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
Novell's Statement Re Mesirow's Bill, as text, and SCO Responds
Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 08:56 PM EST

SCO's lawyers read Novell's Statement Regarding First Monthly Fee Application of Mesirow Financial Consultants [PDF] and said, "uh oh." They have now responded with a filing of their own, saying that "in an abundance of caution" they talked matters over with Novell, and since Novell said in the Statement that it didn't object to interim payment, they have filed a Certification of No Objection (No Order Required) [PDF] (love the parenthetical emphasis). Mesirow will only take 80 percent of its fee now, SCO says, and all the expenses it billed for, and they'll hash it all out later.

Well. Very thrifty. But it's still $359,910.64 in fees and $48,702.11 in expenses, mostly for a deal that never had a ghost of a chance of happening in the real world.

We have the Statement by Novell as text now, thanks to Groklaw's E-man, which will, I think, give you insight into SCO's latest move. Novell expressed its concerns that the Mesirow bill takes such a hefty chunk out of the estate, and it is concerned in general that money is pouring out to advisors and lawyers and yet there has been little or no progress. One of SCO's law firms, Berger Singerman, has already, according to footnote 3, requested more than a half million dollars in fees and expenses just through November, and if you add that with the Mesirow bill, the requested fees and expenses well exceed $1 million already since SCO filed for bankruptcy. What troubles Novell as a significant creditor is that SCO seems no closer to a plan of reorganization. And here comes Dorsey & Whitney, another SCO law firm, filing its second monthly bill [PDF]. At this rate, will SCO even make it to the Utah trial, now set for April? Even if it does, will there be anything left for Novell? Probably not, so Novell is staking its claim now, letting everyone know that it reserves its right to go after some of this money gushing out in such abundance to SCO's advisors. What is complicating everything is that the trial in Utah hasn't happened yet.

If it had happened in September, when originally scheduled, there would have been several millions for Novell, if it prevailed, as expected. Instead, the millions are flying the coop and landing in the happy pockets of SCO's lawyers and advisors. But until there is a resolution of those issues in Utah and everyone knows what SCO owes Novell, no one can really do anything too dramatic about it, because certain rights are not yet finally determined. No one can get out of this mud now; only a decision in the SCO v. Novell matter will break the logjam, I'm afraid. Of course, if you're SCO's lawyers and advisors, it's party time. If you're SCO, it's probably not so bad to be stuck in the mud for now. SCO has the natural reluctance of a condemned man asked to walk to the Utah gallows. Being condemned isn't as bad as long as today's not the day.

But it's very expensive mud, from Novell's perspective, so Novell is telling the court and SCO that it is not interested in getting nothing out of this. Lawyers don't file statements of concern like this for nothing. It's letting everyone know not to spend all the sudden wealth. They might have to give a hefty portion back at the end of this bankruptcy.

Footnote 2 in Novell's Statement said that Novell was not asking that Debtors suspend payment "at this juncture", but it "reserves the right to object to the Requested Amount, in whole or in part, and seek appropriate remedy (including disgorgement) when final approval is sought." So everyone knows that there will be a fight over the way the money is disappearing into pockets that are not Novell's. Remember that from Novell's perspective, every penny of SCO's money is probably actually Novell's money.

So here's what the SCO filing, by two of SCO's law firms, the very same Berger Singerman and Pachulski Stang, says in reaction to Novell not objecting to "interim approval or payment of Mesirow's fees and expenses":

Furthermore, out of an abundance of caution, counsel to the Debtors spoke with counsel to Novell to confirm that Novell did not object to the filing of this certificate or the payment of fees and expenses to MFC on an interim basis.

Pursuant to the Administrative Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of Professionals (Docket No. 95), the Debtors are authorized to pay MFC $359,910.64, which represents 80% of the fees ($449,888.30) and $48,702.11 which represents 100% of the expenses requested in the Application for the period September 14, 2007 through November 30, 2007, upon the filing of this certificate and without the need for entry of a Court order approving the Application.

So everyone knows now that these bills are going to be challenged and examined more carefully down the road.

I expect future bills will be less breath-taking. But it doesn't really matter. The line has been drawn in the sand, and Novell has put everyone on notice that it reserves its right to ask for disgorgement of the monies being paid to Mesirow. Remember at the first hearing where the judge told Novell it would not be prejudiced? Novell, no doubt, hopes he means it and that there will be some equity at the end of the day, because to simple eyes like mine, Novell is being prejudiced like crazy.

Now, the relevant filings:

305 - Filed & Entered: 01/11/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Second Application for Compensation Second Interim Application of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Special Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-In-Possession, for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period November 1, 2007 Through November 30, 2007 Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Attachments: # (1) Notice of Filing of Fee Application # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Exhibit B # (4) Exhibit C # (5) Exhibit D) (Schnabel, Eric)

306 - Filed & Entered: 01/11/2008
Certificate of No Objection
Docket Text: Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding First Monthly Fee Application of Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC as Financial Advisors to the Debtors for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period from September 14, 2007 through November 30, 2007 (related document(s)[280] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)

And here's the Novell Statement, as text:

**************************************

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re:

The SCO Group, Inc., et al.,

Debtors.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Chapter 11

Case No. 07-11337 (KG)
(Jointly Administered)

Re: Docket No. 280



NOVELL'S STATEMENT REGARDING FIRST MONTHLY FEE APPLICATION OF
MESIROW FINANCIAL CONSULTING, LLC AS FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO THE
DEBTORS FOR COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR
THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2007


Novell, Inc. ("Novell") hereby submits this statement (the "Statement") expressing its concerns with regard to the First Monthly Fee Application of Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC as Financial Advisors to the Debtors for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period September 14, 2007 Through November 30, 2007 (the "Fee Application") of Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC ("Mesirow"). As the Fee Application seeks only interim approval, Novell does not formally object to the fees and expenses requested at this time, but hereby reserves its rights to object to the fees and expenses for which Mesirow now seeks approval when final approval is sought.

In furtherance hereof, Novell respectfully states as follows:

Statement of Concerns Regarding the Fee Application

1. The Fee Application seeks interim approval of $449,888.30 in fees for services rendered and $48,702.11 in actual expenses, for a total interim application of $498,590.41 (the Requested Amount").1 In accordance with the Administrative Order establishing procedures for


interim compensation and reimbursement of expenses of professionals applicable in these cases, in the absence of any objection to the Fee Application, the Debtors are entitled to pay 80% of professional fees requested and 100% of expenses incurred.2

2. As a substantial creditor and party-in-interest, Novell is concerned by the astonishing level of fees and expenses generated at the Debtors' behest, given the lack of progress in these chapter 11 cases.3 Novell expresses its concerns on several levels. Most notably, Novell is concerned that the Fee Application reveals that Mesirow has spent more than 600 hours and in excess of $250,000 on analysis of merger, acquisition and divestiture of assets of the estates, for which no definitive value has been realized. As the Court is aware, though the Debtors filed a motion to sell substantially all of their assets, not only was no sale consummated, but an asset purchase agreement detailing the proposed sale was not docketed at the time of the sale motion, and, the motion was subsequently withdrawn without realizing value to the estates. In light of these facts, a Requested Amount of nearly $500,000 may well be excessive.

3. In addition to its concerns regarding the amount expended in professional fees when compared to the lack of concrete progress these cases have made, Novell also is troubled by potential issues of inefficiency and appropriateness of activity. For example, Mesirow has spent in excess of 350 hours and $100,000 on Court filings (excluding the Merger/Acquisition Divestiture Analysis discussed above) that may be duplicative, at least in part, to the time expenditures of Debtors' counsel. In addition, it will be worth inquiring whether Mesirow should be doing certain subsets of this work at all. Further, upon a review of the time entries

2

annexed to the Fee Application, Novell is concerned that some tasks are overstaffed, which appears to be further draining the estates of valuable resources.

4. As these few examples demonstrate, moreover, it appears that a major reason for the massive accumulation in fees so quickly in the cases is that the Debtors themselves are employing their professionals on unrealistic tasks that are both inappropriate and inefficient to the estates, as well as failing to responsibly manage the professionals.

5. In sum, Novell is troubled by the lack of progress in these chapter 11 cases when compared to the remarkably high expenditure of fees and expenses by the Debtors' professionals. Given that the Debtors' financial resources are thin, at best, this issue is especially significant. Indeed, at this rate, without a miracle there will soon be nothing left for prepetition creditors.

6. Accordingly, Novell has used this occasion to state its concerns (and reserve its right to object to the Requested Amount on final application to the Court, as well as, of course, to future interim applications) with the intent of inducing the Debtors and their professionals to be more thoughtful about their activities and the attendant costs to the estates.


Dated: January 9, 2008
Wilmington, Delaware
CROSS & SIMON, LLC
By: /s/ Christopher P. Simon
Richard H. Cross, Jr. (No. 3576)
Christopher P. Simon (No. 3697)
[address, telephone]
-and-
Adam A. Lewis, Esquire
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
[address, telephone]

3



-and-
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Larren M. Nashelsky
Julie D. Dyas
[address, telephone]
Counsel for Novell, Inc.

4

1 This large figure is after a voluntary reduction by Mesirow of approximately $49,000, or about 10%, from an even larger dollar amount. Novell appreciates Mesirow's voluntary reduction; however, the gesture does not alter Novell's concerns regarding the Fee Application, discussed below, as the Fee Application still seeks a hefty portion of estate assets.

2 Novell does not request that the Debtors suspend payment to Mesirow or its other professionals at this juncture; rather, as stated above, it reserves the right to object to the Requested Amount, in whole or in part, and seek appropriate remedy (including disgorgement) when final approval is sought.

3 As the Court is aware, the Debtors' lead bankruptcy counsel, Berger Singerman, P.A. has already requested more than $500,000 in fees and expenses just through November. When combined with the Requested Amount and the fees of other professionals in these cases, requested fees and expenses to the estates well exceed $1 million.


  


Novell's Statement Re Mesirow's Bill, as text, and SCO Responds | 159 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off topic Here
Authored by: BigTex on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 09:15 PM EST
I am 2nd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections, issue in subject line please
Authored by: tce on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 09:32 PM EST
Thanks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Items
Authored by: capt.Hij on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 09:48 PM EST
Discussions about news items here please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell is being prejudiced like crazy
Authored by: bbaston on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 10:11 PM EST
Yes they are, PJ. Imagine this happening in the 19__ - well - a long time ago. Bank robbers were shot back then.

Yet here we have tSCOg living high on the 'bank robbery' funds - being helped apparently in laundering the remaining money by - lawyers and advisers!

Tell me I'm wrong.

---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

The F word...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 10:21 PM EST

Where exactly is the line between "sound business decision" and "fraud"? IANAL, but I'd expect it to lie exactly at the intersection of "trying to stay in business" and "trying to deplete the estate."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Lucy Pull The Football Away?
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 10:22 PM EST
Hey, everybody!

One thing that keeps sticking out in my mind is that Judge Gross is the big guy
here. Whatever he says goes.

Suppose these consultants and such get their money.

And Novell wins in court.

And SCO goes Chapter 7.

Can Gross order these consultants to give the money back?

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

To simple eyes
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 10:29 PM EST


To simple eyes like mine to it too looks like Novell is being prejudiced. I like
your way of saying it PJ.

So Novell is saying it may go after the payments later. I wonder if this will
affect the level of service that TSCOG gets from the legal firms and
consultants? And of course I wonder how much money it will cost Novell when and
if it has to do this, and whether they can get those costs back?

Which brings up another issue. Most of us regulars are more than a little upset
at this apparent gaming of the system. Many of us think that the actions of
certain people involved should be covered under criminal law, if they aren't
already.

Obviously business executives would like to be able to operate heir businesses
without interference from the legal system. Just as obviously the general public
considers white collar criminals to be total scumbags, who should be prosecuted
to the full extent of the law, and that if the law doesn't allow this, it should
be changed.

We also have had changes in both the legal and political systems, where both are
far less consumer friendly than they have been historically, and are now far
more business friendly.

So where do we go from here? Note that I'm not sure that the above makes a lot
of sense - in general I think I got down what I wanted to say, but it could
probably do with some editing!


---
Wayne

http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Statement Re Mesirow's Bill, as text, and SCO Responds
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 12:23 AM EST
PJ notes, "because to simple eyes like mine, Novell is being prejudiced
like crazy."

I've been saying this for months and often told I'm nuts for saying so ;-} I
certainly hope that either Judge Gross or Judge Kimball has the intestinal
fortitude to do the right thing. SCO has been gaming the system for so long
that it seems natural now.

As I see it nobody except for the SCO Execs and lawyers will win financially -
everybody else loses in this sad game. Justice delayed is justice denied and
we've all seen the magnitude of the delays. The courts can change this. The
question is, Will they?


---
Bill The Cat

[ Reply to This | # ]

BSA cosigned the motion?? They werent supposed to.
Authored by: itsnotme on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 12:33 AM EST
If I recall correctly, a few months ago BSA submitted a motion to be one of
SCO's attorneys in the bankruptcy and there was an objection by the Trustee.
The Trustee made them write out that they would only be involved in the Trials
(SCO v Novell and SCO v etc) and not the bankruptcy itself. So why is BSA
cosigning this motion since this is part of the bankruptcy and not part of any
of the Trials.

Or am I not remembering something correctly?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The typical and atypicalof this BK
Authored by: bezz on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 01:22 AM EST
Bankruptcies happen. Some are legitimate Chapter 11 and some are going to be
converted to Chapter 7. Judges see it and get to know the difference.

What is typical of this soon-to-be Chapter 7? Filing a ridiculous plan to
benefit the interests of the zombie company's buddies. Such was the case with
the asset sale.

What is atypical? On the first day hearing, a single creditor (and large
company) showed up in force and has continued to question every single move a
tiny, bankrupt company tries to make. And there is not yet a creditors
committee set up.

Novell is there with hate in their hearts and spending much more on the BK
proceedings than they could ever hope to recover, let alone what they will be
owed once Kimball has his say.

Make no mistake, Novell is there to clear its titles. It is willing to do so
for its long-term interests, not for any hope of recovering a dime.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • No - Authored by: sproggit on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 01:45 AM EST
    • Yes - Authored by: bezz on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 03:31 AM EST
      • Yes - Authored by: mpellatt on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 08:19 AM EST
    • What about IBM? - Authored by: kh on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 03:11 PM EST
Mob Justice?
Authored by: mattflaschen on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 02:46 AM EST
Did anyone else notice on p. 17:

11/02/07 S. Marsden Review Linux "mob justice" article (.5); review
summary judgment decision?

Presumably, he's talking about
http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/09/10/did-sco-get-linux-mob-justice/
, and of course the August 10th ruling. I find it interesting that first of
all, reading a Forture article is considered "Legal services", and
second that reading the 2-page article took the same time as the 102 page
judgment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darls fees?
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 06:52 AM EST
The tSCOg has paid the execs well for the year they stole Novell's money, will
those bonuses get returned as well?
Could this be why the execs want to draw this trial out as long as possible; Is
there a time limit that the Delaware court cannot recover money from before, a
day X?

---
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
-D. Adams

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU starts new procedure against convicted U.S. Monopolist
Authored by: trtl on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 10:09 AM EST
According to <a
href="http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,528511,00.html">this
</a> german article, the European Commission has started two procedures
against a wellknown U.S. Monopolist software company from Seattle. The first one
is based on a complaint from Opera regarding unfair bundeling of Internet
Explorer with Windows. The second one is about opening up information about
interfaces, where the complaint comes from ECIS, an international nonprofit
association promoting ICT (see <a
href="http://www.ecis.eu">here</a>.

Again, this could lead to high penalty payments, though it'll probably take a
while....

[ Reply to This | # ]

"failing to responsibly manage"
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 01:27 PM EST
Novell is starting to say the Darl and Company should be replaced.

---
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 | # ]

The Dreaded "D" Word...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 01:56 PM EST
Disgorgement

I wonder how many "professionals" at the Money Trough will be thinking
twice about running up the bills with the "D" word now mentioned?

What are the odds?

[ Reply to This | # ]

lawyers and advisers get paid, everyone else gets in line
Authored by: vb on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 02:01 PM EST

The lawyers and advisers get paid, everyone else gets in the creditors line.
This is typical. What is not typical is the percentage of the estate being
spent for non-operational expenses. And there is a creditor who is being told
to stay in the back of the line, Novell.

Judge Gross could make these lawyers and advisers get in line for their money.

Disgorgement is a rare thing. Once the money's gone, it doesn't normally come
back. If Judge Gross was inclined to foresee the possibility of disgorgement,
he would probably put the money in escrow instead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The other way around?
Authored by: kh on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 02:58 PM EST
Putting it the other way around: aren't SCO supposed to ask permission to do
stuff that will spend this sort of money before they spend it? Would they have
got permission?

But they didn't ask did the, they just went ahead. No sanctions or anything,
just the money handed over? Doesn't seem right to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trial is tomorrow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 06:35 PM EST
I looked at the article from Jan 11th that says:

So four days. Make your plans. Get your plane tickets. This is center ring in
the Big Tent.

But the same article also says:

484 - NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Kim Jones)
4-day Bench Trial set for 4/29/2008 08:30 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A.
Kimball. Any motions for summary judgment filed will be heard at the time of
trial.(kmj) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

This indicates April 29th to me...which is it? Am I just misunderstanding
something?

[ 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 )