|
And Novell Fires the First Shot - Motion to Lift Stay and Motion to Compel |
|
Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:09 PM EDT
|
Here we go: Novell has filed a Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay to Proceed With District Court Action to (I) Apportion Revenue From SCOSource Licenses and (II) To Determine SCO's Authority to Enter Into SCOSource Licenses, Etc. [PDF] and a Motion For Order Directing The Debtor to Remit Undisputed Future SVRX Royalties to Novell Upon Receipt [PDF]. Also, there's an Affidavit of Greg Jones [PDF] in support and attachments. OK. The battle has begun. Happy now? I don't know about you, but the suspense was killing me. Novell tells the court in its motion to compel that it wants all its future SVRX money as SCO collects it, without it touching the estate. Otherwise, Novell says, SCO may "improperly use Novell's property to fund SCO's bankruptcy" -- and all I can say to that is Amen -- and Novell says in that case, it will become a "forced lender of new high-risk loans to the estate." This was not something intended by the parties in the APA, which gave Novell the right to reclaim the SVRX licenses and the collection of their royalties in its sole discretion precisely to enable it to protect itself against SCO as a credit risk. Indeed, Novell could seek to exercise its rights under the APA Section 4.16 forthwith, thereby denying SCO the ability even to earn its 5% administrative collection fee. Nor is such a forced "loan" of another's property authorized anywhere in the Bankruptcy Code. Novell does have a way with words. Actually, it goes on, it would "turn Novell's property into an involuntary gift to the estate and its creditors. Nothing in the APA or Bankruptcy Code sanctions SCO's use of Novell's property this way."
As for the disputed monies from SCOsource licenses, like the Microsoft and Sun licenses, Novell wants the stay lifted so it can forthwith go back to Utah and get it apportioned. It started four years ago, so it's without question prepetition. And in footnote one of the lift-stay motion, Novell "expressly reserves the right to assert that SCO's Chapter 11 cases were filed in bad faith." And significantly, on page 7, it says that Novell's claim against the SCO is "almost surely the largest". I take it Novell would like to chair the creditors' committee, let alone just be on it.
It's not asking the Bankruptcy Court for relief with respect to those matters, except for the stay to be lifted: As Novell is concurrently filing a lift-stay motion to allow the District Court to continue with that litigation in order to address the apportionment issues (among other things), Novell does not seek relief in this Motion with respect to the Disputed SVRX Royalties. Accordingly, only the Undisputed Future SVRX Royalties are subject to the relief requested in this Motion. As you see, they would prefer to have Judge Dale Kimball in Utah decide the apportionment, and they argue it is only fair, since the parties chose that forum and it's almost finished there. Novell says the Bankruptcy Court has the authority to grant the relief it is requesting with regard to future SVRX monies, and it quotes from a case that found that it is "not the objective of the bankruptcy laws to confer windfalls on debtors."
SCO may be disappointed to learn that.
: )
SCO shouldn't be allowed, Novell sums up, to "hijack" Novell's funds, particularly when the APA specifically agrees. Novell points out that all it's asking for is "an order implementing that bargain-for safeguard of its Bankruptcy Code-protected property rights." As for the lifting of the automatic stay, Novell says it's entitled to go back to Utah for three reasons:
- The advanced stage of litigation in Utah in a complex matter. The Court there is now "fully versed". The summary judgment motions alone, Novell says, and it almost sounds like a warning to Judge Kevin Gross as to what his future will be like if he doesn't lift the stay, added up to more than 1,500 pages of briefing. And Utah is, after all, the forum SCO chose for that litigation. Further, it won't interfere with the bankruptcy, because SCO already has lawyers for the Utah matter who are ready to go to trial, which is only expected to last five days. Given the four years that went before, it makes no sense to start over. The issues have to be decided somewhere. And Utah is the cheapest place to do it at this point.
- Judicial economy - it'd be hard to start all over from scratch and nothing that could happen in Utah will undo the August 10 order, so it's just a matter of figuring out the apportionment and whether SCO had the right to enter into the SCOsource licenses in the first place;
- It aids the estate to have finality as to what the estate consists of. Further, the August 10th Utah ruling makes SCO's "business model questionable". The only time SCO made a profit was from the SCOsource licenses, and if you look at the rest of SCO's picture, Novell says, it is doubtful it can reorganize successfully under the old model. Getting all that clarified, Novell says coolly, will make it possible to determine "precisely how much of SCO's past income is attributable to its wrongful use of the SVRX copyrights" and then "SCO can then turn its focus to trying to create a sustainable business model or other strategy in furtherance of its attempt to confirm a reorganization plan." Oof.
"Or other strategy." They just want their money. SCO can work the rest out as it pleases. But it needs to go forward without relying on conversion of Novell's money, Novell says, "because, obviously, SCO's post-petition business model cannot continue to be based on Novell's property." Obviously.
Whether you look at the matter from the standpoint of balance-of-the-hardships standard used in the Third Circuit or by the usual test, Novell should be allowed to go back to Utah now, and that is what it says it wants. If the New York Daily News was coming up with a headline for this filing, it'd probably be something like this: Novell to SCO: Drop Dead. First Pay Up. The parties, Novell tells the court, "have already run virtually the entire, grueling race; they should be allowed to take advantage of the only step that remains -- to cross the finish line." That probably sounds better to Novell than to SCO, which is running away from the finish line with all its might, and with four law firms in tow, whispering in its ear. "Run like a bunny! Go left, now right, don't stop!"
Here are the docket entries: 89 -
Filed & Entered: 10/04/2007
Motion for Relief From Stay (B)
Docket Text: Motion for Relief from Stay to Proceed With District Court Action to (I) Apportion Revenue From SCOSource Licenses and (II) Determine SCO's Authority to Enter Into SCOSource Licenses, Etc.. Fee Amount $150. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 11/6/2007 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/23/2007. (Attachments: # (1) Notice) (Greecher, Sean)
90 -
Filed & Entered: 10/04/2007
Motion to Compel (B)
Docket Text: Motion to Compel Directing the Debtors to Remit Undisputed Future SVRX Royalties to Novell Upon Receipt Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 11/6/2007 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/23/2007. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Attachment Part 1 # (3) Attachment Part 2# (4) Attachment Part 3 # (5) Attachment Part 4 # (6) Attachment Part 5 # (7) Attachment Part 6) (Greecher, Sean)
10/04/2007 - 91 - Affidavit of Greg Jones in Support of Motion for Relief
- From Automatic Stay and Motion for Order Directing the Debtors to Remit
Royalties (related document(s)90, 89 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc..
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit A1 # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Exhibit B1)
(Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 10/04/2007) The clerk wrote that these were filed by the SCO Group, but they were not; they are filed by Novell, as you will see from the smoking prose. And 91 and all the attachments are a repeat of the attachments on 90, the Affidavit of Greg Jones and exhibits. And of course! we need help OCRing the PDFs. Thanks if you can. Just send it to me by email, and leave a comment letting folks know what part you are doing, so we don't duplicate. And just so we can find things again down the road, here are the contents of the attachments to #90:
- Attachment Part 1 is the Affidavit of Greg Jones, plus the APA through page 19, Article 3
- Attachment Part 2 is the continuation of the APA, from Article 4-7
- Attachment Part 3 is the continuation of the APA, from Article 8 to the end (partly redacted), and Schedule 1.1(a) (assets), 1.1(b) (excluded assets), 1.1(c) (assumed liabilities), 1.2(b), 6.3(a), Exhibit 5.1(c) (Eiger development), Seller Disclosure Schedule, Attachment A (largest volume of OEM customers of Seller), Attachment B (Agreements with Most Favored Customer Pricing or Exclusive Marketing Rights for Business Products or Territories), Attachment C (trademark status report)
- Attachment Part 4 is the APA continued, Attachment D (inventory of patents per country), Attachment E (selling copyrights in products), Attachment F (certain 3rd party royalty payments), Attachment G (seller contracts containing business-related rights which are terminable in the event of acquisition), Representations and Warranties of Buyer Disclosure Schedule, Judge Dale Kimball's Aug. 10, 2007 Memorandum Decision and Order through page 12
- Attachment Part 5 is the Kimball order continuation from page 13 through 53
- Attachment Part 6 is the Kimball order continuation from page 54 through the end.
While 91 is the same materials, they are set up like this:
- Affidavit of Greg Jones is #91
- Exhibit A is the APA through Article 7
- Exhibit A1 is the APA continued from Article 8 through Attachment G and Representations and Warranties of Buyer Disclosure Schedule
- Exhibit B is Judge Kimball's Aug. 10 Memorandum Decision and Order through page 53
- Exhibit B1 is the continuation of the Kimball order to the end.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
I think the only thing that needs to be said here is :
*GAME ON!*
bishopi (not logged in)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
And make links clickable, if you will...
Thanks,
-jb
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- WOW - my first triple... - Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- RIAA vs THOMAS VERDICT IN - Authored by: groklawdranem on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:06 PM EDT
- RIAA wins $200,000 in key download victory - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 08:44 PM EDT
- [OT] What are the best Groklaw articles of all time? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 08:53 PM EDT
- One group is comprised of Microsoft, Sun and Novell. Yes, the fox is in the ODF hen house. - Authored by: warner on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 01:28 AM EDT
- Some history of paper money in the US - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 05:11 AM EDT
- openSUSE 10.3 released - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 05:48 AM EDT
- GPLv2 Question - Authored by: NickFortune on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 06:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
.
Thanks,
-jb
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
So PJ can find them quickly.
...Not that there should be any for an article this size, you understand...
Thanks,
-jb
.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Laomedon on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
.. Novell expressly reserves right to assert that SCO's Chapter 11
cases were filed in bad faith. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: drreagan on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
Arg. Must wait for the documents to be uploaded. Suspense is killing me!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
Not yet! ;) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
-jb
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ribbit on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
automatic stay of...the SCO/Novell trial scheduled for the next business
day.1
1 Though it does not raise the issue as part of
this Motion, Novell
expressly reserves the right to assert that SCO's Chapter
11 cases were filed in
bad faith.
Tell it brother! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT |
At one place Novell said that Kimball was familiar with the
"practices" of the two sides. Another place they said something
similar. That is the worst possible threat to SCO - to send this back to a
judge who is already wise to their tricks (and character).
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:12 PM EDT |
Wow. I'm only about a third of the way through so far, but this is one of the
most satisfying legal briefs I've ever read!
Novell is really laying it all
out for the judge in very clear terms what's going on.
(Footnote 1 on page 3
for example).
I have to go read the rest now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bezz on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
It was a bit of a chuckle listening to Spector characterize the APA as a
confusing document that even some Novell execs agreed with SCO about, how
Kimball's rulings were a complete shock and all the other verbal wordplay e
could pass off on a new judge. A chuckle in that Novell made it abundantly
clear (by a tone of voice) the judge would be hearing from them in a lift stay
request. This is the reality check that matters.
The bonuses, operating expenses and temp employees are all rather
run-of-the-mill events in Chapter 11 BK cases. Not to burst any bubbles, but
courts give companies the benefit of the doubt because it's in everybody's best
interest if a company can reorganize. It's later in the process that creditor
objections come into play and they must make a strong case that liquidation is
necessary to avoid dissipation of remaining assets by a company that can not
reorganize.
I'm sure Novell has many more shots to fire at SCO's Chapter 11 BK. Coming soon
to a firing range near you: SCO's purported valuable Mobile and UNIX assets --
upon which they will claim they can reorganize -- are not worth a drop in the
bucket compared to liabilities because SCO/Caldera has never had a legitimate
profitable quarter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Profitable quarters - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:56 PM EDT
- Ivy Mike - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 10:02 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:25 PM EDT |
In asking for immediate payment of royalties, Novell points
out that they have
the right to collect the royalties
themselves and thus deny SCO their 5% cut.
They royalty
streams seem to be worth several million per year and it is
now
being payed quarterly by SCO to Novell.
Novell says:
Indeed,
Novell could seek to exercise its rights under the
APA Section 4.16 forthwith,
thereby denying SCO the ability
to even earn its 5% administrative collection
fee.
So it seems to me Novell is making the offer of letting SCO
continue to collect their 5% if SCO pays the rest of the
royalties to Novell
as soon as they arrive instead of
waiting until the end of each quarter as
specified in the
APA.
If SCO (really the court) doesn't go along with this
then
Novell seems to be threatening to cut SCO out entirely so
they get 0% of
future royalties.
Novell has made the court/trustee an offer that will be
hard to refuse.
--- Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: alansz on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
90 is very interesting. Novell pretty clearly implies that it's considering
reclaiming the entire SVRX royalty stream from SCO to service it themselves,
taking 100%, with no administrative fee of 5% going back to SCO.
In a rational world, that threat should be enough to convince SCO to remit
royalties to Novell on receipt, instead of quarterly. But in the SCO world,
well, we'll have to see.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
P6 "With those issues resolved... SCO can then turn its focus to trying to
create a substainable business model..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
So, I'm curious now.
SCO has been lurching towards bankruptcy for years now. No one who's read
Groklaw can be unclear on this. They've been in shambles.
Now, granted, the timing of this right before the Novell trial, which was
essentially a "let's figure out how much money Novell can take from
you" action, is suspicous timing-wise, and anyone who views it as a
coincidence is very naive or doesn't know SCO.
Given the background, what exactly would constitute "bad faith" on
SCO's part. By which I mean, what legal test would Novell have to pass to PROVE
that SCO has met the legal standard of "bad faith"? What would
constitute a "bad faith" reason for a bankruptcy filing? How would
Novell make out a "bad faith" claim?
Again, looking for legal standards here, not anti-SCO vitriol. I think their
timing is suspicious, and the "feels like" gamesmanship to me, but
IANAL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lego_boy on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
From Document No. 90, page 8, about 2/3 the way down the
page:
By the same token, the parties, their counsel and Judge
Kimball by now understand each other's expectations and practices [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
I may have missed it, but I am surprised Novell didn't
mention to the Bankruptcy Judge that the legal fees for
the original case have already been paid by SCO, whereas
fees for the bankruptcy case will have to be paid by SCO
out of the estate. So it would make sense for the
Bankruptcy Judge to lift the stay and allow as much as
possible to be decided by Judge Kimball.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Filias Cupio on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
IANAL
Had SCO not filed for chapter 11, the trial would have found that some amount of
money that SCO had belonged to Novell. In addition, there would have been some
award of costs, so that SCO had to pay for Novell's lawyers. (Is this correct?)
If the stay is lifted, the trial will still result in some amount of money
currently held by SCO belonging to Novell. But what about costs? I'm thinking
that one of two situations will apply:
(1) Costs will be awarded, and will go into the pool as an unsecured debt
(incidentally giving Novell a seat on the creditor's committee.)
(2) The bankrupcy will prevent costs being awarded against SCO. They can't
acquire new debts after filing for bankrupcy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
From the Motion to Compel, page 8:
22. Putting Novell's
Undisputed Future SVRX Royalties at risk would, in essence, transform Novell
into a forced lender of high risk loans to the estate not through perpetuation
of an existing loan, but through the creation of a loan where there was none
before. This was not something intended by the parties in the APA, which gave
Novell the right to reclaim the SVRX licenses and the collection of their
royalties in its sole discretion precisely to enable it to protect itself
against SCO as a credit risk. Indeed, Novell could seek to exercise its rights
under the APA Section 4.16 forthwith, thereby denying SCO the ability even to
earn its 5% administrative collection fee. Nor is such a forced "loan" of
another's property authorized anywhere in the Bankruptcy
Code.
(emphasis added)
The question has been asked here
before whether Novell could simply declare the APA in abeyance and reclaim the
SVRX Licenses. Looks like that thought has also occurred to Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor as well.
--- "When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ljs on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
Hasn't SCO at least implied that they plan to continue their quest in court to
overturn Judge Kimball's rulings? Can they appeal or take other court action
while hiding behind the automatic stay of court action that comes with Chapter
11? "You cannot continue your court claims against us (SCO) but we can
still sue you."
To me, they are in a bind around this motion from Novell. They clearly don't
want to go back to Kimball's court but cannot expect that their war on Linux
users can be continued from bankruptcy court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
It's in section (b):
In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX
Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted,
the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
* like the Asset Purchase Agreement, and Judge Kimball's August 10th, 102 page
ruling.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
I do not think people understand the effect of Judge Kimball’s refusal to enter
final orders on his rulings for partial summary judgment against SCO. Judge
Kimball’s rulings hold *no* effect outside the jurisdiction of his court.
54(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a
claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties
are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or
more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express
direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and
direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer
than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or
parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any
time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and
liabilities of all the parties.
See the “SHALL NOT TERMINATE THE ACTION AS TO ANY OF THE CLAIMS or parties, and
the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before
the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities
of all the parties”?
Judge Kimball’s partial summary judgment rulings have no res judicata effect
over the bankruptcy proceedings. (See e.g. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Insured
Lloyd’s, 786 F.2d 1265 (5th Cir. 1986).
Novell cannot claim things that have not been “fully and fairly litigated” which
requires an entry of final judgment.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
I don't know about you, those three reasons sound a bit weak.
What is the court to consider in a bankruptcy case: balancing the survival of
the company with the interests of the creditors. Additionally here there is a
third party which is not a creditor, but an "owner".
So I was expecting more "ownership reasons", not "benefits of
finality", or "expedience of keeping the decision with the other
court".
I find those three reasons address that conflict rather weakly.
Maybe there is another way of looking at this?
Here they are, in short, for easy reference,
1. The advanced stage of litigation in Utah in a complex matter. ...
2. Judicial economy ...
3. It aids the estate to have finality ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
I am not suprised the clark thought SCO filed the motions.
SCO has showed that they very much like to spend money and pay people...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 12:07 AM EDT |
Novell seems to be setting up (or at least threatening) an appeal based on the
difference between the precedents of the Third District and the balance of the
courts.
As I understand the bankruptcy law the courts are supposed to administer the
estate for the benefit of the creditors, the debtor (by coming to the court)
already admitting they are incapable of meeting all of their obligations.
Novell seems to be pointing out that the Third District is administering estates
for the benefit of the debtors, not the creditors.
If the Third District is out of sync with other courts it is a case the SCOTUS
may be willing to take.
This tact has two possibilities.
First putting pressure on the Bankruptcy Court to grant the motion
and
Second setting up an appeal of Delaware's apparent friendliness to Chapter 11.
I'd guess this motion will be granted.
I'd also guess Novell's approach will be used again, if it isn't already well
trodden ground.
---
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: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
Is it time for an over length opposition memorandum? What's the chances of this
motion being granted before opposition is filed? Or will it take a few months
to get the stay lifted?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 01:11 AM EDT |
Given that this is SCO, it's seems likely that this won't remain
undisputed. But as far as I can remember SCO has passed on everything to Novell
but but the Microsoft and Sun money, plus the SCO-source money, so I'm having a
hard time imagining what justification for suddenly claiming that money SCO
could have. Maybe some insane creative interpretation of the
bankruptcy laws which they claim means that the revenue stream now belongs to
them. --- Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set
him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry
Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 01:38 AM EDT |
captures Black King's pawn. Checkmate! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 02:22 AM EDT |
Novell obviously has to attempt this, otherwise the fruits of all its fine
lawyering in Utah are basically lost.
Whether it has a good chance of
prevailing is quite another matter.
Let's wait and see what SCO's
response (due October 23) is, before getting our hopes up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 02:31 AM EDT |
"Moreover, in asking for this relief, <Novell> is willing (for the
moment) to leave the job of royalty collection in SCO's hands, thereby allowing
SCO to continue to earn it's 5% commision on collections, even though
<Novell> also could deprive SCO of that function by exercising its (sic)
reassignment rights under Section 4.16"
Whoa!
Hey judge grant our request or we'll take it all!
Hey SCO don't fight this or we'll take it all!
Priceless, simply priceless![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Priceless - Authored by: bilateralrope on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 06:30 AM EDT
- Why "(sic)" ? - Authored by: AJWM on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- Why "(sic)" ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 09:53 PM EDT
- it's its - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 10:54 PM EDT
- Why "(sic)" ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 11:12 PM EDT
- Why "(sic)" ? - Authored by: Darigaaz on Saturday, October 06 2007 @ 01:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
In my local (non-US) jurisdiction the trustee may challenge transfers of goods
that reduce the assets to the detriment of the creditors at large (in some cases
up to ten years into the past!) Actions that can be challenged include: payments
to individual creditors, or any transfers to third parties that are aware (or
should have been aware) of the debtor's intent to harm one of its creditors.
I imagine there is a similiar provision in U.S. law and would be very interested
if someone in the know could explain a little bit how this works in, who
initiates this process, who decides, what limitations exist etc...
Thanks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stevieboy on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
It looks like SCO is determined to follow the philosophy of one A. Hitler's
scorched earth policy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dark on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
"By the same token, the parties, their counsel and Judge
Kimball by now
understand each other's expectations and
practices."
Translation: "Judge
Kimball is already wise to these
guys". Such a wealth of understatement in this
one
sentence :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 05:23 AM EDT |
surely there were clauses in the APA that come into effect in the event of
bankruptcy?
Do they apply for Chapter 11 filing? or only Chapter 7?
Have SCO killed their royalty source and reverted the "Unix business"
back to Novell?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 05:28 AM EDT |
I'll OCR SCOGBK-89.pdf and convert to HTML.
---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 07:19 AM EDT |
JUDGE GROSS: It'll be a cold day in Winter when I have that bunch of shysters
back in my court room.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Genuine Advantage[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sabme on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 08:37 AM EDT |
"Novell to SCO: Drop Dead. First Pay Up"
I love those headlines -- this one made me laugh :-). There's a game in there
someplace ... tabloid headline mad-libs or something.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
So.. we finally find out that DMcB has been playing the THREE SHELL GAME; but
with NO ball! ;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|