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
Now They Tell Us - Today's Bankruptcy Hearing Cancelled - Updated 2Xs - #161-165
Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 04:05 PM EDT

I hope none of you got caught up in this and lost time from work for nothing, because the hearing for today was cancelled when SCO and the Trustee resolved his objections:
162 - Filed & Entered: 10/25/2007
Hearing Cancelled. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. Docket Text: HEARING CANCELLED. Amended Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. (related document(s)[148] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/25/2007 at 04:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)

The trouble is that we are not creditors or shareholders here, not that that's a bad thing otherwise, so I don't get notices by fax, which is what happened to those on the list, as you can see on the Certificate of Service. So always call the court before you leave, so you don't make a trip for nothing.

Update: And here's the rest:

161 - Filed & Entered: 10/25/2007
Certification of Counsel
Docket Text: Certification of Counsel Regarding the (A) Order Authorizing the Debtors to (I) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Terminated Employees and (II) Continue Severance Policy; and (B) Order Granting Debtors' Motion to File Under Seal Documents and Data Subject of Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition (related document(s)[116], [118] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A # (2) Exhibit B # (3) Exhibit C # (4) Exhibit D) (Werkheiser, Rachel)

163 - Filed & Entered: 10/25/2007
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Interim Application for Compensation (First) for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses as Co-Counsel to the Debtors in Possession for the Period from September 14, 2007 through September 30, 2007 Filed by Berger Singerman, P.A.. Objections due by 11/14/2007. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)

As you can see from Exhibit A of 161, SCO did not get a blank check. Compare it with Exhibit B, the blackline version, and you'll see this phrase crossed out: "in their discretion". And Bert Young and Michael Olson are specifically exempted from getting what SCO wanted to give them. SCO can pay severance to the little people already terminated, but going forward it has to follow of procedure of letting everyone know the plan, so objections can be filed. That means SCO has to list the name of the employee being terminated, his or her title, how long the person has been with the company, and the termination date. No sealing. The notice also has to contain representations as to whether the employee was an officer or director under either of SCO's bylaws, whether he or she was terminated without cause, the proposed amount the person can claim for the pre-petition benefits based on length of service.

Next, SCO will have to tell the US Trustee the person's annual salary, the amount of severance SCO proposes to pay, and a list of amounts previously paid to nonmanagement employees during that calendar year.

Then after the Notice goes out to everyone, everyone waits for 15 days. If no objections are filed, SCO then files an Amended Schedule F, "which lists the Employee as having a general unsecured claim that is non-contingent, liquidated and undisputed in an amount equal to the pre-petition length of service portion of the Employee's benefits under the Severance Policy consistent with the limitations reflected on the 'Length of Service Grid' on Exhibit A (to the extent that Grid is applicable to such Employee)." If SCO wants to pay more than that, it has to file another motion, on notice to everyone so they can object.

On those already terminated, SCO can pay the pre-petition PTO in an amount up to $50,628.49.

I gather this means that the faucet is being shut down to a trickle. Pre-petition is one thing; but any future terminations are just added to the list of debtors' creditors, and they will have to wait until this whole tangled mess gets sorted out like everybody else. The US Trustee, I gather, isn't looking to fund any trips to Rio, so to speak, at Novell's or other creditors' expense. And he's making a distinction between insider management and the hoi polloi.

Now, Exhibits C and D, the latter being the blackline version, shows what happened with the sealing request. It got modified. Some things can be filed sealed, and some can't. The major change is on paragraph 3 on the last page, which now reads:

3. The Debtors are authorized to file a copy of their Severance Policy, as well as the names and amount of severance to be paid to each of the identified Terminated Employees (the "Confidential Information") under seal; provided, however, that the following information shall not be filed under seal and shall be deleted from documents containing the Confidential Information: (i) information relating to severance previously proposed to be paid to the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance; and (ii) all information relating to amounts proposed to be paid as time off.

So that didn't work out for those two. And the other filing of the day is a proposed bill from SCO's bankruptcy lawyer, one of them, Berger, Singerman, who tell the court they should be paid $65,331 for the time period from September 14 through September 30. Plus expenses of $2,526.40. They spent 7 hours on "fee application preparation" but that's not in this bill. That's next time. Lots of lawyers at the firm are pitching in, according to page 2, but Arthur Spector and Grace Robson are doing the bulk of the work as far as hours go. According to this sheet, the paralegals barely broke a sweat so far, less than 15 hours total. The lawyers say they spent around 166 hours so far, in the aggregate.

Given what I know about what lawyers do and what paralegals often do, I'd say that this gives us a picture of just how complex SCO's situation is. It's not just a matter of filling in some forms. We're looking at hefty bills for legal research and strategy planning. And sure enough, on page 3, you'll see that my instinct is correct. Most of the hours are in the box marked "Litigation Consulting" and "Case Administration" with "Relief from Stay/Adequate Protection" coming in third. And in the table below, Expense Summary, you see the winner of most total expense is "Computerized Research (Lexis, Westlaw and PACER charges)". Next biggest expense is travel. It's up to the court, but if anyone wanted my opinion, I'd say they are worth every penny they are asking for. They earned the money the old fashioned way -- they worked hard for it.

Update 2: And now the Orders have been signed:

164 - Filed & Entered: 10/26/2007
Order
Exhibit A) (LCN, )

165 - Filed & Entered: 10/26/2007
Order
Docket Text: Order Authorizing the Debtors to (I) Pay Severance and Acrued Benefits to Terminated Employees and (II) Continue Severance Policy. (related document(s)[116] ) Order Signed on 10/25/2007. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A) (LCN, )

Exhibit A to 165 is a summary of the severance policy.

Also, I wanted to let you know, as I always do when I post a comment anywhere but Groklaw, that I posted a comment to Dave Shields' blog. We put an article of his on OLPC in News Picks, and he wrote a lovely article about Groklaw, and so I thanked him that way. Just so you know it's authentic.


  


Now They Tell Us - Today's Bankruptcy Hearing Cancelled - Updated 2Xs - #161-165 | 219 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Now They Tell Us - Today's Bankruptcy Hearing Cancelled
Authored by: webster on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 04:22 PM EDT
..
I'm glad I didn't set out.

---
webster


© 2007 Monopoly Corporation. ALL rights reserved. Yours included.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections hear
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 04:23 PM EDT
Not that their should be any in so short a post

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks here
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 04:24 PM EDT
Comments on news picks stories go here

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO and the Trustee resolved his objections
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 04:25 PM EDT
Does anybody know how the objections were resolved?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 04:26 PM EDT
3 out of 3 :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now They Tell Us - Today's Bankruptcy Hearing Cancelled
Authored by: Zak3056 on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 04:44 PM EDT
Do you HAVE to be a creditor to receive fax notices?

i.e. could someone file a motion on behalf of Groklaw requesting the same
information that would normally be distributed to those creditors that have
asked for it, on the grounds that it is in the public interest given the issues
at hand in the IBM and Novell litigations, and the fact that we, as a group,
plan on having representatives at every hearing? (holy run-on-sentences,
batman!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

One of the parties to the bankruptcy case has been making posts on an internet message board
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT

Here's a list of the posts:

http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?pt=m&SearchBy=AuthorID& ;mb=1911&SearchFor=40962

In particular, see this morning's post, which included an email from a SCO lawyer:

http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?pt=msg&mb=1911&mn=478 76

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ should sign up as a creditor
Authored by: unixan on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 05:24 PM EDT
Because SCO sure owes a lot of good will.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The trouble is that we are not creditors
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 05:37 PM EDT
I wonder how much it will cost PJ to file a lawsuit against
SCO for telling lies about her... :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now They Tell Us - Today's Bankruptcy Hearing Cancelled
Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 06:14 PM EDT
I guess they couldn't afford it. ;-)


---
There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.


[ Reply to This | # ]

#161
Authored by: webster on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 06:35 PM EDT
..
Thanks to the link above one could read the filing #161. Surely GL is preparing
them at this moment.

They resolved everything by taking the big boy's severance off the table for
now. The rest pre- and post- petition severees are to be listed and sent to the
trustee. He has fifteen days to object before they can be paid. It all amounts
to a delay (unwanted by SCO). If the Trustee objects, they start all over again
and schedule a hearing. There is endless potential for delay and stipulate as
circumstances change.

Anyone that has a claim against SCO should get in line for the view if nothing
else.

All of this is about money to the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President,
Finance, who want a big severance.

RE Sealing. Check this out:

-------"the following information shall not be filed under seal and shall
be deleted from documents containing the
Confidential Information: (i) information relating to severance previously
proposed to be paid to the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance;
and (ii) all information relating to amounts proposed to be paid as paid time
off."------------

Not only do they get to file this stuff under seal, they get to delete it.
Since it was only the proposed figures, why bother sealing or deleting. I
suggest it is the embarrassment factor. They have to keep vanity and greed in
proportion. This is bankruptcy! Think of the poor creditors like BSF and their
document dump. The figures must be out of line considering the assets on hand.
They must have been totally inappropriate and contemplated with a PIPE Fairy on
the mind. They certainly didn't want them discussed here on GL, so we won't.

Then we conclude with this interesting little reminder SCO shoves into the
Court's mouth:

------------"4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all
matters arsing [sic] from or related to the implementation of this
Order."----------

One must ask our GL brothers from across the pond what the magnificent typo
above means. If necessary, let's hope PJ waives the comments policy in the
interest of enlightenment and a knee-slapping thread.

Enough folly and back to substance. Who needs to be reminded that the Court has
jurisdiction over sealing and deleting? Certainly not the Court or SCO. It
must be those creditors and those bloggers who may be leaked the little morsels.
Let's hope the good judge did some editing first. They aren't going to give
him this "Blackline" edition anyway.

---
webster


© 2007 Monopoly Corporation. ALL rights reserved. Yours included.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Terminated employee as creditor, and source of all filings?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 08:15 PM EDT
Hey, SCOfolk caught up in this mess....if you find your self in a creditor
status, please consider signing up for all notices and establishing a means to
communicate such notices to an nearby archive & review service :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

hefty bills for legal research and strategy planning
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 09:31 PM EDT
SCO tries to sell most of the operations in a way that $10
millions will go to finance its legal fees. Two issues:

1) IBM and Novell would not like that. The legal papers have
to be perfect just to have a shot. Plenty of lawyers' work.

2) The legal battle just starts. The lawyers want to be sure
that they will be paid, or they will stop putting so much
effort.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Berger Invoice: York Deal was negotiated 9/18, Daytimers terminated their deal, etc.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 10:38 PM EDT
Doc 163 Appendix A is a detailed invoice with some real insights:
The York Capital deal was the subject of multiple tasks starting on 9/18, a term sheet was reviewed in the first week.

A "interested buyer in Unix IP" was S. Fallon, CFO on 9/26. He had a single telephone conference with the lawyers. Fallon would be CFO of the Texas and outsource software company Trilogy. This looks like different offer than York.

The Daytimer contract took up a lot of lawyer time-- it strongly appears that Daytimer terminated SCOX coincident with the BK filing.

9/18/2007-- AJS-- REVIEW CORRESPONDANCE REGARDING DAY-TIMERS TERMINATION OF CONTRACT; REVIEW CONTRACT DOCS AND RESPOND --1.20

9/19/2007-- GR-- CONFERENCE WITH A. SPECTOR AND BEGIN RESEARCH REGARDING WHETHER POST-PETITION TERMINATION OF DAYTIMERS CONTRACT IS EFFECTIVE --1.00

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Trilogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 11:48 PM EDT
    • Trilogy - clicky - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2007 @ 07:19 AM EDT
      • Trilogy - clicky - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2007 @ 08:23 AM EDT
What would it cost?
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Friday, October 26 2007 @ 10:24 AM EDT
What is the limit as far as ownership, for qualifying as a shareholder who gets
the updates?

Is it 1 share, 100 shares?

Is there anybody with an e*trade account who'd be willing to "donate"
the $7 trade commission and $10 to pick up say 20 shares of SCO to qualify? And
forward the faxes to PJ?

--Joe

[ 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 )