|
|
| 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?
|
|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- The sound of empire falling [MS] - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 03:01 AM EST
- Ballmer ordered to testify... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 06:46 AM EST
- Fedora 10! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 09:47 AM EST
- Fedora 10! - Authored by: robobright on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 10:21 AM EST
- Fedora 10! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 10:32 AM EST
- Fedora 10! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 10:44 AM EST
- Fedora 10! - Authored by: kjs on Wednesday, November 26 2008 @ 09:34 PM EST
- Free as in Freedom, not Free as in Freeloader - Authored by: bb5ch39t on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 11:22 AM EST
- "Help Desk" on McDonald's patent idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 11:35 AM EST
- SCO appeal - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 02:11 PM EST
- SCO appeal - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 02:19 PM EST
- SCO appeal - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 02:38 PM EST
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
