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.

Gulf Capital Partners Enters (or Reenters?) the SCO Bankruptcy
Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:11 PM EDT

Gulf Capital Partners, LLC wants to be heard in the SCO bankruptcy, I gather. There is a pro hac vice Motion to Appear [PDF] filed by Gulf Capital Partners, LLC.

There's more than one entity with that or a similar name, but I suspect that this one may be the Stephen Norris Gulf Capital Partners. Incidentally, or maybe not so incidentally, listed as a senior advisor on the principals page is Robert Kasten, who is also a consultant for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, which you will recall attacked Linux -- here's the infamous "report" [PDF] -- albeit unsuccessfully. Not that AdTI ever admitted defeat, as you can see on this incredible AdTI page, where they call Open Source software "open sores software" and reference both Maureen O'Gara and Paul Murphy -- small world, isn't it?

The think tank report on Linux was reportedly funded at least indirectly, by Microsoft. Microsoft admits funding AdTI, but not specific projects. And it called the report unhelpful. Of course, there are coincidences in life of the three degrees variety. So, just saying.

This should prove interesting. If it was money on the barrel head this exact minute, though, I don't think they'd need to send a lawyer to speak. So, what then? My best guess is that they may tell the court that money will really and truly appear if SCO wins the appeal. Hmm. That assumes facts not in evidence, as they say.

Here's the entry in the docket:

06/11/2009 - 800 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service of Kimberly A. Beck Regarding Novell's Reply to the Debtors' Opposition to Its Motion for Conversion (related document(s) 796 ) Filed by Novell, Inc.. (Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/12/2009 - 801 - Motion to Appear pro hac vice of Leslie Allen Bayles, Esquire. Receipt Number 156221, Filed by Gulf Capital Partners, LLC. (Conlan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

Ms. Bayles is an associate with the very reputable firm, Bryan Cave. She seems to specialize in bankruptcy:
Leslie Bayles has experience representing a large range of clients, including secured lenders, unsecured creditors and debtors. She has represented clients in bankruptcy-related litigation, including bankruptcy claim disputes and defense against large avoidance actions. Her experience also includes representing financial institutions in debtor-in-possession financing, as well as repossessions and foreclosures involving large equipment and aircraft across the country.
Maybe she can foreclose on the SCO blimp. Nah. Other side, I'm afraid. The firm is also sending a partner, Alan S. Pearce, according to another filing we see on the docket but haven't uploaded yet -- [ Update: we have it now.]:
802 - 6/12/2009 - Motion to Appear pro hac vice of Alan S. Pearce, Esquire. Receipt Number 158018, Filed by Gulf Capital Partners, LLC. (Conlan, Kelly)
Here's what he specializes in:
Alan Pearce focuses his practice on mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, securities, financings, real estate investment trusts and general corporate matters. He represents public and privately held companies and executives in a wide variety of businesses including, real estate, finance, magazines, manufacturing and e-commerce. He has represented clients in various financing transactions, including public and private equity and debt offerings, securitizations and various institutional credit and loan transactions.
Sending a partner means someone cares enough about this to send the very best, as they say.

Or someone hates Linux enough.


Gulf Capital Partners Enters (or Reenters?) the SCO Bankruptcy | 219 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: bezz on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:15 PM EDT
If any.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gulf Capital Partners Enters (or Reenters?) the SCO Bankruptcy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:16 PM EDT
Strange things are emerging around the wounded predator!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Leslie Bayles - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:23 PM EDT
  • Alan S. Pearce - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:26 PM EDT
The Newspicks Thread
Authored by: bezz on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:17 PM EDT
Be sure to cite the title in your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Thread
Authored by: bezz on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:18 PM EDT
There's always something else interesting going on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Local Rule 9010-1
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:31 PM EDT
Below is "Local" Rule 9010-1 from pages 91 / 92 of
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE (Effective February 1, 2008)

Rule 9010-1 Bar Admission.
(a) The Bar of this Court. The Bar of this Court shall consist of
those persons heretofore admitted to practice in the District
Court and those who may hereafter be admitted in accordance with
these Rules.
(b) Admission Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys admitted, practicing, and
in good standing in another jurisdiction, who are not admitted
to practice by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and
the District Court, may be admitted pro hac vice in the
discretion of the Court, such admission to be at the pleasure
of the Court. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, or
authorized by the Constitution of the United States or acts of
Congress, an applicant is not eligible for permission to
practice pro hac vice if the applicant:
(i) Resides in Delaware; or
(ii) Is regularly employed in Delaware; or
(iii) Is regularly engaged in business, professional, or
other similar activities in Delaware.
Any Judge of the Court may revoke, upon hearing after notice
and for good cause, a pro hac vice admission in a case or
proceeding before a judge. The form for admission pro hac vice,
which may be amended by the Court, is Local Form 105 and is
located on the Court's website.
(c) Association with Delaware Counsel Required. Unless otherwise
ordered, an attorney not admitted to practice by the District
Court and the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware may not
be admitted pro hac vice unless associated with an attorney who
is a member of the Bar of the District Court and who maintains
an office in the District of Delaware for the regular
transaction of business ("Delaware counsel"). Consistent with
CM/ECF Procedures, Delaware counsel shall be the registered
users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. Unless
otherwise ordered, Delaware counsel shall attend proceedings
before the Court.
(d) Time to Obtain Delaware Counsel. A party not appearing pro se
shall obtain representation by a member of the Bar of the
District Court or have its counsel associate with a member of
the Bar of the District Court in accordance with (paragraph (c)
above) within thirty (30) days after:

(i) The filing of the first paper filed on its behalf; or
(ii) The filing of a case transferred or removed to this
Failure to timely obtain such representation shall subject the
defaulting party to appropriate sanctions.
(e) Association with Delaware Counsel not Required.
(i) Government Attorneys. An attorney not admitted in the
District Court but admitted in another United States
District Court may appear representing the United
States of America (or any officer or agency thereof) or
any State (or officer or agency thereof) so long as a
certification is filed, signed by that attorney,
stating (a) the courts in which the attorney is
admitted, (b) that the attorney is in good standing in
all jurisdictions in which he or she has been admitted
and (c) that the attorney will be bound by these Local
Rules and that the attorney submits to the jurisdiction
of this Court for disciplinary purposes.
(ii) Delaware Attorney with Out of State Office. Attorneys
who are admitted to the Bar of the District Court and
in good standing, but who do not maintain an office in
the District of Delaware, may appear on behalf of
parties upon approval by the Court.
(iii) Claim Litigation. Parties may file or prosecute a proof
of claim or a response to their claim. The Court may,
however, direct the claimant to consult with Delaware
counsel if the claim litigation will involve extensive
discovery or trial time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It will be interesting to find out which Gulf Capital Partners this is....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:41 PM EDT

There do seem to be a few of them and there seems to be more then one with regards investment purposes. This one, for example, appears to foucus on:

  1. Mergers and Acquisitions
  2. Corporate Financing
  3. Corporate and Financial Restructuring
Perhaps SCOG realized they don't stand a chance and need to get someone "in to make a real attempt to restructure"..... or perhaps this is just another in a long string of appearances.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Paul Murphy 
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 06:05 PM EDT
It's ironic how PJ considers Paul Murphy so anti-Linux and the posters in the
comments section of his blog often accuse him of being a Linux-fan-boi.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Show me the money!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 06:44 PM EDT
My best guess is that they may tell the court that money will really and truly appear if SCO wins the appeal.

My own best guess is that the lawyers will say the their client will "seriously consider" making a "significant investment" if SCO makes "sufficient progress" in their case. I don't expect them to get any more specific than that.

If the judge asks for more details, well that's a very good question. They'll have to get back to their client about that. Can the court postpone its decision for a bit while their client puts a detailed plan together? It will take a few trips to the Middle East to sort this out. There's the summer holidays to consider, and then Ramadan coming up after that, and before you know it, it's Christmas. How's next spring sound?

If this is Steve Norris again, then I don't think there is any money. In fact, I would suspect that SCO has promised to pay Steve Norris to have someone show up and do a song and dance. If I was the judge, I would be saying "show me the money".

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's appeal bait
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 06:49 PM EDT

This is no different than SCO's external witnesses in Novell. Truly irrelevant,
but an appealable issue.

Only this time, there are three appellate levels (District Court, Circuit Court,
Supreme Court) instead of just the latter two, as in Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mr. Lewis is going to be busy.
Authored by: bezz on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 07:05 PM EDT
Novell's counsel, Mr. Lewis, is probably going to be a very busy lawyer on Monday. I expect SCO to present a bunch of hearsay and irrelevant speculation. They did it at the hearing for the third motion to extend exclusivity, and things have continued to decay. Here are some examples from last September:
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I have to raise an objection. That sounds an awful lot like it might be hearsay in that the witness has not testified who he's testifying about. Is he testifying about what he was told by York, in which case it's hearsay. And if he's -- if he's only testifying about what he believed, that's another matter and I, frankly, am not sure what the relevance of it is.
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, my -- I already told Mr. Lewis [sic], I'll stipulate. That's even worse hearsay than the other one!


MR. LEWIS: Your -- Your Honor, it's hearsay again. What the investors were concerned about, only the investors can testify to. Mr. McBride can testify to what he told them. What they told him, but that's hearsay. He can testify that after this article came out, somebody backed out. That would not be hearsay. But he can't testify about the reasons that -- that somebody gave.
MR. LEWIS: It's hearsay.

THE COURT: I -- I -- I think it is hearsay. If we can stick to facts as to the trial, that there were negotiations. The negotiations ceased, you know, along those lines, that would be acceptable.

Have fun reading more objections to hearsay Mr. McBride tried to use as testimony if you care. There is no documentation on file stating the money is in the bank for SCO to continue forward. Even if Steven Norris himself were to appear and testify he was willing to invest, that is not a definitive agreement.

Expect some fur to fly at the hearing. SCO is going to try every trick it can to avoid conversion, but Mr. Lewis has demonstrated he understands the case fully and is way ahead of the game anticipating SCO's antics. With the US Trustee now fully in agreement, SCO doesn't have much of a chance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Blows More Smoke - Puffs Out Gulf Capital Partners
Authored by: webster on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 07:39 PM EDT

There is no fire. GCP is not in this. There is no plan. GCP has not put up any money. They will not put up any money.

Without a binding commitment with money or guarantees the Court should not hear them. There should be objections to wasting the court's time. Money talks and Bolshevik .....

They want GCP to come to court to blow more smoke at Gross. They want to convince him that there appears to be a deal to make a deal if they win exactly what they want from the Court of Appeals. This is also why they puff up the prospects of their appeal and want to retry the case before Gross. They want more time from Gross and so present GCP to help the Judge make his decision based on this lawyer-personified speculation.

They've done this enough that Gross risks looking ....foolish. He is probably rooting for the Court of Appeals to hurry up and make his job easier.

Who knows what the Appeals court will say. They could send it back for a further testimonial hearing on the evidence.

Even GCP doesn't want to do any work until they see that there is something to be won. Such drama. Maybe Gross will finally say "Cut the fluff. Put up or shut up! No money plan, no talk. Pay the creditors or sit down."

Clearly SCO plans to throw in the towel if the Decision is affirmed on Appeal or at least GCP won't jump in with this little contingency.

If they win a replay in Utah, GCP can pay off the creditors and plan to their hearts' content.

Even the schemers don't want to invest in this litigation now without winning some leverage from the appeal. The PIPE Fairy Backstop is no fool. They will only buy more litigation and FUD if it is available. SCO needs that Appeal.

They have so little confidence that any bankruptcy trustee would crave billions and see the litigation as they do. The schemers FUD Campaign has hit a snag with its litigation.


Tyrants live their delusions. Beware. Deal with the PIPE Fairy and you will sell your soul.

[ Reply to This | # ]

AdTI in the present tense
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 09:49 PM EDT
You refer to AdTI several times in the present tense (and I note Kasten's bio
that you link to does too) but the AdTI web pages appear to be abandoned. I
can't find any evidence that they've done anything since 2005. It would appear
that AdTI is no longer operating.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gulf Capital Partners Enters (or Reenters?) the SCO Bankruptcy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 10:53 PM EDT
Are these the people SCO felt morally obligated to pay? Are they afraid that if
it goes to ch 7 SCO will never be permitted to pay up?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Referring to AdTI as a think tank?
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:05 AM EDT
Referring to AdTI as a think tank is an insult to thought.
They would be far more appropriately characterized as creative writers! Not good
ones either.

[ Reply to This | # ]

groklaw sends a lawyer
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:48 AM EDT
Can't groklaw send a lawyer pro-hac-vice ? Last minute is always the best! Looks
like there would be quite a story to tell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alexis de Tocqueville Institute
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 02:58 AM EDT

For an outfit which presumably wants to be viewed in a serious light, some of AdTI's web pages are surprisingly juvenile. Groklaw has exposed inaccuracies and bias in the writing of a number of journalists (no need to name them again), but at least they have all written like adults. Malicious adults, in one case. But adults.

Parts of the AdTI web site look as though they were written by 13-year-olds. Perhaps they were.

Their home page offers a link to a version in French. Wow! How impressive! What a cosmopolitan, cultured set of people the AdTI must have! Unfortunately, it's just a translation done by Babelfish, so any of you who read French will get a few laughs out of clicking on their link. The name "Mike Gravel", for example, comes out as "gravier de Mike".

Clue for the AdTI: Babelfish is for quick-and-rough translations to help people find out whether a foreign-language web site is interesting. If you want a professional-looking translation that won't make you look silly, hire a professional translator. Their fees are pretty low - a good professional translation of the AdTI home page would cost under $100.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Theory.
Authored by: AMackenzie on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 08:20 AM EDT
Maybe what's narking SCO is the nature of the liquidation motions.

It looks from here like the Trustee and the Court treat such procedings as
slightly distasteful routine business, not worth raising too much of a fuss
over. SCO's delusions of suing multinational companies for billions of dollars
have finally been shattered, and they're having to come to terms with reality:
that they're nothing special, just yet one more bankrupt firm like any other,
and that their desires, plans, cleverness and scheming are no longer of any

Bringing in an ostensible financial backer is a desperate attempt to ward off
that reality.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Gulf Capital Partners Enters (or Reenters?) the SCO Bankruptcy
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 10:59 AM EDT

I recall McBride back in May saying (when he found out about the U.S. Trustee's Chapter 7 motion):

“We are reviewing the motion that was filed in Delaware today with counsel and will have a detailed response for the court in due course,” McBride said in an e-mailed statement. “We plan to oppose the motion and present our own suggested course of action to the court.”
I'm guessing that this is a hastily-assembled portion of that picture. I'm assuming that negotiations with Gulf Partners were not ongoing when TSG filed their Opposition to the Chapter 7 motions last week, else they would likely have mentioned such in their opposition.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

And the MORs ??
Authored by: Baud on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 11:16 AM EDT
I would be SCO, I'd try to impressionate the judge by at least filing MORs when they are due! April's MOR is already 23 days late.

Just my 2 cents, Darl.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • And the MORs ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:50 PM EDT
The Last Weekend at Bernie's
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:47 PM EDT
Darl McBride: I have an idea!
Ralph Yarro: [shouting] What? What is it?
Darl McBride: Lomax told whoever he was talking to not to kill us while he's around.
Ralph Yarro: Yes, but Bernie's dead. He's not around anymore.
Darl McBride: Yeah. I know that. You know that. Nobody else knows that.

That was back in episode 1, and we've been subjected to endless hijinks since then, as new characters come in and try to convince the court and the public that ol' Bernie is alive and kicking. I'm hopeful that this is the last weekend at Bernie's, and the judge will finally declare that, yes, Bernie is in fact dead as a doornail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gulf Capital Partners Enters (or Reenters?) the SCO Bankruptcy
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 01:21 PM EDT
PJ wrote:

My best guess is that they may tell the court that money will really and truly appear if SCO wins the appeal. Hmm. That assumes facts not in evidence, as they say.

I reckon PJ probably got this right, about what they may tell the court. I hope they may tell the court also why the filing of the appeal was not, after all, good enough to bring forth the money, in light of what SCOundrels claimed last year?

I wondered why Norris (et al?) sent lawyers. I wondered if perhaps this might be because, as we have often observed, lawyers seem to be better placed to be creative with the truth in the court room, compared to, say, witnesses?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gulf Capital Partners Enters (or Reenters?) the SCO Bankruptcy
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 01:33 PM EDT

I saw the docket items on the epic Systems page for SCO before the Groklaw article. There have also been a couple of related threads on Investor Village, where among other things someone checked a State of California web site to determine if an entity is currently registered with the Secretary of State and could find no listing for a Gulf Capital Partners either as a corporation or an LP/LLC.

The web site that PJ referenced that includes a listing for Stephen Norris shows an address and street number for an office location in the infamous 90210 area code in addition to a claim of offices in New York and Dubai:

Gulf Capital Partners
9440 Little Santa Monica, 401
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

(310) 402.5910

After a bit of floundering around doing some checking into the economic viability of a possible investment from Dubai, I got to wondering if the whole thing, Stephen Norris and Gulf Partner Capital weren't just a bit too convenient in suiting SCO's purposes, the potential shining knight savior showing up in a Dudley Dooright fashion in the nick of time.

Being a bit graphically oriented I turned to Google maps and looked at all businesses at 9440 Little Santa Monica Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. The first clue to something interesting is in the phone numbers. Note there are several businesses in the building that have the same exchange extensions, usually an indication of a business relation, wherein the numbers are obtained as a block. Note the Suite 400 as well. Searching through SEC filings and googling I found around half a dozen companies listed as having either Suite 400 or Suite 401 at that address, and some companies using both. There was one company riding the pink sheets, as well as a company with Stephen Norris associated as Vice Chairman that had ridden their stock down from a yearly high of $1.90 to an all too familiar $0.12 a share.

Now it would be hard to say something dodgy is going on here, but were I asked to invest in some of these businesses it would give me pause based on these relationships in addition to their financials. It might possibly give pause to the accepting of GCP's credentials as a potential savior investor in SCO, indicating the need potentially for due diligence in accepting claims of intentions, and not blindly accepting bonifides. There's a Chris Norris associated with Hollywood Studios International who is also apparently a Managing Director of Gulf Partner Capital, and we could note HSI uses a different address. There are also indications several of the companies associated with the office suites are quite successful. These usually show distinct premises and contact details in addition to the original addresses and phone numbers, perhaps of a historical origin.

Sharing office facilities and a PABX with other businesses might for instance raise doubts of the ability to conduct business privately. Likewise it might raise the question of financial resources, either availability or capability to commit them. It could also innocuously reflect on personality quirks of principals - I seem to recall people saying Bill Gates never picked up a check for a meal. It could potentially lead to more interesting questions, too.

I can provide some of numerous links I found supporting these businesses relationships if requested. It was only a matter of a few hours to trace through and there is enough information in this comment to replicate the effort.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Purchase SCO's records?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 02:31 PM EDT
Given that the Chapt. 7 trustee is supposed to maximize the value of the estate,
can anyone who so desires make a bid for SCOG's corporate records? Specifically,
can a group of interested individuals who met each other at a certain internet
site organize themselves to submit such a bid? This group would purchase the
copyrights to the records, since those copyrights are an asset of the estate. Of
course, this may motivate certain other parties to submit a bid for these

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not certain pro hac vice motion will go
Authored by: argee on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 03:47 PM EDT
It is possible, I think, that the Judge may not sign off on
the pro hac vice motion until after the hearing.

I am thinking, the GCP lawyer can do two things.

One: lay cash on the barrellhead to buy out SCO and pull
them out of Chapter 11. In that case, GCP gets control of
the litigation. I really doubt this will happen.

Two: He will give a speech about how the plan, loans, future
moneys, rosy pictures etc will happen down the line. That is not really
relevant at Monday's hearing. All that, can
be done under Chapter 7 or dismissal.

Presenting plans orally is a non starter, so what are the
chances of GCP having anything to say in its own behalf
that would be useful to the BK court?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Last minute (?) SCOGBK docket activities
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:37 PM EDT
Looking at epiq


Objection of International Business Machines Corporation to Debtors Motion to File Appendix Under Seal and Request to Strike Any Argument Based on Such Documents (related document(s)[784]) Filed by IBM Corp. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A# (2) Certificate of Service) (Silverstein, Laurie)

Seems IBM was never sent a copy of the appendix.


Objection to Motion to Convert Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 Case Filed by XAC, LLC fka Amici LLC (TAS)

Here's Amici as a creditor objecting to conversion, citing the compromise SCOGBK#794 ... fully support SCO's continued viability as an operating company and have recently agreed to reduce our claim to $150,000, in an effort to support that viability.


Objection to Motion to Convert Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 Case Filed by Leap Tide Capital Management, Inc. (TAS)

Here's another shareholder, claiming to own ... 8% of the shares outstanding as of the latest Form 10-Q filing ... objecting to conversion, with vague statements about possibly maybe in some unspecified future circumstances being ... interested in providing additional capital to SCO to pursue its claims against IBM and Novell .... But then get this near the end, for added value ...

We strongly oppose the efforts to convert SCO's Chapter 11 filing to Chapter 7 filing or other liquidation plan prior to the proper conclusion of significant outstanding litigation that could provide the greatest return for all SCO stakeholders and creditors.

... did I read that right,? They're saying they'd like SCO to be able to complete all of the litigation under protection of Chapter 11?


Amended Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing (related document(s)[799]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 6/15/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service Lists) (Makowski, Kathleen)

Includes the above objections into the previous version of the agenda SCOGBK#799.

[ 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 )