|
US Trustee Objects to SCO's Proposed Payment to York |
|
Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 06:51 AM EDT
|
The US Trustee, through her counsel Joseph McMahon, has now filed an Objection to SCO's motion to pay off ... I mean to pay York, despite the deal never having been consummated. Here's one reason why:Here, this Court rejected the hasty process that the Debtors and York were seeking
in favor of a process that benefitted all constituencies. Subsequent to this Court’s ruling regarding
the process timetable, York walked out on the Debtors. This Court should not authorize the Debtors
to make any payments to York, as York’s lack of commitment to a fair process is not consonant with
the estates’ interests. I believe that is the polite way of putting it. See how you can express yourself perfectly clearly while remaining calm and polite? Effective too. The Objection also points out that when you are in bankruptcy, you can't do things any old which way. And one thing you can't do is act like you are not bankrupt and pay people outside of the rules.
IBM has also filed an Objection, as has Novell [PDF].
There is a bill from Pachulski Stang also and an affidavit of mailing regarding the R & D Strategic Solutions' assignment of its claim to Argo Partners.
Here are the filings:
441 -
Filed & Entered:
04/14/2008
Affidavit/Declaration of Service
Docket Text: Affidavit/Declaration of Service of Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC (related document(s)[436] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Werkheiser, Rachel)
442 -
Filed & Entered:
04/14/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession, for the Period from February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 5/5/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
443 -
Filed & Entered:
04/14/2008
Objection
Docket Text: Objection to Debtors' Motion for Authority to Pay an Expense Reimbursement to York Capital Management (related document(s)[367] ) Filed by United States Trustee (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service) (McMahon Jr., Joseph)
*************************
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re
THE SCO GROUP, INC., et al.,
Debtors.
Chapter 11
Case Number 07-11337 (KG)
(Jointly Administered)
Hearing Date: April 18, 2008 at 1:30 P.M.
OBJECTION OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE TO THE
DEBTORS’ MOTION FOR AUTHORITY TO PAY AN EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
TO YORK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
(DOCKET ENTRY # 367)
In support of her objection to the Debtors’ motion for authority to pay an expense
reimbursement to York Capital Management (“York”) (the “Motion”), Kelly Beaudin Stapleton,
United States Trustee for Region 3 (“U.S. Trustee”), by and through her counsel, avers:
INTRODUCTION
1. Under (i) 28 U.S.C. § 1334, (ii) (an) applicable order(s) of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and (iii) 28 U.S.C. §
157(b)(2), this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Motion.
2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 586, the U.S. Trustee has an overarching responsibility to enforce
the laws as written by Congress and interpreted by the courts. See United States Trustee v.
Columbia Gas Sys., Inc. (In re Columbia Gas Sys., Inc.), 33 F.3d 294, 295-96 (3d Cir. 1994) (noting
that U.S. Trustee has “public interest standing” under 11 U.S.C. § 307 which goes beyond mere
pecuniary interest);Morgenstern v. Revco D.S., Inc. (In re Revco D.S., Inc.), 898 F.2d 498, 500 (6th
Cir. 1990) (describing the U.S. Trustee as a “watchdog”).
1
3. Under 11 U.S.C. § 307, the U.S. Trustee has standing to be heard on the Motion and
the issues raised in this objection.
GROUNDS/BASIS FOR RELIEF
4. In the Motion, the Debtors assert two grounds for making the requested payment:
first, the Debtors are obligated to make the payment “as a business and moral matter,” Mot. ¶ 4;
second, the Debtors’ failure to make the payment may make obtaining potential investors “more
difficult,” Mot. ¶ 7.
5. With regard to the first ground asserted, applicable law instructs this Court that
neither business practices nor morality should inform its decision whether to approve the requested
payments. In O’Brien, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit specifically rejected
the argument that business practices in the non-bankruptcy context should govern this Court’s
determination of whether a break-up fee or expense reimbursement request is justified. Rather, the
O’Brien court held that the determination of whether to approve a break-up fee or expense
reimbursement is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A), which allows for the payment of certain
administrative expenses, including “the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the
estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A); see Calpine Corp. v. O’Brien Env’tl Energy, Inc. (In re O’Brien
Env’tl Energy, Inc.), 181 F.3d 527, 535 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting that break-up fee and expense
reimbursement requests are subject to “general administrative expense jurisprudence”). In O’Brien,
the Third Circuit observed that, under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A), there will be situations where
payment of bid protections will not be warranted, notwithstanding asserted business justifications
and “moral” (using the Debtors’ term) concerns:
All parties recognize that break-up fees and expenses are accepted in
corporate merger and acquisitions transactions. In summarizing the
2
corporate use of break-up fees, Calpine has explained that such
provisions are designed to provide a prospective acquirer with some
assurance that it will be compensated for the time and expense it has
spent in putting together its offer if the transaction is not completed
for some reason, usually because another buyer appears with a higher
offer. Such provisions may also encourage a prospective bidder to do
the due diligence that is the prerequisite to any bid by assuring the
prospective bidder that it will receive compensation for that
undertaking if it is unsuccessful.
Not all of the purposes that break-up fees serve in corporate
transactions are permissible in bankruptcy.
Although the assurance of a break-up fee may serve to induce an
initial bid (a permissible purpose), it may also serve to advantage a
favored purchaser over other bidders by increasing the cost of the
acquisition to the other bidders (an impermissible purpose).
Moreover, even if the purpose for the break-up fee is not
impermissible, the break-up fee may not be needed to effectuate that
purpose. For example, in some cases a potential purchaser will bid
whether or not break-up fees are offered. This can be expected to
occur whenever a potential purchaser determines that the cost of
acquiring the debtor, including the cost of making the bid, is less than
the estimated value the purchaser expects to gain from acquiring the
company. In such cases, the award of a break-up fee cannot be
characterized as necessary to preserve the value of the estate.
O’Brien, 181 F.3d at 535 (citation omitted).
6. With regard to the second concern, that the Debtors’ inability to make the payment
may make obtaining potential investors “more difficult,” the Debtors again fail to acknowledge
O’Brien. Under O’Brien, the Third Circuit established a standard that is necessarily difficult to
meet; O’Brien eliminated the ability of debtors in possession to promise potential
purchasers/investors break-up incentives in exchange for non-binding “commitments” and to then
seek the bankruptcy court’s ratification of their “business judgment.”
3
7. Here, this Court rejected the hasty process that the Debtors and York were seeking
in favor of a process that benefitted all constituencies. Subsequent to this Court’s ruling regarding
the process timetable, York walked out on the Debtors. This Court should not authorize the Debtors
to make any payments to York, as York’s lack of commitment to a fair process is not consonant with
the estates’ interests. The Motion should be denied.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE the U.S. Trustee requests that this Court issue an order denying the Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
KELLY BEAUDIN STAPLETON
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
BY: /s/ Joseph J. McMahon, Jr.
Joseph J. McMahon, Jr., Esquire (# 4819)
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Office of the United States Trustee
[address, phone, fax]
Date: April 14, 2008
4
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 06:58 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 07:09 AM EDT |
Under O’Brien, the Third Circuit established a standard that
is necessarily difficult to meet; O’Brien eliminated the ability of debtors in
possession to promise potential purchasers/investors break-up incentives in
exchange for non-binding “commitments” and to then seek the bankruptcy court’s
ratification of their “business judgment.”
Note how
the Trustee encloses "business judgment" in quotes. Seems to me a subtle but
distinct indication that the Trustee now knows what they're dealing
with.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 07:16 AM EDT |
See how you can express yourself perfectly clearly while remaining calm and
polite?
Yes
But do you understand that it takes two to communicate some of whom do not
understand reason and only understand more forceful means.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- An even better example... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- An even better example... - Authored by: gorshkov on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 08:16 AM EDT
- Here it is as a clicky - Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 08:27 AM EDT
- An even better example... - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- Make my day... - Authored by: SteveRose on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 08:59 AM EDT
- Make my day... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 11:08 AM EDT
- But not good enough - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- Judge and jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- The question you have to ask yourself, punk... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 01:11 PM EDT
- Best Part... - Authored by: maz2331 on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 01:38 PM EDT
- An even better example... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 01:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: groklawdranem on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
OT discussion below [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hardy Heron review - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- Hardy Heron review - link defective n/t - Authored by: Gerry on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- Lickable Clink - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 09:06 AM EDT
- WUBI - we hardly know ya - Hardy Heron review - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- Ubuntu overrated - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 09:23 AM EDT
- It has a different focus.. - Authored by: Peter Baker on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- It has a different focus.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- It has a different focus.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 10:41 AM EDT
- It has a different focus.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 11:33 AM EDT
- Good & bad - Authored by: Peter Baker on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- Good & bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 01:06 PM EDT
- Good & bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- Good & bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 03:19 PM EDT
- It has a different focus -> mono. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- Yes, it caters to Windows noobs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- Not in My Book - Authored by: sunnyfla on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 10:25 AM EDT
- Ubuntu overrated - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- Ubuntu overrated - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- Ubuntu overrated Canonical Marketing Machine - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- Ubuntu overrated -- A rebuttal - Authored by: IRJustman on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- But - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Hurrah !!!!! - Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- New MS content partners, DRM (available later this year when Microsoft releases Silverlight 2) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 09:29 AM EDT
- Laura DiDio - 2008 Server OS Reliability Survey - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- Democrats sue FEC? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- Microsoft's OOXML trophy is conditional? - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- Monster Cables Pushes Around the Wrong Small Company - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- Monster chews on wrong cable, gets shocked - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 02:56 PM EDT
- Wow - Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 03:25 PM EDT
- Wow - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- Wow - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 12:31 AM EDT
- Silverlight: the worst license page I have ever seen. - Authored by: kh on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- Brilliant response to attempted patent intimidation - Authored by: AJWM on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- OT: Hipcheck - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 04:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: groklawdranem on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 07:59 AM EDT |
News Picks that should be in the front page right hand column. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
Perhaps IBM, Novel, and the US Trustee should all put in bills for all their
atty fees and see how SCO likes it?
When they get done calling foul, it can just be brought to the courts attention
next time they try one of these stunts that they were not willing to pay for
what they are costing others, why should others be paying for every fiaSCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
York: Whaaa! We don't wanna play unless we get all the candy!
York, later: We want candy because we didn't get to play by our rules!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 15 2008 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
Soon SCOGBK #444 will show up on groklaw; here we have berger singerman asking
or 0.24M$ for the withdrawn york deal. The BK court simply should not allow this
nonsence again; if it th e count allows this payment for nothing, the legal
system should hang it's head in shame here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 12:53 AM EDT |
SCO's day in court is fast approaching. Trial briefs are due next
Wednesday, April 23, and trial starts the following Tuesday, April 29, to
continue through Friday.
Time to make plans for trial coverage. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 12:55 AM EDT |
Sounds like a very intelligent and sensible person. I suspect that we will soon
see TSCOG saying that her record in sheepherding companies through Chapter 11 is
suspect, because she won't let them do what they want.
Mind you that's just a suspicion, but one based on past experience.
---
Wayne
http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|