|
|
| SCO Given More Time to Answer IBM Re 3rd Complaint & a New SCO Atty |
 |
|
Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 07:33 AM EST
|
Moving on to the latest in the SCO soap opera, here is an Order [PDF] giving SCO a bit more time to respond to IBM's Opposition to SCO's request to amend their complaint. (It's a sealed document, which is why I am not providing a link.) It's an inconsequential few days, from December 21 to December 29, with Christmas in the middle, so don't let it worry you. Also, it was done on stipulation by the parties, so that means it's inconsequential to IBM as well. It's just the way it works in litigation.
Also, Stuart H. Singer, Esq. would like the honor of appearing for SCO pro hac vice,
and here's the order [PDF] granting his wish.
He's with
Boies, Schiller in Florida. Here are the courts to which he is admitted, according to the application: -
Sup. Ct. of FLA 1983
-
US Sup Ct. 1992
-
US Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. 1986
-
US Dist Ct, Southern District of Florida 1984
-
US Dist Ct. Middle District of Florida 1986
-
US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir, PA. 2003
Stuart Singer is a partner in the firm. His main practice areas, according to his bio on the site (you have to go to the main page and then hunt for him under their lawyers' profiles, by alphabet), "are complex commercial litigation and arbitration, including antitrust, technology and intellectual property, class actions, securities and constitutional law." And here is a description of some cases he's handled for the firm:
"Recent cases have included: serving as lead counsel in arbitration over the sale of a technology business; lead counsel in defense of Fortune 100 company faced with multiple suits from terminated dealers; work on behalf of a major sports organization in defense of antitrust claims; work in connection with firm's successful defense of antitrust claims brought against a large cigarette manufacturer; and a variety of intellectual property and antitrust claims involving one of the world's largest sellers of fresh produce."
The bio indicates he's been in practice for 20 years, and he
"was lead counsel for a Fortune 500 company in successfully resolving over $1 billion in fraud and RICO claims for approximately 1% of potential damages. Mr. Singer also served as lead counsel for a Fortune 500 energy company, handling multiple litigations against parties responsible for accounting fraud. Mr. Singer has represented companies, including several of the country's largest title insurers, in obtaining dismissals of class action lawsuits brought under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act and RICO."
Hmm. Fraud and RICO claims.
He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was an Editor and the President of the Harvard Law Review, and for two years after graduating, he served as a law clerk for Associate Justice Byron R. White at the United States Supreme Court. So, we're talking a heavy hitter here, the cream of the crop, as far as ability is concerned.
Here is a case handled by a Stuart H. Singer, who could be the same Mr. Singer, prior to his joining Boies Schiller. I phrase it that way because it's a common enough name that it is conceivable to me -- another person with a very common name -- that there could be two lawyers with the same name: Acadia Partners v. Tompkins,
a piercing the corporate veil/fraudulent transfer case;
and here's a case I'm sure he worked on, defending Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s patent on a kind of pineapple, a case where the company was accused in a class action suit of a fraud on the PTO and anticompetitive conduct. Fresh Del Monte Produce is a company with an intriguing history.
************************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
-----------------------
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
--------------------
ORDER TO EXTEND
TIME FOR SCO TO FILE REPLY TO
IBM'S OPPOSITION TO SCO'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
----------------------
Based upon the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant The SCO Group, Inc. may have up to
and including December 29, 2004 in which to file a reply to IBM's Opposition
to SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.
DATED this 16th day of December, 2004.
By: _____[signature of Dale A. Kimball]_____
The Court
Approved as to form:
___[signature]____
SNELL & WILMER
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
Evan R. Chesler
Thomas G. Rafferty
David R. Marriott
Attorneys for International Business Machines Corporation
________________________________
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
December 16, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *
Re: 2:03-cv-00294
True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed
or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
EMAIL
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Frederick S. Frei, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
EMAIL
Robert Silver, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mr. David W Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Michael P O'Brien, Esq.
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH
[address]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: entre on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 07:47 AM EST |
| Corrections Here Please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 08:00 AM EST |
OT
Links as html please...
<a href="http://www.example.com/">link</a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What MS thinks is right. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST
- OT: Owning your data - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 02:58 PM EST
- The "beeb" are "getting it" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST
- SmallBASIC - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 05:15 PM EST
- Diamonds are a geek's (new) best friend - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST
- Any chance of getting this settlement opened? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST
- Want more of CDDL (IANAL!) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 06:55 PM EST
- OT here - DVD protection - Authored by: tbogart on Sunday, December 19 2004 @ 12:26 AM EST
- court orders 3 spammers to pay $1 Billion - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 19 2004 @ 01:00 AM EST
- Microsoft 2003 Form 10-K - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 19 2004 @ 09:04 AM EST
- OT Interesting open letter - Authored by: morven24 on Sunday, December 19 2004 @ 09:58 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 08:07 AM EST |
Hmmm, a piercing the corporate veil/fraudulent transfer case?
Is SCOx buying back stock? If so, how much is that costing them? How much cash
do they have on hand? How long can this cash last? Is there enough to pay the
lawyers? Who comes first, the lawyers or the CEO with vested rights to monies?
So- is there a way that lawyers can collect payments for promises from parent
company (Canopy) or from the power behind Canopy (the Norda Family Trust)? And
could this be why they brought this new lawyer on board?
Or could the lawyers be preping for an assult by SCOx shareholders (Baystar) in
an action that might look to jumping thru the corporate veil hoop to get at
Canopy or someone higher?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 08:29 AM EST |
So PJ can find them
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2004 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 09:04 AM EST |
| It's always funny when SCOG says "we were harmed by this" when referring to
something that didn't happen to them, but rather some other company years
ago,
and they merely bought some of their assets.
However, this does bring up an
interesting question. How does liability for
harm work?
Let's say I have
some widget. Late one night, it's mysteriously vandalized and
rendered worth a
tenth of its value. I don't know who did it, so I decide to sell
it, get a bit
of money, and move on. I sell it for 10% of the pre-damage value.
Later,
evidence is discovered of who caused the damage. Who gets to sue
them? In this
scenario, it would seem reasonable for the original owner to
sue, since they
sustained the loss when it was sold.
What if, on the other hand, the damage
was hidden? Clearly it would be
equitable for the new owner to sue, since it
seems they are the ones suffering
the harm caused by the hidden
damage.
Now, what if this is a complicated asset, such as a company, where
it's not
clear whether the price was discounted due to the harm? Who gets to
sue? Is
this something that should be specified in a sale agreeement? Is there
a
default?
Going back to SCOG, what they seem to be claiming is that
they've only just
discovered that the harm caused to their business interests
was deliberate
rather than a result of market forces. Of course, this brings up
an even more
interesting scenario.
Going back to my widget analogy, let's
pretend there was a hurricane and we
all thought that caused the damage. The
fact we only recently discovered that
the damage was deliberate does not, IMHO,
change the fact that the harm
was not caused to SCOG - they got the assets at a
discounted price based on
their value. The fact that (allegedly) IBM's actions
caused reduced sales of
their software didn't harm them - if IBM hadn't done
that, and sales of SCO
software had been stellar, Caldera would've been paid
more. They already got
a good deal, so they weren't harmed.
Do any of the
more legally knowledgeable people here have any comments
about how the law
works with regards to harm caused before the sale of
assets? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 09:11 AM EST |
Stuart Singer's credentials are awefully impressive, but we will treat him as
any of SCOG's lawyers: on the facts, the law, and the facts applicabe to the
law. At this point, I'd say that none of us is sure what role he is going to
play on ASCOG's legal team, but we are certain that he is going to cost SCOG a
pretty penny if he as much as lifts a finger for SCOG. In fact, he may have
already cost SCOG a pretty penny as he has to be paid to bring himself up to
speed on the IBM litigation. Up to now, SCOG's lawyers have succeeded only in
destroying their professional reputations not only with us the non-buying
customers but with any corporate end user who follows the SCOG litigations. If
Stuart Singer can argue SCOG's case without destroying his professional
reputation, that would be quite a huge hat trick. Note that I did not mention
the possibility of SCOG winning its litigation: that probability at this point
is vanishingly small, and the best that SCOG can hope for is delay and damage
control.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 09:39 AM EST |
Get the feeling that SCO doesn't need MORE lawyers, they just need better ones.
Seems the solution is to bring in more lawyers, experts perhaps.
IBM seems to do fine with the lawyers they started with. Its pretty telling.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 09:47 AM EST |
| The bio indicates he's been in practice for 20 years,
and he "was lead
counsel for a Fortune 500 company in
successfully resolving over $1
billion in fraud and RICO
claims for approximately 1% of potential damages.
Mr.
Singer also served as lead counsel for a Fortune 500
energy company,
handling multiple litigations against
parties responsible for accounting
fraud. Mr. Singer has
represented companies, including several of the
country's
largest title insurers, in obtaining dismissals of class
action
lawsuits brought under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, the
Expedited Funds Availability Act and
RICO."
Hmm. Fraud and RICO
claims.
Hmm indeed! I can't help wondering if all the SCO lawyers
are
actually being employed to give SCO advice on how to
commit corporate fraud
and racketeering without their CEOs
ending up in jail, rather than to
prosecute this lawsuit.
If I remember right, Boise's speciality is corporate
fraud
or something like that. From the standard of lawyering on
the case
itself, it would certainly seem so.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 09:50 AM EST |
RE: Mr. Singer.
Fraud and rackets? He is certainly in good company, so to speak. I notice that
he seems to specialize in defending rather than "prosecuting" these
claims. Perhaps the SCO clique are beginning to have bad vibes about where this
is going? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST |
More lawyers to test I.P. law, patents, copyrights, and the GPL!
Bring more and more and MORE, SCO!
The more people we get involved, the more credible and the more established this
ruling will be to set Linux, it's ideas and concepts, in the free world FOREVER!
This case will become the Mother of All cases for future linux litigation
cases.
I say, let's continue and press on so ANYTHING Microsoft send Linux's way will
bounce off an impenetrable legal wall.
This is a test, FOR ALL TIME and FOR ALL FUTURE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, and I
believe, this time, the developers, the market, and the people will win, not
just one company like Microsoft did in the 80's.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 11:06 AM EST |
I had a funny train of thought when I read about this delay .. its from before
Christmas to after - apparently even SCO and company need time out for the
holidays.
SO my mind is flooded with images and sounds from "The Grinch who stole
Christmas" except maybe now called "How the Grinch stole Linux!"
I can just see all the parodies now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kelledin on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 11:12 AM EST |
...hmmm, Enron perhaps? Was the good Mr. Singer
defending this energy
company from fraud claims, or was he
the representing the plaintiff?
This is especially interesting, as a certain court
ruling in the Enron
litigation allowed creditors
to add
some of
Enron's lawyers to a bankruptcy lawsuit. Andrews Kurth and Vinson & Elkins
were named in
particular. I don't see Singer on either
firm's current lawyer list--but that
doesn't mean he never
worked there, or that they list every associate peon who
is or has been on their payroll.
Is anyone in a better position to
trace this than I am?
Just a small detail, but it would be quite amusing if
Singer was indeed defending such a high-profile
disaster...
---
<Lionel Hutz> I'll be defending...The SCO Group!!!??? Even if I
lose, I'll be famous! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SkArcher on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 11:27 AM EST |
What are the odds of them trying the "well we asked for more time, but it
turned out to be the holidays so we didn't do it anyway, can we have more time
please" trick they tried last time they got a delay that included
christmas?
---
Discussion channel: irc://irc.fdfnet.net/#groklaw
Disclaimer: irc.fdfnet.net/#groklaw is NOT affiliated with nor endorsed by
www.groklaw.net or PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k12linux on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 12:46 PM EST |
Someone should really warn SCO that Christmas falls during their extension.
After all they seemed to forget last year.
We don't want them coming back asking for yet another extension because
Christmas mysteriously popped up while they were preparing their response and
all the lawyers went home for a couple of days.
---
- SCO is trying to save a sinking ship by drilling holes in it. -- k12linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST |
Would have been an amusing title! No amount of legal talent can help you if you
don't have the facts on your side. Unless he's coming in with fresh evidence he
probably won't make any difference. SCO will just be bleeting in a different
key.
---
constructive irrelevance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST |
Maybe Stuart H. Singer is replacing another lawyer. If a lawyer stops working
on a case does he have to notify the court?
-------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jim Reiter on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST |
| Corrections and OT should not be anonymous posting. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: john82a on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 06:57 PM EST |
"The bio indicates he's been in practice for 20 years, and he "was
lead counsel for a Fortune 500 company in successfully resolving over $1 billion
in fraud and RICO claims for approximately 1% of potential damages."
Sorry, but doesn't this mean they had to pay out over $10m to settle the fraud
and RICO claims, on top of legal fees (at least for Mr Singer and the rest of
their own team)? Not being hit for the full amount is a testament to the
negotiators (not necessarily their lawyers), rather than the esteemed lead
counsel. Seems like a funny thing to brag about (I was lead counsel for a case
in which my client [found guilty] only had to serve 10 years instead of the
potential 1,000).
No lawyer, but I do have a suit to wear in the dock...
john[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 09:03 PM EST |
(as in, "Ya can't tell the players without ...")
Seeing yet another
lawyer's name, I got curious and went back over the filings, to see how many
lawyers each side has appearing in this case. The list below shows names of all
the lawyers I could find from Frank's TuxRocks page that have appeared either as
local counsel or who were added PHV. (For counsel who were part of the case from
the start, I listed them as "original", while those who were later added PHV are
listed with the dates the Judge signed the orders admitting
them).
SCO
-
Hatch, James and
Dodge:
Brent O. Hatch (original)
Mark F. James
(original)
-
Berger Singerman:
Fred O.
Goldberg (phv - 04/14/03)
Leonard K. Samuels (phv -
04/14/03)
-
Boies Schiller and
Flexner:
David Boies (name appeared on the original Complaint, but
phv was not approved until 04/30/03)
Stephen N. Zack (phv -
04/30/03)
Mark J. Heise (phv - 04/30/03)
Deborah W. Goodstone (phv -
04/30/03)
David K. Markarian (phv - 11/18/03)
Scott E. Gant (phv -
03/10/04)
Robert Silver (phv - 05/28/04)
Robert A. Magnanini (phv -
06/03/04)
Michael Macmanus (phv - 06/03/04)
Edward Normand (phv -
10/06/04)
Sean Eskovitz (phv - 10/06/04)
Stuart Singer (phv -
12/14/04)
-
Andrews Kurth:
Frederick S. Frei
(phv - 06/07/04)
John K. Harrop (phv - 06/07/04)
Aldo Noto (phv -
06/07/04)
-
Other:
Kevin P. McBride
(phv?)
IBM
-
Snell and Wilmer:
Todd M. Shaughnessy (original)
Alan L.
Sullivan (original)
-
Cravath, Swaine and
Moore:
Evan R. Chesler (original pending phv, granted
03/27/03)
Thomas G. Rafferty (original pending phv, granted
03/27/03)
David R. Marriott (original pending phv, granted
03/27/03)
Ya know, for someone who was "ready
to go to trial on what [they] already have", they sure seem to be racking up
more lawyers than IBM. Almost makes you think they're not all that confident of
winning...
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 10:18 PM EST |
"He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School"
If my latin serves me this guys graduated with high acclaim and makes me wonder
whether
a. Harvard grads aren't what they they are made out to be.
b. He did drink enough to do law and some senility has set in or
"The bio indicates he's been in practice for 20 years, and he "was
lead counsel for a Fortune 500 company in successfully resolving over $1 billion
in fraud and RICO claims for approximately 1% of potential damages."
c . 1% of damages: he is hard up for a buck and hiching his hopes to this wagon
(and train wreck) to make some retirement money.
OR
maybe he's just cheap and they talked him into it. Heaven knows they need to
reduce the cost of their lawyers.
No wonder lawyers know the best lawyer jokes![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, December 18 2004 @ 10:49 PM EST |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
PJ says you must be on your very best behavior.
If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "OT"
---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, December 19 2004 @ 08:48 AM EST |
Keep in mind that the latest addition (odious as it may appear because he is now
attempting to help SCOX) has been in practise over 20 years.
Having been in practise in my own profession somewhat longer than that, I would
not automatically denigrate or deride him. Let's see just what he does and what
he files (or assists with).
This is perhaps a classic example of 'never underestimate the opposition'. As
both Marbux and AllParadox have mentioned, good attorneys enjoy fencing and
winning - and they bite when they get ann opportunity.
So let's deal with this attorney with the respect due any professional - and as
I said - judge on the merits of his performance :)
PeteS
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
