|
|
| More Details On What Happened At the Hearing -- New Filings, New Report |
 |
|
Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:21 AM EDT
|
There were some fine points that were not apparent in our previous reports about the hearing, details that I notice in the new filings. The most important is that SCO did *not* get everything it asked for, as I'll show you. And at least one of the reductions was at the request of the US trustee. SCO is asking for something [PDF] I haven't heard about before, but it doesn't surprise me and it won't you either -- it wants the Creditors' Committee to be unable to share confidential information, like memos, with all the rest of the creditors. They have the top 20 creditors mainly friends and allies, and they'd like to keep it all in the family, I guess. There will be a hearing [PDF] on this one. On April 20, 2005, Congress enacted a new section to the Bankruptcy Code, which tells the creditors' committee that it shall "provide access to information for creditors... who are not appointed to the committee." SCO says that's unclear, and it would like the court to define it to mean that the committee shall *not* actually do so. Read it for yourself. It's a SCO riot all the way, very much like their parsing of the APA, where all didn't actually mean *all*. Except it did to the court.
Let me give you an example of what SCO didn't get. You will recall that they asked for money to pay temps to fill in for the employees in the finance department who quit or were told to walk the plank. In that request, they asked for a kind of blank check, telling the court they'd need about $20,000 to hire the accounting temps from Accountemps, but they asked for open-ended authority to hire others, not necessarily temps, as needed going forward in any department, as they expected more employees to leave. Here's how they phrased their request for relief: Relief Requested
11. By the Motion, pursuant to sections 105(a) and 363(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors seek entry of an order by this Court authorizing them to (a) retain and employ, in their discretion, temporary employees to assist the Debtors' on an "as needed" basis in the accounting and finance department as well as other departments if and as their needs arise, and (b) compensate the temporary agency, or individuals, as applicable, in the ordinary course of the Debtors' business.
That isn't what they got in what proved to be an Interim Order [PDF]. They got the authority to spend up to $20,000 for the account temps: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Motion is GRANTED on an interim basis, as modified herein.
2. The Debtors are authorized to retain and employ, in their discretion, non-officer temporary accounting employees to assist the Debtors on an "as needed" basis subject to a cap of $20,000 through October 31, 2007.
3. A final hearing on the balance of the relief requested in the Motion is hereby scheduled for 1:30 p.m. prevailing Eastern time on October 5, 2007, with any objections to be filed and served so as to be received on or before 4:00 p.m prevailing Eastern time on October 2, 2007.
4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from or related to the implementation of this Order.
See the difference? Here's the document that tells us what happened at the hearing: At the Hearing, the Office of the United States Trustee requested various changes to the proposed order ... and the Debtors agreed to modify the Proposed Order as requested. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a blackline reflecting changes to the Proposed Order. Here's Exhibit A, the blackline or marked up, corrected version, the corrections being those made by the US trustee. So SCO didn't get everything it asked for. But then, neither did Novell. Webster was there in attendance too, and he's now sent me his report, and I gather from everyone's eyewitness accounts that this is a judge who wants to see everything before he rules. He's fairly new on the bench, so that is probably part of it, but judges have personalities too. And he wants all the cards on the table. Judge Kimball is that type of judge too, as you saw, and that worked out well in the end, although some of you were distressed it took so long. So that is what the judge meant when he said Novell would not be prejudiced. He's not letting the money be spent or given to anyone to any significant extent until he has a clear picture. If you have ever been involved in a will contest, you can understand how bankruptcy court is. Every creditor knows that some of them are not going to get much of anything, so every creditor would like priority. And the debtor generally wants to keep as much as possible. So judges in bankruptcy court get to see some things that make them a bit cynical, I think.
So SCO got the emergency money they specifically justified, but they didn't get the blank check. First the creditors get a chance to object. If Novell doesn't object to this, I'll be surprised. Frankly, all the creditors should object, I think, to a blank check. But for sure Novell doesn't want SCO in a position to spend like a sailor without oversight. In their view, supported by a Utah court order, this is all their money SCO is asking to spend. If no one objects, then the interim order will become a regular order, but if anyone objects, there will be a hearing. SCO says [PDF, p. 4) there are about 400 creditors, which is why SCO wanted to hire Epiq to do all the notices, because all of them have to get notice of the bankruptcy application and if there are objections, they have to be sent to everybody too, as well as notices of hearings. Epiq will keep track of all the paperwork, including keeping all the proofs of claims the creditors file, all of which it has to make publicly available. The proposed agreement is attached as an exhibit. And that request was granted and the signed order is attached as well. Here's the document [PDF] that tells you what SCO did get at the hearing. In addition to hiring Epiq, it got the authorization to pay prepetition taxes and regulatory fees and the court put the two filings, from SCO Group and its subsidiary, together into a joint administration, and they can pay the utilities bills. That's it. The first meeting of creditors [PDF] will be October 18th with the trustee. It's called a Section 341(a) meeting.
Here's a thorough explanation of what such a meeting is. A bit more here. In chapter 11 cases in Delaware, notices are also sent to the SEC and the IRS and others such entities. The debtor has to show up and answer questions, with the trustee presiding, posed by the creditors. If they don't like the answers, they can file an adversary proceeding. Here's a PDF that explains the next few steps we can expect in the process. Any creditor can object to a bankruptcy, and here are some of the reasons that could be successfully raised to do so. The 341(a) meeting is also when a Creditors' Committee may be formed, according to this article. The same article explains what debtor in possession means, that the debtor is its own case trustee. That is what usually happens, but in some cases a trustee is assigned to manage the affairs of the company seeking reorganization. That hasn't happened yet to SCO. Here's an article that explains the difference between the US trustee and a case trustee.
You will also see what a bankruptcy paralegal's life is like. She's the one who has the thankless task of sending out all the notices and attachments to all the top creditors. There are a lot of new filings on the docket. All of the certifications are identical, so I left them off of some of the entries for economy of effort. I never did want to be a bankruptcy paralegal.
Here are all the new filings:
32 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Certification of Counsel
Docket Text: Certification of Counsel Regarding the Interim Order Pursuant to Sections 105(a) and 363 of the Bankruptcy Code Authorizing the Debtors to Employ and Compensate Temporary Employees (related document(s)[14] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit A # (2)
Exhibit B) (O'Neill, James)
33 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Order on Motion to Authorize
Docket Text: Order (INTERIM) Authorizing the Debtors to Employ and Compensate Temporary Employees (Related Doc # [14]) Order Signed on 9/18/2007. (MJY, )
34 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Request to Schedule Section 341 Meeting
Docket Text: Request of US Trustee to Schedule Section 341 Meeting of Creditors (Requested Date/Time: 10/18/07 at 10:00 A.M.) Filed by United States Trustee. (McMahon Jr., Joseph)
35 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing Notice of Application of the Debtors Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 327(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a) and 2016, for Approval of Employment of Berger Singerman, P.A. as Counsel for Debtors Nunc Pro Tunc to the Petition Date (related document(s)[4] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/5/2007 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/2/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit 1 # (2)
Certificate of Service) (O'Neill, James)
36 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Service
Docket Text: Notice of Service Notice of First Day Motions Filed and Orders Entered Pursuant to Del. Bankr. LR 9013-2(d) (related document(s)[29], [12], [28], [2], [25], [9] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibits A1-A2 # (2)
Exhibits B1-B2 # (3)
Exhibits C1-C2# (4) Certificate of Service) (O'Neill, James)
37 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing Notice of Application of the Debtors Pursuant to Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Rule 2014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Local Rule 2014-1 for Authorization to Employ and Retain Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP as Bankruptcy Co-Counsel for the Debtors and Debtors in Possession Nunc Pro Tunc to the Petition Date (related document(s)[5] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/5/2007 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/2/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit 1 # (2) Certificate of Service) (O'Neill, James)
38 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing Notice of Motion of the Debtors for an Administrative Order Under 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(a) and 331 Establishing Procedures for Interim Monthly Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of Professionals and Reimbursement of Expenses of Committee Members (related document(s)[6] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/5/2007 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/2/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit 1 # (2) Certificate of Service) (O'Neill, James)
39 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing [Final Hearing] on Motion of the Debtors Pursuant to Sections 105(a) and 363 of the Bankruptcy Code for Authorization to Employ and Compensate Temporary Employees (related document(s)[14], [33] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/5/2007 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/2/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit 1 # (2)
Exhibit 2 # (3) Certificate of Service) (O'Neill, James)
40 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing Notice of Motion of the Debtors for an Order Providing that Creditors' Committees are not Authorized or Required to Provide Access to Confidential Information of the Debtors or to Privileged Information (related document(s)[11] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/5/2007 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/2/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit 1 # (2)
Certificate of Service) (O'Neill, James)
41 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing [Final Hearing] on Interim Relief Granted in the Order Authorizing the Debtors' (I) Maintenance of Existing Bank Accounts, (II) Continued Use of Existing Business Forms, (III) Continued Use of Existing Cash Management System, and (IV) Limited Waiver of Section 345(b) Deposit and Investment Requirements (related document(s)[26], [7] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/5/2007 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/2/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit 1 # (2)
Exhibit 2 # (3)
Certificate of Service) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
42 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing Notice of Final Hearing on Debtors' Motion for an Order Under Section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code (I) Prohibiting Utility Providers from Altering, Refusing or Discontinuing Service, (II) Deeming Utilities Adequately Assured of Future Performance, and (III) Establishing Procedures for Determining Adequate Assurance of Payment (related document(s)[10], [30] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/5/2007 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/2/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit 1 # (2)
Exhibit 2 # (3)
Certificate of Service) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
43 -
Filed & Entered: 09/18/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing Notice of (1) Motion for an Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Pay Prepetition Wages, Salaries, Commissions, Employee Benefits and Other Compensation; (B) Remit Withholding Obligations; (C) Maintain Employee Benefits Programs and Pay Related Administrative Obligations; and (II) Authorizing Applicable Banks and Other Financial Institutions to Receive, Process, Honor and Pay Certain Checks Presented for Payment and to Honor Certain Fund Transfer Requests, and (2) Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Pay Prepetition Wages, Salaries, Commissions, Employee Benefits and Other Compensation; (B) Remit Withholding Obligations; (C) Maintain Employee Benefits Programs and Pay Related Administrative Obligations; and (II) Order Thereon (related document(s)[8], [27] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/5/2007 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/2/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit 1# (2)
Exhibit 2 # (3)
Certificate of Service) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
And here is Webster's report. I asked him to go too because I want as many eyes as possible, but mainly I wanted a lawyer's eyes for us too; even though bankruptcy isn't his field, I figured he might catch some of the finer details. As it turns out, while he did that, what he captured most was his feel of the day:
Downtown Wilmington is an older city on a quaint, human scale. The few
blocks off the interstate are crowded with two-story brick buildings. A
half hour after dawn, there were idly suspicious dudes at dispersed corners
suggesting to me that rock could be scored here. Into the downtown, the lesser but
crowded scale continued with old two-story commercial buildings close on the
streets. Several newer buildings towered over them by at least five
stories. There were many familiar chain store names, but also some unique
shops. The bankruptcy court was on the sixth floor of one of these
skyscrapers with a glass portico on a brick-lined parkway pedestrian alley
one-half block off the street.
Homeland security has not made a big impression in Wilmington. At 7:30
AM one could pass the reception desk, ascend the elevator, step around the
X-Ray and body scan machines and enter the courtroom, and return without
security or human contact. One could leave a bag of dirty socks on the
bench and no one would call the bomb squad. Try such a thing in New York or
DC.
The United States Bankruptcy Court has a very low ceiling for such a
large, wood-finished room. The bench is a huge, stained warehouse box that
doesn't leave much space to preside over it. While the seating was
spacious, eighty people would be very crowded. Ten minutes before the
hearing there were seven chatting spectators, two clerks and nobody else.
A crowded bankruptcy court is a shameless place, like a draft board physical
circa Vietnam. The lawyers do the paper, cases are called, arcane
pronouncements are made -- next case. If there is a common law of bankruptcy,
it does not survive. It is now a subspecies best understood as a "creature
of statute." There is sympathy, if not understanding, amongst the not-to-be
beggars. But this is a corporate case in Delaware, part of the DuPont
plantation, who are no strangers to the monopoly game. DuPont received one
of their biggest boosts when they convinced the United States during World
War I that they should be the only smokeless explosive powder provider.
Indeed there have been wars where DuPont supplied both sides. So the laws
in Delaware are hospitable to DuPont. Other corporations have gathered
'round to enjoy the same protection. Best of all, there are no holding
cells behind this courtroom.
After 8:25 the lawyers arrived quickly. The Novell lawyers adopted the aura
of their brethren in Utah. They were relaxed and smiling. They boldly
stood in a row and stared over at the Debtor's table. It's nice to start a
hearing with a pat hand. The fleet announced themselves yesterday with a
salvo of pro hac vice motions. Business intervened. With the arrival of
all parties the leaders formed a loose huddle. Negotiations were taking
place. All could look away but listen in. Darl McBride, Ryan Tibbets,
Stuart Singer sat down on the Debtor's side. They sat calmly throughout.
Discussions ended when a figure entered by the little door by the big box.
The figure disappeared behind the box and popped up on top in the judge's
chair. The Court was now in session. No "Hear ye's", no "Draw nighs" no
"Honorable Kevin Gross now presiding", not even a "Come to order." This is
an informal, down-to-business place. The Judge immediately announced that
someone was on the phone and called for "Mr. Singerman."
Mr. Singerman apologized and thanked and announced. He was a "prospective"
counsel for SCO. Clear and loud his voice sprinkled down upon all, as if
from god, thanks to the marvels of modern Court technology. Then Laura
Davis Jones took over to lead SCO through the proceeding. She thanked the
Judge for his time despite his current trial. She introduced her table
including Arthur Spector and James O'Neill. The Novell side did the same
more informally from their table.
Mr. Spector made SCO's first presentation. His points were meant to be that
SCO was big, owns Unix, operates world-wide; he detailed SCO-Mobile, and
assured the court that their products were a platform for the future. SCO
needs bankruptcy protection to reorganize to a profit. He then dramatically
stumbled and said Novell for SCO in an important spot. His nerves and age
betrayed him, he .......... paused, until the Court mercifully prompted him,
"SCO." Spector ventured bravely onward describing SCO in the retail
platform. People rely on SCO to sell things. SCO has a significant world
impact. At one time SCO grossed 230 million a year with their retail
machines. Now it is a tenth of that. This is due to the SCO knock-off,
Linux, taking their business. There is also a massive Linux PR budget of
ten million dollars attacking SCO and its products. He urged the court to
protect the customers, employees and SCO as it reorganizes to successful
business solutions.
At 8:45 Ms Jones retook the podium and served up the meat and potatoes of
bankruptcy court -- motions. The "creatures of statute" began to squirm in
the ooze. There was no objection from Novell to the first motion and order
permitting the joint administration of the bankruptcy of the SCO Group and
SCO Operations Inc., one owned by the other, both with the same malady.
Simple but necessary. Likewise for the second motion appointing Epiq
Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as Noticing, Claims and Balloting Agent. No doubt
a specialty at which they are efficient and familiar.
At 8:49 Mr. Spector returned and discussed three motions about which there
had likely been endless negotiation: cash management, wage motions, and a
temporary employee motion. They also agreed with the trustees that with the
next printing they would have to add the scarlet letters "DIP" [debtor in possession] to their
documents. He then explained SCO's relationship with their sales companies
and the financing mechanism between them. They needed the freedom to
advance money to the sales companies. When sales are off, the cash flow can
be negative, to them instead of from them. By these motions SCO intended to
continue business as usual.
Novell had something to say about this. Larren Nashelsky spoke for them.
While Novell did not oppose the substantial relief sought by SCO they did
want to protect Novell's rights. This bankruptcy was filed the day before a
trial of Novell's counterclaim. He gave some background to the judge.
Novell retained the copyrights and the "royalty rights". SCO has retained
Novell's money. In a 102-page order on August 10, Judge Kimball found that
SCO had converted Novell funds. Novell wanted to "liquidate" their
counterclaim ASAP. Would that he would have said "monetize" for the fans.
He affirmed that Novell would Move to lift the Stay of their case. He then
hit on key words for any lawyer or judge. SCO had a "fiduciary"
relationship. They could not "commingle" Novell funds with SCO funds. SCO
had to continue to turn over license fees. There is a second group of
licenses, Sun and Microsoft. The fees from this license should be put into
a constructive trust. SCO should provide an accounting and show what was
Novell property and what property belongs to the bankruptcy estate. Why
didn't he give a number? Why not $25 million dollars? Why didn't he claim
a specific amount? That's what Judge Kimball wants. It is essential in
bankruptcy court, too.
The mention of Microsoft reminded all of their rumored presence in the room
in the body of a young man in a suit with a silver laptop. He was
probably struggling with Vista, trying to keep up as they discussed fees,
from Sun and Microsoft, all arguably attributable to the rogue monopoly and
their destructive motives. That was just a rumor, though, without any clear evidentiary basis that I know of.
Spector responded to Nashelsky. He began by filling in what Nashelsky
omitted. He said that the disputed licenses were $25 million. [PJ: Note that this is a disputed figure; Novell claims up to $30 million, counting interest.] He then went
into background himself. He had trouble repeating what CEO Darl McBride has
told him. There was this dispute over an old contract that both Novell and
SCO believed conveyed Unix. He then tried to refer to the Judge in
Utah.................. "Kimble" said Judge Kevin Gross, as he both
performed a second rescue, and showed that he was up on the facts already.
Mr. Spector in the course of his presentation referred the Court to Mr.
Singer's presence in case the Court wanted to relitigate the Utah trial this
day. Spector rallied to conclude by asking the court not to impose Novell's
suggested encumbrances. There were some in the gallery that were convinced
that Mr. Spector was spooked by the presence at Novell's table of a Julie
Dyas. She has a doctorate from Texas in Linguistics with her thesis being
using linguistics to detect lies. In the same year she received her law
degree. She must be a human lie detector. Spector's linguistic collapses may have
told her plenty.
Speaking of Mr. Singer, if you are a connisseur of baggy pants, Mr. Singer's
pinstripes are magnificent. Their volume and drape would do a hip hopper
proud! With those pants and a jury--mesmerization!
Nashelsky countered by explaining that Novell was owed 95% of the fees and
SCO 5%. SCO had no right to commingle. The fees should be sequestered in a
separate bank account. He asked for an escrow of Novell's fees.
The Court said they understood Novell's position today, but he was not going
to do it today.
Novell fought back and presented a fall-back position to the Judge.
Nashelsky told the judge that there was no dispute about other license
fees. SCO should pay the money that they collect "for us" or put them in a
special account.
The Judge did not buy the fall-back position either and said he did not want
to order any affirmative relief today. He mentioned that there was no motion
filed.
No Motion, no Movement with this Judge.
Spector continued with the litany of motions, like thumbing beads. There
was a motion on Pre-Petition wages. Another on Section 507.84 and
507.85caps. When these were brought up without objection, the judge
would snap
"Hand up the Order" and sign it on the run.
An apparently contested motion was mentioned and not addressed today. This
was the motion for the retention and severence of executives. Bankruptcy is
a good time to leave. Captains actually prefer not to go down with the
ship. The company seeks permission of the court to entice them to stay on
board with the iceberg dead ahead. This one may be worth seeing.
Spector finally introduced an "unfortunate motion" to hire accounting
personnel. These are not management employees. He blamed this on the
end-of-year workload they didn't want to perform. They had a cap and a
date, $20k through 10/31.
Ms. Jones returned to the podium and moved to protect and pay from sales and
use tax and moved to protect and pay utilities. They run at the rate of
$10k/month. She haded up the orders. All of these motions relate to
statutes that control what the debtor can spend on. Other statutes control
what others can do to the debtor. Periodically the creditor and debtor
factions converge on Congress and adjust these controls to suit their
interests. The process in this specialized bankruptcy court is to
ruthlessly follow these laws. Parties need the lawyers to fudge where the
law permits.
The hearing concluded with a discussion as to dates. Singerman again spoke
from the clouds. The second hearing is scheduled for October 5 at 1:30.
Objections to SCO motions are due by October 2. Retention (of executives)
Motion on the same date.
Unmentioned but present and participating throughout the hearing was Mr.
McMahon, the Bankruptcy Trustee. SCO finally moved in the Affidavit of Darl
McBride into evidence. That should be interesting reading when held up to
the light with one Affidavit of Dale Kimball as found in his August 10
order.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:32 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- told the walk -> told to walk - Authored by: JOff on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:46 AM EDT
- Corrections Here - Authored by: webster on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- 3rd to last paragraph s/haded/handed/ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:21 AM EDT
- if you are a connisseur of baggy pants - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:43 AM EDT
- NIT for Webster - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:11 AM EDT
- NIT for Webster - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- "Kimble" -> "Kimball" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:13 AM EDT
- Corrections Here - Authored by: gvc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- SCO errors in motion - Authored by: mdarmistead on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:36 AM EDT
- SCO errors in motion - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- Sheesh! - Authored by: mdarmistead on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- Sheesh! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- Sheesh! - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Sheesh! - Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- Slap Dash - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Nashelsy - Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:42 AM EDT
- 507.85caps - Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:44 AM EDT
- from sales and use tax - Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- s/haded/handed/ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:27 PM EDT
- others --> other - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:32 PM EDT
- connisseur --> connoisseur - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:40 PM EDT
- haded --> handed - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:42 PM EDT
- severence -> severance (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- EU faults US comment on Microsoft ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Marketwatching with crack in your veins ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 06:21 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
PJ said "In [Novell's] view, supported by a Utah court order, this is all
their money SCO is asking to spend."
Unless all means all, I understood that the amount of money allegedly belonging
to Novell was something left for trial.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mdarmistead on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:47 AM EDT |
| Remember to use HTML option and clickys. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- For Sale: Belgium, a Kingdom in three parts ... - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:10 AM EDT
- Has anyone used the new OOo Extensions ex: Sun Weblog Publisher on Groklaw comments? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:34 AM EDT
- Even God gets sued - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:51 AM EDT
- Even more SCO bankruptcy filings are popping up - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:01 AM EDT
- OT: SCOX today (Wednesday 07-09-19) - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT
- AMD Video specs release - starting to see some results - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Ballmer Zune link - Hilarious - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:13 AM EDT
- Clicky to linux computer stickers Kde Look - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- MINT - Best Linux Implementation? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- Latest from Dan Lyons... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:21 PM EDT
- Latest from Dan Lyons... - Authored by: proceng on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- Latest from Dan Lyons... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:40 PM EDT
- Lying Dan comes clean..That operating system has become far too successful to be dislodged. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- Latest from Dan Lyons... - Authored by: waltish on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:50 PM EDT
- Latest from Dan Lyons... Wow ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT
- Amateur? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- Amateur? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- Amateur? - Authored by: gvc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:58 PM EDT
- Yes, I am - Authored by: rebill on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:57 PM EDT
- I am too - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- I'll give him half a kudo for that - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:11 PM EDT
- Dan Lyons: Still wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- Dan Lyons: "SCO is road kill" - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Check out the email link at the bottom of that page. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:36 PM EDT
- Amazing. Thanks! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- Dan Lyons is showing class... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- Latest from Dan Lyons... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- He still has a long way to go: - Authored by: arthurpaliden on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- News pick? EU official lambasts US Justice Dept on Microsoft - Authored by: ozbird on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- Thomas Barnett - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:58 PM EDT
- Thomas Barnett - Authored by: rc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Thomas Barnett - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Thomas Barnett - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- Sure, I'll buy that... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- Unilateral eh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 01:35 PM EDT
- Unbelievable - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- Nasdaq Sends SCO Delisting Notice - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Quick, Robin, to the SCO-Mobile! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:19 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mdarmistead on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
| Per the usual way. :o) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryL on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:52 AM EDT |
I noticed this statement in Angie Welling's article...
"I
fully expected that IBM would continue to keep the case out there in abeyance,
so to speak, for as long as possible," Weiss said. "They very well knew that SCO
had limited resources."
Ummmm, isn't that backwards? Was it IBM
dragging out the case? Wasn't it SCO (Stupid Caldera Operations) that went for
delay after delay after delay?
I've never heard of this woman before but
she's been added to my list of "pundits" to double check. Unless this appears to
be a glitch in her reporting she'll be moving to the other list, "pundits to
ignore", very rapidly.
---
All comment and ideas expressed are my own
and do not necessarily reflect those of any other idiot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ninguino on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
Is webster planning to write down a novel any time soon? I could almost sense
Philip Marlowe was about to appear in Wilmington...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Great report - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:07 AM EDT
- Dressing for Groklaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:29 AM EDT
- Question for webster - Authored by: mdarmistead on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:46 AM EDT
- No simple answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:00 PM EDT
- Great report...ditto - Authored by: itchytweed on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:56 AM EDT
- Great report - Authored by: snakebitehurts on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:38 AM EDT
- Webster - Authored by: MplsBrian on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- Webster - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- Webster - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:50 PM EDT
- Webster - Authored by: DL on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT
- NIT - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- Great report - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Great report - Authored by: mattflaschen on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 06:30 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
> the employees in the finance department who quit or were
> told to walk the plank.
Arrr, matey !
Toon Moene (not logged in while at "work")[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
Well written, and I really appreciate the comments, such as on the ceiling and
bench, to really bring those 1,500 miles away into the courtroom.
Dave in Colorado[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bjnord on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
Here's the document [PDF] that tells you what SCO did get at the
hearing. In addition to hiring Epiq, it got the authorization to pay prepetition
taxes and regulatory fees and the court put the two filings, from SCO Group and
its subsidiary, together into a joint administration. That's
it.
The minutes also show that order #11 was signed; that's the
keep-the-lights-on one, "(i) Prohibiting Utility Providers from Altering,
Refusing or Discontinuing Service, (ii) Deeming Utilities Adequately Assured of
Future Performance" etc.
Your main point still stands; all SCO got was the
routine stuff. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:36 AM EDT |
"There is also a massive Linux PR budget of ten million dollars attacking
SCO and its products."
There is? Who's footing the bill, the "Linux Corporation"?
Funny, I was under the impression there's a difference between PR spin and
telling the truth. How come you get paid for the former, but not the latter?
---
Please note that sections in quotes are NOT copied verbatim from articles, but
are my interpretations of the articles.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
>On April 20, 2005, Congress enacted a new section to the
>Bankruptcy Code, which tells the creditors' committee that
>it shall "provide access to information for creditors...
>who are not appointed to the committee."
There is a conflict of interests between creditors. Either all
of them have access to the information as the creditors' committee members, or
the committee members have, IMO
unfair, advantage.
I hope that a bankruptcy judge can explain SCO this point.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Cyberdog on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
I realise that laywers use words as the basis of their craft, but that was truly
poetic.
As a retired lawyer, please don't lay down that pen or keyboard just yet![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
Did Mr. Spector give any more details on who is funding this massive PR budget,
and what form the PR attacks on SCO's products have taken?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
No wonder they named a dictionary after him! Somehow, I can visualize him in a
long black cloak, clutching a bible to his chest as he addresses a jury while
making eye contact with each and every one...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
"SCO is asking for something [PDF] I haven't heard about before, but it
doesn't surprise me and it won't you either -- it wants the Creditors' Committee
to be unable to share confidential information, like memos, with all the rest of
the creditors."
It sounds to me like they want to keep a few inconvenient facts from Novell.
---
There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
Here's what the interim order says:
"2. The Debtors are authorized to retain and employ, in their discretion,
non-officer temporary accounting employees to assist the Debtors on an "as
needed" basis subject to a cap of $20,000 through October 31, 2007."
Here's how SCO will read/spin it:
'Well, we can only spend $20,000 through October 31, 2007. But the order
doesn't say anything about how much we can spend AFTER October 31. In the
scenario that it does, we'd like to argue the definition of "cap". In
addition, we'd like to argue the definition of "temporary" since in
our eyes all employment is temporary as it ends upon the employee quitting,
resigning, termination, or death.'
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCOread - Authored by: spambait42c on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:45 AM EDT
- They can try - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- They can try - Authored by: df on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- Not going to happen - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- More Choices - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:55 PM EDT
- More Choices - Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 08:08 PM EDT
- Even worse - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:01 PM EDT
- SCOread - Authored by: bstone on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- SCOread - Authored by: bezz on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: snakebitehurts on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
Am I reading this right?
"Debtors would be highly discouraged from giving Confidential Information
to a Creditors Committee in the first place. In fact, the Debtors might conclude
that they could not give such information to the committee at all."
This is unbelievable. SCO is saying they may not turn over info to the
creditors committee if they don't get their way? I thought the creditors
committee got access to EVERYTHING!
I hope that the creditors scream "foul" in reply to this. In fact, I
hope they say the current management should be replaced since they just don't
get it. They declare bankruptcy and now they want to selectively provide
information to those that need it?
To this layman's eyes, the plain english version of this is "We have the
right to hide stuff and we don't have to turn it over if we don't feel like
it".
Looks like SCO is going to try and game this system just as they have been for
the last 4 years.
MikeD[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MeinZy on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
Gotta love it!
---
Zy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
At one time SCO grossed 230 million a year with their retail
machines. Now it is a tenth of that. This is due to the SCO knock-off, Linux,
taking their business. I may be missing something but wasn't
ex-Caldera a former Linux vendor? Did Caldera's distro knock off their own
UNIX?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
I imagine the Novell lawyers will show up in force again. I've been to creditors
meetings before and they can get interesting especially if some of the creditors
feel they have been mislead or lied to.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
This is an excellent summary that captures the essence of the hearing.
One additional observation I would like to add. During the hearing, I was
sitting just a few feet from two of Novell's lawyers. As Mr. Spector was
explaining the glorious history and rosy prospects for SCO if only they would be
given a little "breathing space," one of those lawyers struggled to
suppress a snicker. Perhaps there is something to your "human lie
detector" theory.
---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thank You Webster - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:06 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
Webster, as you reported:
"Spector responded....There was this dispute over an old contract that both
Novell and SCO believed conveyed Unix. He then tried to refer to the Judge in
Utah........... Spector in the course of his presentation referred the Court to
Mr. Singer's presence in case the Court wanted to relitigate the Utah trial this
day. Spector rallied to conclude by asking the court not to impose Novell's
suggested encumbrances."
As I said on an earlier thread, what's implied in that statement is that SCO is
going to argue that -- "whatever supposed "conversion" took
place, it took place a LONG time ago, and Novell is only bringing it up now?
Now, when we're on the brink of Bankruptcy? It's a bad faith move by Novell,
your honor, to manufacture priority status, and furthermore Novell is likely
estopped from trying to argue that we owe them any more than a de minimus amount
of money, because look how much time elapsed -- it was WAAAY back in 2003 ---
while Novell sat on their rights and implicitly condoned our right to enter into
these licenses?"
So -- SCO is indicating that they are going to try to make an estoppel argument
against Novell's rights, despite that a Federal Judge has already ruled, and
remember that SCO didn't even MAKE that estoppel argument against Novell when it
had the chance (in the summary judgment briefs), and therefore it is moot.
From Judge Kimball's perspective, that argument is dead and waived. SCO is going
to try to raise it, from the dead, in the Bankruptcy court.
SO I'm wondering -- why? Is this an attempt by SCO to bootstrap up some leverage
so that they have SOMETHING to bargain with, in settlement negotiations with
Novell?
Looks like SCO's lawyers will throw it at the wall and see if it sticks.....
LEXLAW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
SCO argued infront of Judge Kimball that it was not going bankrupt. Did SCO have
an obligation to inform the court the moment that bankruptcy was actually
likely?
Even before they actually filed or did any preparation work the moment their
arguments infront of Kimball were no longer correct was there a legal obligation
to inform the Judge?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
PJ, you might need to add an extra highlight in the difference between what SCO
asked for and what they got.
Note that the order specified for temporary <b>non-officer</b>
people for the finance department. So not only does it cap the spending, which
SCO probably didn't like, but also prevents the addition of some friendly
officer of the company. This keeps SCO from being able to funnel additional
money off to friends by granting them extra officer perks that the by-laws
probably provide for.
I think this little subtlety shows that this judge didn't fall off the JD truck
yesterday, and may already be watching SCO with a wary eye.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
1. Fire accounts and other employees.
2. Make conditions such that others will walk away on their own.
3. File for bankruptcy.
4. Ask BK court to give you emergency blank check to hire temps to replace the
rats jumpin... er, uh, your employees who have left.
5. Hire all your friends, relatives, etc., at very high rates of pay.
6. Spend all of Novell's money.
7. Profit.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
Darl writes at paragraph 42 of his Declaration
The Company does not believe that Novell had the right to take
any such action relative to our UNIX source code rights.
Can a
company "believe" in something or is Darl using the royal we? Also, paragraphs
45-49 make no mention of Novell and the SCO vs. IBM case.
Can a corporation
have delusional beliefs? Psychoanalysts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Contempt of Court? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:11 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
And he [Judge Gross] wants all the cards on the table.
Judge Kimball is that type of judge too, as you saw, and that worked out well in
the end, although some of you were distressed it took so
long.
Count me in that "distressed" column, please. You
could even add 'frustrated', 'disappointed' and 'irritated' to the description.
The U.S. judicial system desperately needs some tweaking, at least with regards
to civil suits.
Even a cursory analysis of SCOG's claims at the start would
have resulted in the determination that all of their claims and cases hinged on
three critical questions:
- Does SCOG own the copyrights they claim?
(Novell contested that publicly as early as May, 2003. SCOG didn't file their
amended complaint until July, 2003).
- Does SCOG have the power to enforce
the "SOFT-00015" agreement? (The claims against IBM depended upon this
power).
- Does Novell have the power, by contract, to halt SCOG's
aggression?
These represent the foundation of every claim SCOG made in
each case. These could have been answered in 2003, before allowing SCOG to
impose heavy litigation costs upon the defendants. Answering these questions in
2003 would have revealed that SCOG had no standing to bring the complaints that
it did.
There was no critical path analysis performed. If skyscrapers (or
any other structure) were built by the method employed by the U.S. courts, all
of the parts would be scattered around the job site before any construction
began. Just as it happened with the SCOG cases, the complexity and clutter
resulting from this method would cause progress to become almost indiscernible.
SCOG had no foundation, but the court did not seek to determine that fact
before allowing SCOG to impose exorbitant expenses upon a great many people, not
limited to the defendants in the cases. SCOG was permitted to craft a complex
disguise around the illusory foundation and thereby waste tremendous taxpayer
resources, corporate (shareholder) resources and defame the character of
uncounted individuals involved in creating, documenting, distributing and
servicing free software. It's just wrong.
---
-- grouch
"People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be."
--PJ, May 2007
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:33 PM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT
- SCO was rather unique - Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
PJ, Webster or anyonelse who knows bankruptch court,
What are the chances Novell can petition to be on the creditors committee?
Would that take a court finding of the ammount owed by SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rvergara on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
We all have been very critical of Mr. Lyons, me included. However I have to
respect a person that goes public and admits that he was completely wrong.
Ramiro[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
| "Snowed by SCO," by Dan Lyons. He has a new
photo, too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
Isn't it amusing that, on at least one occasion, Webster was accused of being
a troll?
Heh! I add my thanks for the account Webster!
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
| The way that the contract is written, Novell gets 100% of the royalties, and
then once they get that 100% they pay SCO whatever percentage is
theirs.
If I was Novell, I'd propose to take that 100% of royalties, (and
possibly stick it in a trust account until it was determined what percentage,
if any, of it was appropriate to be remitted back to SCO). ---
Powerful,
committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it
to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tom Johnson on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
What happens to confidential information once a company goes Chapter 7? Is
there any chance that we may learn any deep dark secrets when SCO finally goes
belly up?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
Is conversion criminal? Are the officers of the company protected by the
limited liability afforded the corporation if they were acting outside the
law?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
Dan Lyons is showing some real class with the article "Snowed By SCO".
He did not have to do that, and I respect him for admitting that he was wrong.
CC
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
As I understand it, a bankruptcy court can require parties receiving payments
prior to the filing of bankruptcy within some period of time to return those
payments if it is found that those payments gave those particular creditors
special preferences not given to the other creditors.
Are there any recent payments to BSF that the bankruptcy court might order
returned? Or does the fact that BSF is a law firm give them a little more
leeway in the eyes of the court?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
Given SCOX has been found in a court of law to have breached fiduciary duties
and engaged in conversion which (AIUI) either one or both are actions to breach
the corporate veil. With this bankruptcy filing can Novell now specifically go
after the personal assets of the company officers and BOD if they are not
recompensed for their loss as a result of these breaches?
Is the fact that they may have just painted a big target on their bank accounts
and possessions something Darl et. al. might wish to consider?
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
At this time it appears judge Gross will probably let the Novell trial proceed
in order to establish a figure. Assuming Novell prevails and puts SCO into
Chapt 7 where does that leave IBM? Would that suite be completed also so they
can be added to the creditors or do they lose their turn?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: myNym on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
But Novell is being prejudiced, by every dime in salary that Darl collects.
It's their money he's drawing down.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
I believe we will see a two-pronged attack by Novell for return of its
property.
First, Novell's royalties owed make Novell a "secured creditor" as
apposed to a "unsecured creditor". The real question here is Novell
the only "secured creditor". A judicial lien (constructive trust)
makes Novell a "secured creditor" under bankruptcy law.
Second, if Novell can show that The SCO Group, Inc. and Darl McBride's affidavit
is false, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition will be denied and the Court may
convert it into a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. However, this may not be a voluntary
bankruptcy.
Now, that gets to my strategy, if Novell by Motion and evidence can prove that
there was no hope of every coming out of bankruptcy, for example, the money owed
Novell exceeds what The SCO Group, Inc can provide, even with payments, then
Darl McBride is on the hook for fraud. Fraud, invalidates the stay and the
Kimball Court trial can proceed and the judical lien entered. At that point,
the Bankruptcy Court can order a freeze on all assets.
If this happens as I expect, when the forensic accountants get done with The SCO
Group, Inc's books, and the SEC has this information too, then the real fun
begins.
Comparing Darl McBride's affidavit in the Bankruptcy case against his affidavit
in Kimball's court is very interesting. I sure wouldn't want to be in his
shoes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
Someone has filed a handwritten lawsuit against Google, asking for $5
billion in damages, because his social security number, when turned upside down
and scrambled spells Google.
I found out about this from Techdirt
<
br>
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-pamdce/case_no-3:2007cv01677/ca
se_id-69169/
PDF complaint.
Attachment #2: Exhibits
A lot of other hand-written motions
and such are at the docket listing mentioned just above the
complaint.
OMG, is this guy for real ??
i can only say... ROFL,
ahahhaha. ROFLCOPTER.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
Not bad for a company that's in Chapter 11:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/070919/
scox8-k.html
Is this something the creditors can attempt to undo?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2007 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
"He blamed this on the end-of-year workload they didn't want to
perform."
End of period processing is no fun. But I can't believe half the accounting
department quit because they didn't want to bother, when they've obviously done
this for years with no problem.
It was unfair and un-professional to so characterize the people who left.
I do hope it was only a mis-understanding on Mr Webster's part of what Mr.
Spector said.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
