnel, and many more will
follow.
Referring to Rob Enderle's article do not reading
it.
---
as in free speech get it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:29 AM EDT |
| I had to say this: RBC's appetite for risk is history. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:34 AM EDT |
It would be nice to find that little string that leads to the personal fortune
of somone at Microsoft. There must be records somewhere......
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
Hehe, RBC's stomach couldn't bear SCO anymore. Will M$ gobble it up now? So, M$
will own all unix, linux and windows :)
Or, they will own only a pile of wasted paper.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 05:33 AM EDT |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/bank_sells_sco_stock/
...it's quite possible that BayStar may choose to acquire SCO's IP and pursue
the cases against IBM, Novell and Linux customers by itself...
interesting???[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
I was wondering is this GNU/Linux thing worth learning?
Will it ever catch on?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
With all this talk of Sys V copyrights (if SCO does own it) changing hands, I
am wondering whether SCO can be wound up before the lawsuits are settled. I
would think not, since the value of the company cannot be ascertained until the
considerable damages SCO will have to pay to IBM and others is known. The
liquidator will have to run the company until then.
I also doubt if the Sys V IP (if SCO does own it) can be sold on because it will
condemn SCO to bankrupcy (if indeed it has any value) because this would clearly
be a case of transferring assets to get out of paying damages to IBM when SCO
loses the case, and without the copyrights to Sys V code, even the pretence that
SCO has a case disappears.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CyberCFO on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
I haven't seen anyone speculate yet that the conversion may just be a way for
RBC to cover a short position without driving up the market price of the stock,
thus preserving their gain. Maybe RBC did have a short position and actually
have exited this deal with a gain.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
If Canopy has such confidence in SCO, why did they go to Baystar/RBC in the
first place? If they have such confidence, why didn't the scoop up all the
preferred shares instead of Baystar? It's not like Canopy doesn't have the
money. It looks like Canopy knows they've got a loser on their hands, so they're
passing the costs onto others (when insiders are selling rather than buying
that's a pretty big clue) with the greater fool theory. It's not like Baystar is
going to get any real control over SCO since the Canopy people will still
control more stock than Baystar no matter what.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Good Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:06 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
____________________________________________
A child has been sent into the world. A special child. He speaks every language.
He helps connects us all together. He is growing fast. He is open and everyone
who works with him works better. His name is linux.
____________________________________________
Hehe... Lawsuit? What lawsuit? Oh, you mean that pesky little thing.
What me worry?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codswallop on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
The conversion situation between the two was a game theory problem. Whoever
converted first got all stock. The last $12 million would be in cash. So if RBC
converted and sold (they'd have to sell 1,5 million shares, at least by
contract), they'd get may $4 ashare or so for the 2.25 million shares or $9
million on a $30 million investment, maybe $12 or$13 million if they're hedged a
lot. Baystar was in a similar position.
If Baystar gave RBC $.50 on the dollar or $10 miilionfor 20,000 shares of
preferred, and RBC has hedged the 750,00 it sold at it's floor price, they get
$20 million and are out clean and out of the spotlight. Not a bad deal,
considering.
Baystar now have 40,000 shares. If they converted they'd get maybe $20 million
with some luck on a $30 million investment. The investment is more, but the loss
isn't worse. Plus they still have the possibility of a redemption now worth $44
million and a lot more leverage.
SCO really can't afford to give them even $12 million. I suspect at this point
Baystar would make them an offer they can't refuse, like a better conversion
price in exchange for an all stock deal and a removal of the 4.9% ownership cap
and/or more control over the company.
If they went all stock, I supect they'd want north of 5 million shares, given
the current price, risk, loss of income, loss of stock seniority in liquidation
etc. This is as big a stake as Canopy.
If SCO won't play, they can try redemption, and if that doesn't work,
conversion. They're no worse off than they were before the RBC deal, so the
threat is real. Venture types play hardball. I suspect they've got their ducks
all in a row.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
When SCO runs out of cash to pay its lawyers, could it not sell its IP to some
other company. (The cases against IBM and others will probable just fizzle out
as SCO will then just be an empty shell - no employees, no assets, zero-value
shares etc.).
The new owners of the IP could then start a new set of cases - as it has no
contracts, it would have to be for copyright infringement.
When the new set of cases reach the point where they can be delayed no more, the
company just sells the IP on to someone else who initiates another set of
cases.
This whole exercise can be maintained at relatively small cost, and no risk,
indefinitely. Clearly it needs someone to organise the thing. Someone whose sole
objective is FUD.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
