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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Minutes from the Bankruptcy Hearing, an Order on 1st Omnibus Objections, and Other Filings - Updated
Monday, November 24 2008 @ 11:50 PM EST

The SCO bankruptcy plods right along. I predicted that the SCO bankruptcy hearing on SCO's First Omnibus Objections to Claims would be short, sweet, and simple, and the minutes of the hearing [PDF] indicate that is exactly how it went. We'll know more when the transcript is made public, but the only interesting detail I see in the rubber stamp session is that IBM sent a lawyer [PDF] to observe, presumably. What it means is that those who did not bother to respond to the objections just had their claims disallowed and expunged [PDF].

Also, Tanner got anointed for its new assignment as accountants to SCO. Is Tanner not the luckiest accountant firm in the world, or what? And the stay has been lifted [PDF] so that the IPO plaintiffs can go forward with that litigation against SCO, subject to the terms agreed upon, that any damages award against SCO will come exclusively from the insurance company and not the bankruptcy estate.

Here are the filings:

612 - Filed & Entered: 11/19/2008
Certificate of No Objection
Docket Text: Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding Eleventh Monthly Application of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, As Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession, for the Period From July 1, 2008 Through July 31, 2008 (related document(s)[583]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen)

613 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Minute Entry
Docket Text: Minutes of Hearing held on: 11/20/2008
Subject: OMNIBUS HEARING.
(vCal Hearing ID (78989)). (SS) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2008 (SS).

614 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Order
Docket Text: Order Approving Expansion of the Scope of Employment of Tanner LC as Accountants to the Debtors Nunc Pro Tunc to October 3, 2008. (related document(s)[158], [311], [330], [488]) Order Signed on 11/20/2008. (LCN)

615 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Order on Motion to Approve
Docket Text: Order Granting IPo Plaintiffs Relief From the Automatic Stay to Pursue Recovery Against Debtors' Insurance. (Related Doc # [568]) Order Signed on 11/20/2008. (LCN)

616 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Certification of Counsel
Docket Text: Certification of Counsel Regarding Order Granting and Sustaining Debtors' First (Non-Substantive) Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 3007 (related document(s)[577]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Form of Order) (Makowski, Kathleen)

617 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service re: [Signed] Order Granting IPo Plaintiffs Relief From the Automatic Stay to Pursue Recovery Against Debtors' Insurance (related document(s)[615]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Makowski, Kathleen)

618 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Affidavit/Declaration of Service
Docket Text: Affidavit/Declaration of Service re: [signed] Order Approving Expansion of the Scope of Employment of Tanner LC as Accountants to the Debtors Nunc Pro Tunc to October 3, 2008 (related document(s)[614]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Makowski, Kathleen)

619 - Filed & Entered: 11/21/2008
Affidavit/Declaration of Service
Docket Text: Affidavit/Declaration of Service of Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC Regarding Proof of Claim Form and Notice of Amendments to Schedules of Liabilities and Time to File Claims in Response to Such Amendments (related document(s)[604]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Makowski, Kathleen)

620 - Filed & Entered: 11/24/2008
Order
Docket Text: Order Granting And Sustaining Debtors' First (Non-Substantive) Omnibus Objection To Claims (related document(s)[577]) Order Signed on 11/21/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit "A" # (2) Exhibit "B" # (3) Exhibit "C" # (4) Exhibit "D") (JSJ)

As you can see in the minutes, there are two notations that say COC. That means Certification of Counsel. When a lawyer certifies something, it basically means he or she is telling the court that it's true. You or I would have to file a sworn affidavit, but lawyers are considered officers of the court and presumably honorable, so they can just certify. Obviously, lying would be counterproductive and punishable, sorta. Here's an example [PDF] of one from another bankruptcy to show you the way they look. And here's the certification of counsel [PDF] regarding the SCO's First Omnibus Objections to Claims. An excerpt:
2. Responses to the Claims Objection were to be filed and served no later than November 13, 2008. The Debtors received several responses to the Claims Objection. The Debtors were able to resolve certain of those responses wherein the claimant consented to the relief requested. Responding claimants who have not yet been contacted have been removed from the applicable exhibits to the Claims Objection. A hearing was held on the Claims Objections on November 20, 2008.

3. Attached hereto is a revised, proposed Order Granting and Sustaining Debtors' First (Non-Substantive) Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 502(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 3007 (the "Proposed Order").

4. The Debtors request that the Court enter the Proposed Order at the Court's earliest convenience.

The Proposed Order [PDF] reads in relevant part like this:
... it is hereby FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT:
A. Each holder of a claim listed on Exhibits "A" through "D" hereto (the "Claimants") was properly and timely served with a copy of the Objection, the proposed order and the accompanying exhibits.

B. The Objection is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2).

C. The claims listed on Exhibit "A" hereto are claims improperly asserting ownership of stock.

E. The claims listed on Exhibit "C" are claims which were filed against an incorrect Debtor.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

1. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 402(d) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007, the claims listed on Exhibits "A" through "D" hereto are hereby and shall be EXPUNGED and DISALLOWED in their entirety; provided, however, that the disallowance and expungement of claims listed on Exhibit A does not impair or effect the ownership interests of those shareholders.

Then the exhibits are attached. And the judge signed the proposed order [PDF], attaching the exhibits to the order, on November 20, evidently at the hearing. If you'd like to compare it to the first proposed order, here you go [PDF]. Any revisions would be in the exhibits, presumably.

Finally, I'm seeing articles about SCO being all done. I don't think so, personally. Boies Schiller never says die, as you may have observed. We'll know by January what the lay of the land is. And don't forget that the IBM and Red Hat lawsuits remain, as does the Swiss arbitration in the Novell case, in addition to the likely appeal.

Update: SCO tells the Salt Lake Tribune it will file an appeal in a matter of days:

SCO officials believe they can win an appeal of Kimball's 2007 ruling because, they argue, he prematurely ruled in favor of Novell when facts in the case were still in dispute.

A SCO spokesperson said Monday a notice of appeal would be filed within a few days. The case goes next to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The final judgment "reflects Judge Kimball's careful and thoughtful work," said Novell attorney Michael Jacobs of San Francisco. "Novell expects to prevail in the court of appeals."

See what I mean?

  


Minutes from the Bankruptcy Hearing, an Order on 1st Omnibus Objections, and Other Filings - Updated | 169 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, November 24 2008 @ 11:55 PM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, November 24 2008 @ 11:58 PM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewsPicks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 12:00 AM EST
Please note which article you are referencing
and possibly include a link to it in case it
rolls off of the main page.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why January?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 12:44 AM EST
Forgive my ignorance, but: What happens by January that we will learn something
from? Is that when the appeal is filed? Or better, decided if it will be
heard? Or is it something else?

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Likely Appeal
Authored by: argee on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 01:32 AM EST
I can't imagine SCO not appealing Kimball's ruling.

It can probably be filed without any "bond", and then
they will wait and see if its required.

They have nothing to lose by filing. They preserve their
"rights", and later on they can flesh it out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it has to be done within 30 calendar days
of Kimball's final judgement.



---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

No objection to novell's motion? So accepted?
Authored by: itsnotme on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 05:16 AM EST
Considering that there wasn't any objections to Novell's motion in the
bankruptcy court, I'm assuming that Novell's motion for the constructive trust
was accepted? The deadline to complain has expired so just like all of SCO's
bills, it's automatically accepted isn't it?

I know there was an objection to it in Utah but not in the bankruptcy court, or
is my memory inaccurate?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Never Say Die
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 05:35 AM EST
SCO may be expiring, but not their manic optimism.

On the day PJ attends SCO's funeral in her red dress, there'll be faint
scrabbling noises from six foot under. Instead of pushing up daisies, they'll
issue their next PR release.

---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

Facts still in dispute
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 06:49 AM EST
Of course the facts were still in dispute, that's why they needed a judge to
make a ruling... If there was no dispute, there would be no court case. If
judge's aren't allowed to rule on disputed facts then their job is rather
limited...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do you think they have any chance of winning a case?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 08:52 AM EST
"Finally, I'm seeing articles about SCO being all done. I don't think so,
personally."

The legal process may not have finished, but in my opinion it has been all over
for some time now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court of Appeals - Im So There
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 09:42 AM EST
Lets get PJ some Denver folks who can regularly be at the
Denver hearings, if any, (sometimes appeals courts have few
or none because normally things stemming from the
underlying circuit case are fully briefed. given that it
is SCO, however, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a
few hearings over motion practice, etc).

I would imagine our collective Denver presence would be
stronger / more comprehensive than our SLC presence.
Hopefully we might even have a paralegal or two, or a
lawyer or two in the audience that wouldn't mind posting
from time to time after attending a hearing.

Ill be there for the important stuff if at all possible.

---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Happens Next?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 11:08 AM EST
When SCO files a notice of appeal, what next?

---
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 | # ]

I can see one fact whis was in dispute.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 12:23 PM EST
The fact which was in dispute was whether there were was a fact in dispute.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apeal Filed in a matter of days -- Minutes from the Bankruptcy Hearing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 12:30 PM EST
Only a few days, in the SCO world, 90 or so.

Less than a month until the Christmas Break. How many deadlines will they miss
then?

[ Reply to This | # ]

*** Notice of Appeal Filed in Utah ***
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 06:09 PM EST
The SCO Group has filed a Notice of Appeal with the District of Utah. Here is the docket filing (docket number 567):

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 377 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 565 Judgment filed by SCO Group. Appeals to the USCA for the 10th Circuit. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 10880000000000796676. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
The judgment being appealed from is, of course, the August 10, 2007 Summary Judgment Decision and Order. No indication in today's filing regarding the basis of the appeal, no details at all in fact other than that they are appealing from the November 2008 Final Order and the "underlying" August 10 2007 ruling.

Hang on, folks, we're going into extra innings.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ 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 )