|
Hearing on May 15 about Paying York Cancelled; New Date June 17 |
|
Monday, May 12 2008 @ 04:27 PM EDT
|
A shout out to anyone thinking of attending the hearing that had been scheduled for May 15th: it's cancelled. More accurately, it's been postponed. Here is the filing:
472 - Filed & Entered: 05/12/2008
Hearing Cancelled. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing.
Docket Text: HEARING CANCELLED. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 5/15/2008 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel) I thought at first SCO must have given up, but no. The status line reads like this: "This matter has been continued to the hearing on June 17, 2008 at 2:00 p.m." SCO never gives up. I know you are wondering about the docket entry just before this, #471, and the delay is because I got intrigued by one element in the bill from Dorsey & Whitney, and I'll tell you what I have been researching in connection with it in the next article.
Here are all the filings on that, so you can start digging too:
471 - Filed & Entered: 05/09/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation Sixth Monthly Fee Application of Dorsey & Whitney LLP for the Period March 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Objections due by 5/29/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A # (2) Exhibit B # (3) Exhibit C # (4) Exhibit D # (5) Notice of Sixth Monthly Fee Application) (Schnabel, Eric)
I keep noticing them working on SCO Global corporate documents, and I'm trying to figure out what that is and why they keep working on it.
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
Please make links clicky
---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- DECLARATION OF CHRIS SONTAG: 4-19-2004 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- New copyright article - Authored by: bstone on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- Who wrote this? I'll give you three guesses. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 06:26 PM EDT
- Judges Ask for More Concrete Patent Test - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 08:10 PM EDT
- HP bids to buy EDS - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 08:26 PM EDT
- Google delists Opensource Project under DCMA pressure - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- Gates offers free software in Asia - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 09:05 PM EDT
- Help, how do I find exhibit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- Embedded Linux has more friends than you may know - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 12:24 AM EDT
- Is open source Solaris in danger? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 03:02 AM EDT
- Cranky Geeks rip OOXML (the April Fools' Standard) - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 03:23 AM EDT
- Microsoft Cofee brews 'back door' fears - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 10:14 AM EDT
- Stupidist ruling I've seen in a long time - Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- Vista sluggish - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- Attack on ODF getting more intense - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- Oh no, software patents in Europe, again? :( - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- Digistan - The Hague Declaration - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- Oregon says laws not public domain? - Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 09:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
Please make the title reflect the problem (eg "mitsake ->
mistake").
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wholeflaffer on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
Here is where you can discuss the News Picks from the right hand column of
Groklaw's main page.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- URL Blocking: Problem now fixed - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- First Space Lawyer Graduates - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- Microsoft to Limit Capabilities of Cheap Laptops - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Why contribute to OpenSolaris? - Authored by: David Gerard on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 11:07 AM EDT
- What did Sun license from SCO? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Britain complains to EU about Microsoft file system - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- Charter and DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- Newspicks Thread - Sun to Clarify JavaFX - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 11:44 PM EDT
- Newspicks Thread-The Vault Top 100 Law Firms - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 14 2008 @ 03:32 AM EDT
- Newspicks Thread - Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, May 14 2008 @ 03:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
The parts that jump out at me
that SCO is being billed for ....
---------------------------------
'blue sky filings stock option plans'
and
'California blue sky renewals for stock plans'
Proxy statements
SEC requirements to liquidating trusts
Review and revise trust agreement
Review Utah U-1 application to register securities
and California application for qualification
---------------------------------
If I didn't know better, I would guess that SCO
is trying to once again pull the rug out from
under everyone else, and take care of themselves
at the expense of everyone else.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
I know it's been asked before, but does SCO have the authority to unilaterally
cancel a hearing like this?
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mlwmohawk on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 07:18 PM EDT |
If the company runs itself to nothing, there is no point is continuing
bankruptcy.
Surely, if they go broke, its a better story than if they lose.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
This motion was originally
filed on February 29, and was to be heard on April 18. It was continued to
May 15 (at TSG's request), now it's continued to June 17. Just how much
patience does the Bankruptcy Court have? At what point does TSG have to step up
and defend their motion?
--- "When I say something, I put my name
next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
What I find very interesting is that in most of these billing statements, we see
reference or mention of several people contacting or requesting information from
the lawyers and accountants. What sticks out, in my mind, that we don't ever see
Darl McBride or Ryan Tibbitts name in the memo field. Who is in charge of these
complex matters, the CEO? Or the corporate attorney? Nope.
In this specific billing, we see that it is addressed to Ken Nielsen, the
temporary CFO, who is also contacted and consulted about other issues relating
to SEC filings and board minutes. In other bills we have seen Jean Acheson
mentioned as a primary contact. We don't ever seem to see any other SCO
executive dealing with the legal teams.
We also see that Dorsey, et al is now a party to the compensation committee
meeting, so they can draft notes. Please recall in McBride's testimony at the
Bankruptcy 341 hearing, he made it sound like these compensation committee
meetings were pretty casual. Given the scrutiny, it's clear board minutes are
now being carefully documented.
Looking at the Exhibit D notes, I wonder if some of the earlier executive
assignments were undocumented and cleaning up the minutes and appointments has
turned into a bigger job than expected.
My limited experience with BoD minutes, is that drafting the permanent copy took
about 15 minutes a month. We'd have a copy of an agenda for everyone and go to
lunch. During lunch we'd discuss and check off each item, one of us would
scribble notes on the discussion and decision. When we got back from lunch, we'd
pass the annotated agenda to our star typist, who'd put it in the proper form of
resolutions. Later that day, we'd proof the copy and if it matched our
recollection, we'd each sign the final copy. By the end of day, it went into the
permanent file. Total cost in materials, time and labor -- under $25.
So I have to ask, who is in charge? Who directs all these legal services and
reviews the cost and effectiveness. There was a time when I managed 150-200
employees and $500K per month budget. Trust me, a smart CEO reviews the balance
sheet and bills. He gets involved in goal setting and looking for ways to trim
expenses. And our attorneys were on a first name basis with me ... not our head
of accounting.
And SCO Global, Inc?? No such thing.
Otherwise it would show up in the 10-Q and 10-K, right? ;-Q[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
Too bad this motion wasn't rejected -WITH- prejudice, the -LAST- time it was
brought up![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
I find it interesting that in Appendix D, there are
references to IRS section 409A.
This recently enacted legislation applies to private
companies (as well as certain public companies) typically
seeking "nonqualified deferred compensation" for executives
(think stock options, golden parachutes, termination
agreements, etc).
Generally speaking, the objective of this legislation is to
insure that the stock price of a private company is inline
with real world expectations with respect to various
termination agreements and stock options. There is a set
of strict rules that place requirements on these types of
plans and insure that the stock options and/or separation
agreements for the excutives are inline with the real world
evaluation of the stock to avoid premature taxation, and an
additional 20% federal income tax, and interest on
underpayments of tax.
Sharkx [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
See the following link to the SEC web site
03 10-K
filing
Looks to me that they are trying to move things to a subsidiary
that is not in the
bankruptcy.
Also, it looks like they still haven't cleaned
up the stock option mess from 2004. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 12:25 AM EDT |
The hearing has been cancelled because SCO knows their request to pay
York for the failed bid will be denied. - Not even SCO wants to have a
worthless hearing like the last one. They face formidable and reasonable
objections by the US Trustee and Novell. Without the detailed documents they
haven't a prayer.
- SCO has not been able to run a profitable
business. They have not been able to attract investment on business terms.
Indeed, given their slumped litigation posture, FUD has been their only ticket.
The York proposal was a FUD item.
- York compensation is minor.
They will only get rewarded for their attempted FUD connivance if SCO's
backstop, aka PIPE Fairy, simply steps up and supports SCO in order to stay out
of Chapter 7. This means they would have to pay the bond for an appeal,
probably the $20 million Novell detailed in the trial. Who is going to pay
so much for a dubious investment and volunteer for the attendant
suspicions?
- If all they want is delay and FUD, then a last
minute rescue may be in the works. Otherwise the end is near. Delaying Novell
just to face IBM doesn't make sense.
- The prospect of a
trustee bargaining for SCO must be dreadful to them. He is quite likely to
obtain the best terms by reversing all that they have "accomplished" so
far.
Whatever happens was decided long ago. The courts have just been
their tool that may have outlived their
usefulness.
~webster~
Tyrants live
their delusions.
Beware. Deal with the PIPE
Fairy and you will sell your soul.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 12:25 AM EDT |
Is there anything that states that come June 17 SCO will be run by the same
executives it currently is in the order?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bezz on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
Because I haven't been able to find how to use SCO Global to hide assets or
further the litigation. The 341 Meeting laid out the business relationships
between SCO and its subsidiaries:
McMahon:
You...you report to the federal government on an annual basis for
income
tax purposes?
Acheson:
Yes.
McMahon:
Then those, I guess, those returns are
consolidated, correct?
Acheson:
Correct. It's The
SCO Group and Subsidiaries, is the filing
name.
McMahon:
Okay. Then you do not break out
Group's revenue, distinct from the
other
entities?
Acheson:
No. I do not believe we do. I
believe it all rolls together and that's
we report on in our federal taxes, as
The SCO Group and
Subsidiaries.
(82:27)
McMahon:
Okay. You were
telling me your accounting system, you do not have
coding or an ability
to...run a cash flow statement for SCO
Group?
Acheson:
No. Because ninety percent of our
transactions go under the entity
that we basically consider is the U.S. entity,
which is...
McMahon:
Which is
Operations?
Acheson:
Which is basically equals
Operations. Yes.
McMahon:
Okay. But what about the
other ten percent of the stuff, is my
question?
(83:00)
Acheson:
Mostly what that is is
some of the... is Japan, which is a separate
subsidiary, and some of the small
amounts of revenue that do go through
the other subsidiaries for professional
services, and just the
intercompany revenues that come back and forth on that.
So it's
probably even less than ten percent. I would say it's more like five
percent.
I am not sure to which exhibit Mr. McMaahon is
referring, but it appears that all of the wholly-owned sudsibiaries will share
the same fate as SCO Group.
McMahon:
Exhibit B, 14, which lists Debtors' investments in partnerships or
joint
ventures. I'm just trying to get an understanding as to, confirm
what my
understanding about what's listed there, that's just the
Debtors book equity
investment?
Acheson:
Correct.
McMahon:
In those respective
entities?
Acheson:
Yes.
McBride:
Correct.
McMahon:
Are...would it be fair to say that
the market value of those entities
is basically tied to the fortunes of SCO? As
SCO goes, so goes their
investment in these various
entities?
Acheson:
I would agree with that on all
except for SCO China, which we only have
a thirty percent equity
in.
And remember, a 341 Meeting is admissable. As long as
SCO Global shows up on the list to which Mr. McMahon referred, SCO is painted
into a corner. On the 10-K's, they list it with all the other subsidiaries as
wholly-owned going back to 2003, prior to which it was Caldera Global. If they
play any games, they would be on the hook for Sarbanes-Okley violations, and we
all saw how Darl reacted when confronted with that prospect in the Utah trial.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
The exclusive deadline for plans has now passed, can I submit one?
---
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 Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
Regards the software industry, my bread and butter, this one always gets me. The
creation of software is called engineering, and yet, the company will
claim copyright.
Shameless quote from
wikipedia:
The Copyright Clause of the United States
Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: "To promote the Progress
of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries."
To me there's a chasm between engineering and
copyright.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
While not above and beyond the privacy concerns of such technology, aren't
there copyright concerns as well? Substituting or simply adding advertisements
sounds like creating a derivative work. If I recall correctly a common carrier
has the right to make transitory copies of data it forwards. I don't recall any
authority to make derivative works. The reasoning would stem from a web page
being a collective work which the service provider modifies by substituting
advertising for their own purposes and re-distributing same.
Charter
Communications describe in their
FAQ:
What
enhancements are coming to Charter’s High-Speed Internet service?
While
continuing to deliver the same fast and reliable Internet service you’ve always
received, innovative new technology in the field of online advertising enables
Charter to provide you with an enhanced online experience that is more
customized to your interests and activities. As a result of this service, the
advertising you typically see online will better reflect the interests you
express through your web-surfing activity. You will not see more ads – just ads
that are more relevant to you.
Anyone want to bet we'll see law
suits based on such behavior?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 11:08 PM EDT |
My question is, "How would they place said cookie on my system if I don't
visit their website?"
I'm a Charter internet customer, rarely visit their site and don't use any of
take-home applications they offer so how would they place the cookie and at what
point do they get my consent to wire tap without a warrant?
And if we're talking packet/page manipulation to the point of modifying pages
and inserting a cookie line (jaw drop) class action and copyright violation
would be the least of their problems.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 14 2008 @ 01:30 AM EDT |
Or have they hired a forensic accountant? If not... why not? Anyone can bill
(try to bill)for any amount they want to; but, is it a valid expense?
An
experienced forensic accountant could easily ascertain whether an expense was
legit business expense or not. How? Because they have reviewed hundreds if not
thousands of companies. All of the deceptive flags would be flying in full
color. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|