decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Bankruptcy bills... and unpaid invoices
Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 03:10 PM EDT

More applications for compensation in the SCO bankruptcy, by both Dorsey & Whitney and by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones. It's going to be interesting to see who gets paid in this saga, in the end, particularly if SCO gets sent into Chapter 7.

The bills are very different from the early bankruptcy salad days. For example, Dorsey & Whitney bills $1.92 for computer research expense for the period of March 1 to April 30, according to Exhibit B. I'm a paralegal and I can't imagine how they get to a figure like that. Well. I *could* imagine. They were in a deep sleep, woke up in a panic thinking they forgot to research something for SCO, ran to the computer and hit PACER, only to realize after a few seconds that needing to do research for SCO's bankruptcy now was just a bad dream. Kidding. If you look on page 15 of Exhibit D, it's a bill for "Pacer Service Center Electronic Court Searches." Hmm. My theory takes wings.

Looking through Exhibit A, I see research for a few minutes on page 3 on the subject of updating critical dates memorandum "with respect to recently filed pleadings". But then on the costs, I see an entry on 3/11 for PACER charges of $4.32 and more on the 27th for .08, for a total PACER charge of $13.44. You know how I interpret this? No one cares about legal research now. One does what one must. And that's it. The money spigot is shutting down.

And if you notice in Exhibit D, the paralegal is spending more time on the case than the sole partner and the sole associate, on pages 7 and 8. Ooh. Page 14. Unpaid invoices. "Telephone conference with E. Schnable regarding letter to SCO regarding unpaid invoices".

what? what? what?

I thought SCO just told the court at the last hearing that SCO was keeping up with bills. Well. That explains it all.

This has a certain karmic ring, don't you think? These law firms all fought as a group to help SCO avoid paying Novell until the great bye and bye, at the earliest, if ever. And here they are, with unpaid invoices. Perfection.

The filings:

05/12/2009 - 755 - Monthly Application for Compensation (Twelfth) for the Period March 1, 2009 through April 30, 2009 Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Objections due by 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D # 5 Declaration Certification # 6 Notice) (Schnabel, Eric) (Entered: 05/12/2009)

05/14/2009 - 756 - Certificate of Service of Twelfth Monthly Fee Application Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Schnabel, Eric) (Entered: 05/14/2009)

05/14/2009 - 757 - Application for Compensation (Nineteenth) of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP for Compensation and for Reimbursement of Expenses for March 1, 2009 thorugh March 31, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 6/3/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service & Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 05/14/2009)


Bankruptcy bills... and unpaid invoices | 245 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The usual suspects : Corrections Threads
Authored by: MDT on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 03:13 PM EDT
Give an idea where they are, if any.


[ Reply to This | # ]

The usual suspects : Off Topic Thread
Authored by: MDT on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 03:15 PM EDT
Put in clicky's if you have links, it's not hard...

<a href="">like this</a>


[ Reply to This | # ]

The usual suspects : News Pick Articles
Authored by: MDT on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 03:16 PM EDT
Comment on news picks here.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Unpaid Invoices
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 04:36 PM EDT

Is there anyone in this sorry tale that hasn't been stiffed by SCO?

Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cash situation
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 07:33 PM EDT
Makes you wonder about SCO's cash situation.

I would bet Darl's salary will be paid before the legal bills, no matter how
much he considers SCO's only chances in the end to be a legal win.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Cash situation - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 10:29 PM EDT
Bankruptcy bills... and common stock
Authored by: Jamis on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 08:00 PM EDT
What I don't understand is the stock trading on this turkey. It has been around
$0.14/share for the last couple of weeks and upwards of 1,000 shares/day. You
would have thought the threat of Chapter 7 would have cratered the price.
Profit Margin (ttm): -55.52%
Operating Margin (ttm): -18.19%
Return on Assets (ttm): -14.45%
Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): -36.40%
EBITDA (ttm): -2.29M
Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): -7.66M
Diluted EPS (ttm): -0.36
Now that's what I like to see in an investment!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Old lawyer joke?
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 03:35 AM EDT
For waking up in the middle of the night in a panic and logging on to Pacer,
finding the server is down for maintenance, getting a glass of milk from the
fridge, drinking it and then going back to bed. . . . . . $1.98.

Ian Al

Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How could they have expected it to end any other way?
Authored by: billyskank on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 11:30 AM EDT
These law firms all fought as a group to help SCO avoid paying Novell until the great bye and bye, at the earliest, if ever. And here they are, with unpaid invoices.

They must have known better than anyone that SCO was not a going concern.

It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dorsey & Whitney bills $1.92 for computer research expense for the period of March 1 to April 30
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 12:02 PM EDT
My suggestion:

They billed for $xxx.xx for the period ending 28th February. Having stuck down
the envelope, they realised that they would have to lift it into the 'out' tray.
Normally this would be charged to the following month. When they realised that
there would be no following month, they billed for the work anyway.

Expect bills for $1.92 every two months from now on.

Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Justice at last!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 04:24 PM EDT

These law firms all fought as a group to help SCO avoid paying Novell until the great bye and bye, at the earliest, if ever. And here they are, with unpaid invoices. Perfection.

You see, the US legal system can deliver justice ... :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is justice? Or a miscarriage of justice?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 07:12 AM EDT
  • IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Autozone, etc. spent millions to fight a frivolous case.
  • Novell gets pennies on the dollar of the license fees SCO owes them.
  • Microsoft got to put a legal cloud over Linux for over half a decade for only $86 million.
  • SCO Execs were paid mostly in cash and were well rewarded for burning their credibility.
  • Enderle and O'Gara got to see their name in print more often.
Justice would be:
  • Novell gets all the money they're owed for unix licenses.
  • IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Autozone, etc get all their legal bills paid.
  • Any Linux company who lost a customer due to the legal FUD over the past 6 years gets paid for the lost of their customers.
  • Whomever put SCO up to this gets fined for all those costs, and investigated for fraud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's not for licensing reasons
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 11:03 AM EDT

This totally misunderstands the reason for this. Support for >4GB RAM in 32-bit Windows XP was removed by Service Pack 2 because Windows has lots of dodgy closed-source device drivers. The hardware vendors didn't test them on PCs with lots of memory, so these caused lots of blue-screen-of-death crashes when used with >4GB RAM. (32-bit systems can only access 4GB of RAM easily; there's some magic called "PAE" that lets 32-bit x86 chips access more memory. A few years ago people didn't need it so the device manufacturers didn't test with it).

Most people with more than 4GB of RAM can move to a 64-bit OS; the only reason to stick with 32-bit Windows is if your dodgy closed-source device drivers aren't available in a 64-bit version. And if that's the case then your device manufacturer probably didn't test with >4GB RAM anyway. There's not a lot that Microsoft can do about this - they don't have the driver source code.

(Most of the Linux device drivers are open-source and part of the kernel, so the Linux people can and have gone through and fixed them to support >4GB RAM even in 32-bit mode).

See this article. The relevant quote:

PAE mode can be enabled on Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1 and later versions of Windows to support hardware-enforced DEP. However, many device drivers designed for these systems may not have been tested on system configurations with PAE enabled. In order to limit the impact to device driver compatibility, changes to the hardware abstraction layer (HAL) were made to Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 Standard Edition to limit physical address space to 4 GB.

[ 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 )