decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Shareholder Meeting June 28/Schedule 14A
Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 11:53 AM EDT

There is a new SEC filing from SCO, a Schedule 14A, in which we learn that June 28 is the date for their shareholder meeting. They will vote for new directors and that's it. "No proposals have been submitted by stockholders of the Company for consideration at the Annual Meeting." The two newly nominated directors are Omar T. Leeman and J. Kent Millington.

Voting for directors is apparently like voting in old Russia:

        At the Annual Meeting, eight directors are to be elected to serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders or until a successor for such director is elected and qualified, or until the death, resignation, or removal of such director. It is intended that the proxies will be voted for the eight nominees named below for election to the Company's Board of Directors unless authority to vote for any such nominee is withheld. Each of the nominees is currently a director of the Company, except for Omar T. Leeman and J. Kent Millington. Each person nominated for election has agreed to serve if elected, and the Board of Directors has no reason to believe that any nominee will be unavailable or will decline to serve. In the event, however, that any nominee is unable or declines to serve as a director at the time of the Annual Meeting, the proxies will be voted for any nominee who is designated by the current Board of Directors to fill the vacancy. Unless otherwise instructed, the proxy holders will vote the proxies received by them "FOR" the nominees named below. The eight candidates receiving the highest number of affirmative votes of the shares entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting will be elected as directors of the Company.

There are only 8 candidates, so I believe that ensures their election. Am I missing something?

The document points out that certain shareholders, those beneficially owning more than 5% of the common stock for a year, can also suggest a candidate, but I'm thinking the odds of that happening are slim to none. I guess BayStar could do it, just for spite. The only others listed in the filing as holding more than 5% are Capital Guardian, Krevlin Advisors, and Ralph Yarro.

Darl now owns 2.6% or 481,218 shares, consisting of "7,003 shares of restricted common stock, 8,000 shares of common stock acquired in an open-market purchase, 3,615 shares of common stock acquired through our Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 100 shares of common stock, and options to purchase 462,500 shares of common stock."

Here's the information they provide on the two new shoo-in candidates:

Nominees Who Have Not Previously Served on the Board of Directors

        Certain information with respect to the nominees who are not currently serving on the Board of Directors is set forth below. Omar T. Leeman was recommended to the Nominations Committee by the Company's outside counsel, and J. Kent Millington was recommended to the Nominations Committee by a non-management director.

        Omar T. Leeman is President and Founder of Pinebrook Management Group, L.L.C., which provides management, sales, marketing, and strategy consulting services. From January 2001 to April 2002, Mr. Leeman was President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Talk2 Technology, Inc. From February 1983 to January 2001 Mr. Leeman worked at MCI Telecommunications, Inc. where he held several management positions, including President, MCI Business Markets. He also worked as a Regional Vice President at NEC America Inc., and held management positions at OC Tanner Company and Xerox Corporation. Mr. Leeman received a B.S. degree in Business Administration from the University of Hawaii.

        J. Kent Millington is currently Entrepreneur in Residence at Utah Valley State College ("UVSC") where he teaches courses in entrepreneurship and new venture finance. Prior to joining UVSC in August 2004, he lived in Tokyo, Japan where he was Vice President of Asian Operations for Verio, Inc., a subsidiary of NTT Communications. From October 1996 to December 1997 he was President of Internet Servers Inc., a web hosting start-up that was sold to Verio in December 1997. Then he served as Vice President of the newly created Web Hosting Division of Verio until his assignment to Tokyo. From June 1993 to October 1996 he worked for EG&G, a large manufacturing and management services firm, as Business Development Director at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and later as Deputy Director during the privatization of Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. He previously was Chief Executive Officer of two health insurance companies, owned industrial distribution companies, and was professor of entrepreneurship and finance. Mr. Millington holds a B.A. degree in History from the University of Utah, an MBA from Brigham Young University, and a Doctor of Business Administration from California Coast University.

Here is an interview with Leeman in 2001, just after he left MCI-Worldcom, where he was president of the special markets group at Worldcom. Yes, *that* Worldcom. More details here ("Leeman was president of special markets for WorldCom and president of business operations at MCI before the two firms merged.") and here.

I note there is a Litigation Oversight Committee:

   In April 2004, the Board created the Litigation Oversight Committee to oversee the litigation with respect to IBM and related litigation. The Litigation Oversight Committee held meetings as necessary during fiscal year 2004. The members of the Litigation Oversight Committee are Messrs. Thompson (Committee Chair), Iacobucci and Yarro.

Just so we know who is overseeing this mess. There is one other new item:

Communications with Directors

        Historically, the Company has not adopted a formal process for stockholder communications with the Board. Nevertheless, every effort has been made to ensure that the views of stockholders are heard by the Board or individual directors, as applicable, and that appropriate responses are provided to stockholders in a timely manner. We believe our responsiveness to stockholder communications to the Board has been excellent. Nevertheless, during the upcoming year the Board or the Nominations Committee of the Board will give full consideration to the adoption of a formal process for stockholder communications with the Board and, if adopted, publish it promptly and post it to the Company's website.

There is also a section on KPMG resigning, listing all the specific items KPMG and SCO did not disagree about, as well as this sentence: "The Audit Committee has also considered whether the provision of non-audit services provided by KPMG LLP to the Company is compatible with maintaining their independence and has discussed with the auditors such auditors' independence." And we also find out how much SCO had to pay them to straighten out the books for 2003 and 2004. It's a lot of money.

J. Fred Skousen is leaving the board, and that means someone will need to replace him on the Audit Committe. Yup. That was one of his assignments. He was also Chair of the Nominations Committe, which oversees "corporate governance and director nominations"

And they let us know all the bonuses their executives are being paid for running this company into the ground:

(2) Mr. McBride was hired as our President and Chief Executive Officer in June 2002. With respect to 200,000 options issued to Mr. McBride during fiscal year 2002, vesting commences five years after the date of grant, subject to acceleration of vesting if certain performance objectives are achieved. One such objective was our becoming profitable before the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003, which in fact occurred. Accordingly, Mr. McBride is now vested as to 50,000 shares related to such grant. The bonus of $35,000 earned by Mr. McBride in fiscal year 2004 was paid during fiscal year 2005. Of the $755,278 bonus earned by Mr. McBride in fiscal year 2003, $480,134 was paid during fiscal year 2003 and the remaining $275,144 was paid during fiscal year 2004.

(3) Mr. Young was hired as the Company's Chief Financial Officer in April 2004. The bonus of $30,000 earned by Mr. Young in fiscal year 2004 was paid during fiscal year 2005.

(4) Mr. Sontag was hired as the Company's Senior Vice President and General Manager, SCOsource, in September 2002. The bonus of $20,000 earned by Mr. Sontag in fiscal year 2004 was paid during fiscal year 2005. Of the $281,746 bonus earned by Mr. Sontag in fiscal year 2003, $181,590 was paid during fiscal year 2003 and the remaining $100,156 was paid during fiscal year 2004.

(5) Of the $133,981 in commission earned by Mr. Hunsaker in fiscal year 2004, $82,177 was paid during fiscal year 2004 and the remaining $51,804 was paid during fiscal year 2005. Of the $95,932 commission earned by Mr. Hunsaker in fiscal year 2003, $76,820 was paid during fiscal year 2003 and the remaining $19,112 was paid during fiscal year 2004.

(6) Mr. Tibbitts was hired as our General Counsel in June 2003 and became the Corporate Secretary in September 2003. The bonus of $50,000 earned by Mr. Tibbitts in fiscal year 2004 was paid during fiscal year 2005. Of the $13,500 bonus earned by Mr. Tibbitts in fiscal year 2003, $7,500 was paid during fiscal year 2003. The remaining $6,000 was paid during fiscal year 2004.

Then there is the list of their option grants. There is, of course, a Compensation Committee, and here's what it can do, on top of the standard option grants: "The Compensation Committee also has the authority to make discretionary option grants to the Company's executive officers under the 1999, 2002 and 2004 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plans." Also, there are quarterly and annual performance "performance awards". I wonder how they define "performance"? Oh, don't forget the "equity incentives".

Say, is this starting to remind you of the old Canopy Group, in its wilder days?


  


SCO Shareholder Meeting June 28/Schedule 14A | 147 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO Shareholder Meeting June 28/Schedule 14A
Authored by: Nigel on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:05 PM EDT
Mr Leeman... held management positions at OC Tanner Company

Is that any relation to the company that is now SCO's auditors ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

corporate governance
Authored by: rhaas on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:12 PM EDT
Unfortunately, uncontested elections for the Board of Directors are the rule,
rather than the exception. It's a problem, but not so much with SCO as with the
whole American financial system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Shareholder Meeting June 28/Schedule 14A
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:18 PM EDT
There are only 8 candidates, so I believe that ensures their election. Am I missing something?
No. However it is fairly standard practice at all of the institutions I've ever had a "vote" at (Corporations, Mutual Insurance, 403b Retirement). Exactly the number of candidates presented as open seats, and your proxy will vote "yes" for you unless you notify them otherwise in writing before the meeting or show up in person.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kent Millington
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:20 PM EDT
Here is a headshot of Mr. Millington along with a bio from a graduate school where he's listed as an adjunct professor. I had to use tinyurl to get it to post as a link.

It appears California Coastal University was just accredited by DETC on 8-January-2005. It also looks like they dropped all doctorate-level programs to receive that accreditation.

I'm curious now, so I'll post more tidbits if/when I find any.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: MadScientist on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:28 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, Off Topic
Authored by: DBLR on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:28 PM EDT
Please use link code to make your links clickable:

For example <a href="http://www.example.com"> Link Text
</a>

Set the Post Mode "HTML Formatted".


Charles

---

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT materials here please
Authored by: MadScientist on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:28 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Litigation Committee
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:37 PM EDT
Isn't that interesting.

Mr. Thompson is a former director of SCO starting in 1995 (they changed their
name to Tarantella in about 2000). He is no longer on their board. He was also
once EVP and General Counsel for WordPerfect corporation (1986-1994), so he is a
lawyer and should know what SCO thought they sold to Caldera in 2001. He was at
one time a VP at Novell (1994-1996) he wasn't there when the ATT deal was done
in 1992-3.

The other notable member of course is Yarro.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re KMPG
Authored by: MadScientist on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:43 PM EDT
From the SEC filing

"On May 27, 2005, KPMG notified the Company that they would resign upon
completion of the Statement on Auditing Standards ("SAS") No. 100
review of the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements as of April
30, 2005 and for the related three-month and six-month periods ended April 30,
2005. On June 2, 2005, KPMG completed their SAS 100 review and their resignation
became effective. On June 2, 2005, Tanner LC ("Tanner") was engaged as
the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors recommended and approved the appointment of
Tanner."

...


"There were no reportable events (as defined in Regulation S-K Item
304(a)(1)(v)) during the two most recent fiscal years of the Company ended
October 31, 2004, or the subsequent interim periods through June 2, 2005, except
that, KPMG reported in a letter to the Company's Audit Committee dated May 17,
2005 that during its audit of the Company's financial statements for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2004, it noted a material weakness in internal controls
related to the accounting for capital stock and stock option transactions. The
Audit Committee and the Company's management discussed the issue with KPMG and
the Company has authorized KPMG to respond fully to the inquiries of Tanner
concerning the issue."

++++++++++++++++++

KMPG became aware of something that happened in October 2004 possibly concerning
stock options that they were not happy with. I think this occured in May 2005
(possibly April) when they were reviewing the Oct-March account period.

Some one decided to pull the plug on this. KMPG might (or might not) have
decided to pull an account bringing in 600K for a few months work because it was
too small to bother with. I suspect they were simply not happy with and
"fired" the client. Giving 5 days notice is rather abrupt and the
hiring of Tanner seems to have been done remarkably quickly. Clearly KMPG seem
to think Tanner may wish to ask them some questions.

My guess: there are still stock options not properly accounted for here. Bay
Star? Yarro? D McB? This could be technical problems - there are LOTS of
technical problems valuing stock options and so relatively trivial. Givne SCO
colourful past Im not convinced about this.

I look forward to the next set of SEC filings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Not the reason - Authored by: ak on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT
  • Re KMPG - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 04:07 PM EDT
Other ways of doing things
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:55 PM EDT
Here in NZ shareholders actually have some rights, in
particular any may attend a General Meeting, and any 100
can call one. Most meetings are sooo boring, someone
stands up and asks why the dividend was 0.01 percent less
than last year then they quit for sherry and tea ....

Sometimes it's different .... 25 years back as part of the
anti-apartheid movement 100 of us bought shares in a
company that imported wine from South Africa ... this
meant we could call meetings and they HAD to have one
within 6 weeks .... they were fun .... we were all
schooled in Roberts Rules or Orders and well they don't
stand up to recursion ....

"I move a motion of no confidence in the chair"
(chair is required to step aside and there be an immediate
vote)
"I demand a written ballot"
"I challenge the scruiteneers, I propose X, Y and Z"
(now we're voting on who will count the ballots)
"I demand a written ballot"
"I challenge the scruiteneers, I propose X, Y and Z"
(now we're voting on who will count the ballots to decide
who will count the ballots)
..... recurse .....

you get the idea, if they give in you have a 3rd person
challenge your scruiteneers

Do this at the wrong time in the AGM and you can stop them
from adopting the auditor's report so they can do their
annual filings .....

not that I'm suggesting we do this - US shareholder's
rights are pretty non-existant - on the other hand anyone
with some SCO wallpaper should be able to show up at the
meeting and report for us

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yeah, people are just clamoring for an opportunity to serve on the BoD...
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 02:03 PM EDT
"...The document points out that certain shareholders, those beneficially
owning more than 5% of the common stock for a year, can also suggest a
candidate, but I'm thinking the odds of that happening are slim to
none..."

Yup, and 'slim' left town!


---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Voting for directors is apparently like voting in old Russia
Authored by: edal on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 02:07 PM EDT
Well, to be fair, a lot of AGMs I have attended have been like something from
the Soviet era. People are voted into office with no opposition (because nobody
else is willing to serve), there are endless votes on the most obscure of
motions and the same people attend every year because 90% of the membership
cannot be bothered to turn up.

One of the finest organisations I have ever been priviledged to attend was run
by six people (this was a ham radio society). There were no AGMs, no committee
meetings, and the whole thing was run on trust by six friends. It worked, but if
any company was run like that the directors would be carted off to jail.

Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl has fewer shares than you think
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 02:13 PM EDT
Hi:

Please bear in mind that having the option to buy shares is not the same as
actually owning those shares. . .

Based on the figures you list, Darl doesn't currently own many shares.

Just wanted to point that out.

Sean

[ Reply to This | # ]

Graph in Schedule 14A is wrong...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 02:15 PM EDT
Take a look a the symbols for TSCOG and the Nasdaq index. I wonder what the
economy would be like right now if the Nasdaq index actually followed that line?
On second thought...

[ Reply to This | # ]

No proposals have been submitted...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 02:45 PM EDT
"... by stockholders of the Company for consideration at the Annual Meeting."

Sure, they always ask to have all the portholes washed and waxed just before the ship goes down, don't they?

But these are the "stock holders" we are talking about, of which any of them that cared about profits (and also had brains) have long since bailed out unless there are legal reasons why they couldn't do so already. That doesn't leave anyone abord except the ones steering the ship into the iceburg up ahead to complain about all that brass that needs polishing. More likely they are just thinking about how to unload all the furniture on EBay without being noticed by the lower level employees.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Omar Leeman and WORLDCOM, not MCI!!
Authored by: drichards1953 on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 03:05 PM EDT
In the bio that SCO provided on Leeman they sort of adjusted a few things.
Leeman was president of Worldcom Wholesale Services & Special Markets.
According to "boston internet.com" Leeman was responsible for
"emerging lines of business" including wholesale services, cellular,
prepaid, small business direct, etc. On May 26, 2000, a company called TeleGea
named him to their board. He is no longer listed as a board member on the
TeleGea website. (TeleGea appears to be in VoIP software and management.)

MCI merged with Worldcom in 1997, and became MCI Worldcom, the name changed back
to Worldcom in 1999. Leeman left WORLDCOM about 18 months before the SEC and all
hell let loose. I assume that most of you remember that little scandel, a guy
named Bernie Ebbers and that lot. Something about misuse of money, mistatement
of assets to the tune of about $12 billion, plus inaccurate statements of
profits, sales, etc, etc, during the period Leeman was a president of a division
of Worldcom.

While he was not prosecuted there are several former Worldcom employees raising
a question about that issue on their blogs. Leeman was not a low level manager,
he was up there playing with the big boys. He was the president of a large
division of Worldcom, during a time in which there was wholesale misstatements
of assets, etc.

I can only say that one must draw their own conclusions from this information.


---
Dennis

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is a silly comment by PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 04:01 PM EDT

The bit about the SCO shareholders meeting being like "voting in old Russia" is just silly and demonstrates complete ignorance of how stock companies operate. Clue: if you don't know what you're talking about, don't say anything.

It's standard and almost universal for the number of nominees to equal the number of vacancies. The reason is that those nominees are the Board's own candidates. Shareholders who want a choice can nominate others, if they are numerous enough. Usually they don't bother because there's an easier way to remove one's dependency on the current board: sell the stock.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Letter Writing Campaign
Authored by: Eeyore on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 04:16 PM EDT
I think we should all send letters to BayStar suggesting that they nominate PJ
to the board. ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Shareholder Meeting June 28/Schedule 14A
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 04:25 PM EDT
Since when do stock options have voting rights?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What an amazing group of clowns
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT

Really, there's nothing you can do but laugh. SCO has become authentic satire.
Straight out of Dilbert.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Withholding approval for shareholders
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 07:50 PM EDT
I own stock in a big-name company, and on the proxy form we have the option to
abstain for each candidate.

I'm not sure what happens if a candidate's yes votes amount to less than half
the votes cast.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Got what they paid for
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 07:30 AM EDT
"One such objective was our becoming profitable before the fourth quarter
of fiscal year 2003, which in fact occurred."

McBride made the company profitable. But how? And at what cost to the future
of the company? My guess is that his performance objectives didn't include the
term "sustainable revenue" or maybe even the word "future".

You can make any company profitable by making it shrink fast enough. And with
award-linked objectives, you get what you pay for.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )