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.

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word; 2nd Update
Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:39 PM EDT

Today is the day for the hearing on whether or not it will be converted from a Chapter 11 case, with hopes of survival as a business, or whether the judge will send it to liquidation in Chapter 7.

There are three last minute filings. IBM has filed an objection to SCO filing its Appendix under seal and asks the court to strike any argument based on material in the appendix. XAC, formerly known as Amici, which I associate with the Boies Schiller folks, filed an objection to the motions to convert, as has Leap Tide Capital Management, and there's an amended notice of agenda for this afternoon's hearing.

Update: First word from the court, during a ten minute break, indicates that SCO has suggested it has a buyer. That doesn't mean it will avoid Chapter 7 of course, nor does it mean that the bankruptcy court will OK the suggested sale. But it likely does mean more delay, which is what this is likely all about. SCO very much wants to wait until the appeals court rules in SCO v. Novell. How can the court ignore a possible plan, even if all the prior plans proved illusory? Well, it could, but given the way this court has acted, it's realistic, I think, to expect that SCO will be given time to demonstrate whether this is a real plan. Remember I told you litigation is a marathon, not a sprint? But where is proper procedure?

Update 2: OK. I just heard from Webster. Here's the upshot of the day. The judge has decided to set a hearing on the proposed sale:

Recess at 5:50

Hearing set for July 16 with backup for July 27. SCO has already moved to make it July 27. combo hearing on convert and Sale.

Frankly, it would not totally amaze me if the three entities that filed motions to convert were to appeal this. If not, SCO got its desired delay. They believe, if you recall, or at least hope that the appeals court in SCO v. Novell may rule by then.

Here are all the filings:
06/15/2009 - 803 - 06/15/2009 - 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) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/12/2009 - 804 - 06/15/2009 - Objection to Motion to Convert Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 Case Filed by XAC, LLC fka Amici LLC (TAS) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

805 - Filed: 06/11/2009; Entered: 06/15/2009
Docket Text: Objection to Motion to Convert Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 Case Filed by Leap Tide Capital Management, Inc. (TAS)

06/15/2009 - 806 - 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) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

The XAC/Amici filing is hilarious. They are a litigation support company. They do the documents for you. And they tell the court that they believe in SCO to such a degree they have reduced their bill. They'd like to see SCO continue.

Now, you tell me. Is there any reason on God's green earth that a company owed over $400,000 would prefer *not* to be paid right now so as to kindly help a company it is not related to in any way so the latter can stay in business? Excuse me if I laugh.

Amici is the document management company that David Boies's children were part owners of, if you recall. He resigned as counsel to Adelphia, after claims were made of a conflict of interest, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety. The Wall St. Journal reported this at the time:

Mr. Boies in an interview said yesterday he should have fully disclosed his children's' ownership interest in Amici. "I should have made certain that everyone knew about it," he said. He added that "a half dozen, or maybe eight Boies Schiller clients also use Amici."

Mr. Boies also confirmed that members of his family indirectly own stakes in a document-copying company called Echelon Group LLC. . . . There is, says Stanford University law school ethics expert Deborah Rhode, "an appearance of impropriety." It's really up to the client to select a document production firm, not the lawyers. . . . .

Four of Mr. Boies's children had indirect stakes in Amici through a company called Legal & Scientific Systems LLC totaling about 25.5% of the document company. The wife, mother and mother-in-law of Nick Gravante, a Boies Schiller partner, own indirect stakes.

Later, the children sold off their interests, after which Xerox bought Amici:
Relatives of Nicholas Gravante, a Boies Schiller partner, also own indirect stakes. The $174 million purchase price would put the stake of Mr. Boies’s children in Amici at more than $26 million. In October 2005, Mr. Boies said his children were in the process of selling their interests. Mr. Boies’s office is out of the country and did not return two calls seeking comment, so it’s unclear whether his kids already cashed out of their Amici investment or are monetizing their stakes with the Xerox transaction....

Xerox spokeswoman Christa Caron emailed the Law Blog today to tell us that “Xerox was well aware of the past concerns with Amici and Boies — and we covered it in extensive detail during our due diligence process.” Further, she wrote, “I can tell you with great certainty that David Boies and/or his family members had NO direct or indirect ownership of Amici at the time of Xerox’s agreement to acquire the company. Boies family members divested their interest in September 2005.”

Don't ask me. I can't reconcile the dates myself. But here is the company, with historic ties to Boies Schiller, and not only through the children, arguing for SCO, and on what expert legal basis would it be qualified to render an opinion on SCO's legal case? And what is it to Amici anyway? Mr. Gravante's specialties listed on Boies Schiller's website are:
Nicholas Gravante's main practice areas include business crimes, commercial litigation, and antitrust and securities litigation.
Incidentally, when SCO filed for bankruptcy, the amount Amici was listed at was $500,650.73, making Amici the largest creditor on SCO's top 20 list. Now they claim the debt was $400,000+ but is now voluntarily reduced. Such kindly folks.

Leap Tide claims to own 8% of SCO, between Leap Tide Partners, Leap Tide Offshore, and a portfolio for AmTrust International Insurance. They bought in back in February of 2005. Wait. Did they just say "offshore"? Why, yes. Yes they did.

They believe in SCO's legal case too, without mentioning their legal foundational basis for such belief, and think it's important in terms of "shaping the industry." What? Like killing off Linux or what do you guys have in mind?

"Under certain circumstances" they'd be interested in providing additional capital. Like if the scam looks like it'll pay off? Kidding. Just kidding. Sorta. I think they mean if SCO wins on appeal. They say they'd like SCO to be able to continue its litigation against IBM and Novell. Oh, *that* kind of shaping of the industry. If SCO goes to Chapter 7, it will jeopardize "the prospects of paying its creditors", they worry.

*Now* they start to worry? I'm thinking 2005 was a better time. Then again, I know nothing about investments and big payoffs from threatening big pocket companies in litigation no one can so far demonstrate has any legal basis.

And it's been six years. Where's the infringing code, SCO? No. Really. Where? Do investors trouble their minds about such things? If not, why not?

Even if you examine it with only logic as your weapon, after not a single court has found in SCO's favor in anything that matters, what would be the basis for believing in their legal case now? I think if they are going to claim that belief, they should at least be compelled to say why they formed such a belief, so we can test out what planet they are on.

None of this is going to mean much to the court, I don't think. SCO has to file some kind of sale of assets to bring in money, I think. And that is what I expect they will do.

Back here on Planet Earth, IBM's filing asks the court to strike the confidential materials in SCO's Appendix and objects to filing it under seal:

IBM, a creditor and equity security holder in these Chapter 11 cases, by its undersigned counsel, submits this objection to the Debtors' motion (the "Motion") [Docket No. 784] to file under seal an appendix to the Debtors' response to motions to dismiss or convert and respectfully requests that the Court preclude the filing of the confidential documents and strike from Debtors' Response any arguments based on such documents.
What is it SCO seeks to file? IBM says it's "a number of unidentified confidential IBM documents". Unidentified? Is SCO kidding? They want to keep it a secret from IBM which documents it wants the court to consider?

Wow. All-time new low, methinks. IBM says SCO's application "violates the protective order pursuant to which the documents in question were produced." That means these are documents from the SCO v. IBM case. But which ones? IBM was not served. It didn't get the appendix, as required by the court rules. So they have to guess as to what documents SCO is relying on.

We're in OMG territory now. I assume the judge's eyes will bug out when he gets to that part. Then SCO's lawyers will claim mistake and dance around a while, I assume, at the hearing which starts shortly. But the moves leave IBM having to "divine" what possible connection confidential documents filed in Utah have to do with a motion to convert to Chapter 7. SCO never explicitly says, IBM complains.

SCO claims there will be a quick resolution of the appeal in SCO v. Novell, IBM notes, but SCO "cannot make any such promise for the IBM litigation." If the Utah court doesn't grant all IBM's summary judgment motions, the trial could be months or even years away.

I'd guess years, given the Boies Schiller track record so far. Then, as IBM points out, there will likely be appeals. If we extrapolate from the Novell litigation, IBM says we can predict that any appellate decision in the IBM case could be no sooner than two years from now. So how, IBM asks, is anything about their litigation relevant to a motion to convert the Chapter 11 cases to Chapter 7 now?

IBM attaches as Exhibit A the protective order, which clearly states that it can be "used only for the purposed of this Action", meaning the SCO v. IBM litigation. That's back in Utah. The SCO bankruptcy in Delaware is not "this Action", then, so SCO should not be allowed to use it, or any arguments based on it, in Delaware, IBM asserts. If they wanted to use it, they are required by the protective order to seek a court order first.

Update: First word from the courtroom, from Webster during a ten-minute break:

ten minute recess. Purchase sale agreement.
What does his curt message mean? Someone has offered to buy at least some SCO assets, which is exactly what I expected would happen. We'll see if it flies. Even if it does, it doesn't mean SCO won't head for Chapter 7, only that someone new will own the assets, presumably not the litigation-encumbered assets. But details to follow. Stay tuned. (See above - hearing on the proposed sale has to have its own hearing. Set for July 16. SCO is trying to change it to July 27.

There was one other late filing today, another objection [PDF], this one filed by Al Petrofsky pro se, objecting to Gulf Capital Partners' pro hac vice filings. He questions whether there is any such entity. He relates that the firm told him there was a typo, and the name of the entity is Gulf Capital Advisory LLC, which it claims is a legally registered entity in Delaware.


Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word; 2nd Update | 265 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today
Authored by: Waterman on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:42 PM EDT
The never ending SCOG saga

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: gjleger on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:43 PM EDT
If needed...

Error -> Correction

In the title makes it easier for PJ to find them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[NP] Newspicks Discussion
Authored by: gjleger on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:44 PM EDT
Discussion of newspicks goes here.

Please note the newspick you are discussing in the title.

Also clickies, since news stories can drop off pretty fast. Don't forget to use
HTML mode and follow the directions under the comment box for clickies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT] Off-topic Discussion
Authored by: gjleger on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:45 PM EDT
Off topic discussions can go here.

Please don't forget to use HTML mode for clickies as appropriate, and change
title as necessary.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jan Loeb's other 13G reports
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:52 PM EDT
Jan Loeb's AmTrust/LeapTide has filed a number of other 13G reports for other issues-- this reveals a bit about the Loeb "bottom fishing" investment strategy. Loeb's philanthropic effort is to support the Baltimore Aquarium, perhaps he endowed the mud-shark exhibit.

5/19/2009 XJT -- Express Jet Holdings, 5.87% 882,571 shares-$1.40 share current
A regional and charter jet biz-- has had a collapsing share price for at least 2 years, Loeb may feel he has hit the bottom of the price collapse.

3/17/2009 LIMC - Limco-Piedmont, 8.25% 1,089,853 shares $3.02 share current
A aircraft maintenance company, recently a takeover target. Poor stock performance, Loeb is likely playing for a buyout premium.

10/28/2008 PIP - PharmAthene 7.6% 1,962,874 shares
An Anapolis based creator of Anthrax vacine. A local Maryland play for Loeb?

2/26/2008 AVPI - AVP, Inc 24.4% 5,170,781 shares $0.24 current price
Promoters of a Beach Volleyball tour. Loeb has been invested for several years, this filing was a "average down" event.

From an earlier post of mine on Loeb:

"Amtrust Insurance (a pipe fairy) also owns 22% of a public company AVPI.ob that promotes pro volleyball exhibitions. This is a pipe deal from 2005 at $1.50/share, a private investor proposed taking the company private at 1.23/share and the board concurred. Jan Loeb sent a very nasty letter to the board in July protesting the deal."

A testament to Loeb's investment prowess: He protested a going private deal at $1.23, but the current price is $0.24

12/27/2007 Lenox Group 7.39% 1,036,437 -- Bankrupt Sold to Private Equity Spring 2009 Lenox makes "wedding china" , it went bankrupt 11/24/2008, and has been sold to private equity to pay off bond holders. I assume the stockholders got zip. 316

10/15/2007 Gottschalks, Inc 5.9% 807,350 On January 14, 2009, Gottschalks filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[1] In March 2009, Gottschalks announced it lined up a group of bidders that will liquidate the chain if no other bidder is found by March 30. Gottschalks is toast. Will Loeb's shares get liquidation pennies?

6/28/2007 GYRO Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. 5.9% 75,959 shares $36.00 current price A diversified commercial real estate holding company.

Loeb also has a private, non-AmTrust investment in "Golf Trust of America". He staged a proxy battle to increase control. The Golf Trust of America is undergoing/completed liquidation. It appeared Loeb believed the liquidation return was greater than the investment value, and wanted to accelerate the process. GTA filed a 10-Q in May 2009, it looks like it has now sold off all its real estate assets, and has a $7million cash kitty, but continuing cash losses. Price $1.29 share.

From an earlier post:

In August 2006, Jan H. Loeb submitted a proxy demand to Golf Trust of America (GTA) demanding a board seat for himself and Nauman S. Toor. In October 2006, GTA acquiesed to the demand and added the two to its board slate.

Jan H. Loeb had personally accumulated 11% of the company, which is undergoing a slow liquidation, down from 47 golf courses to 6 at two money-losing resorts. It's trading at about its net asset valuation pending sales. The finances and obligations appear tangled, their are tax-dodge lawsuits, and hurricane losses. I will not attempt to untangle this morass.

The Loeb ownership is apparently personal, much in his IRA account, and not part of an institutional portfolio, according to his 13D filings.

Summary: Loeb is an experienced investor in bankruptcy, distressed situations. He has had some misses, like Lennox and Gottshalks, but continues to try and hit the bottom with arguably bankrupt companies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Leap Tide == Jan Loeb == A pipe Fairy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:56 PM EDT
Jan Loeb was a Pipe Fairy in Dec 2005.

From an earlier posting I authored:

AmTrust Insurance has a small equity portfolio. Jan Loeb jumped from Chesapeake (another Pipe Fairy) to AmTrust prior to the Dec 1 2005 Pipe Fairy purchase at 3.52.

Registration documents show that AmTrust bought 531,836 shares of SCOX Stock in 2005. Chesapeake ended 2005 with 1,410,229 shares. AmTrust has since expanded its holdings to 1,328,731 shares in 2006.

The AmTrust shares are part of small equity portfolio. On Dec 2005, total stock ownership was worth $28,517K, which means the SCOX portion (then worth $2,074K) accounted for more than 7% of the AmTrust portfolio managed by Loeb.

AmTrust is rapidly growing by acquisitions. It had a private offering for in Feb 2006 (after the Pipe Fairy deal) that had many PIPE hedge funds invest in. The registration was complete in Nov 2006, and AFSI began trading (up from the PIPE price of 7.50 share to $10 today.)

AFSI's latest 10K show that it had (unrealized) losses in the equity portfolio of $11M. Of shares held >12 Months (i.e SCOX) it had losses of $3620K with a residual value of $3509K. The SCOX loss would been at least $1340 so 1/3 of the book value loss was SCOX shares crumbling.

AFSI includes a helpful note in its 10-K that it treats the SCOX equity losses as "temporary and recoverable" so it has not yet taken the sterner measure of marking down its investment capital to reflect the decline in mark-to-market value of the losses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They keep conveniently forgetting the UST...
Authored by: turambar386 on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 01:10 PM EDT
"XAC now understands that Novell and IBM have filed motions to convert
SCO's Chapter 11 cases into Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings."

"LTCM understands that motions have been filed by IBM and Novell to convert
SCO's Chapter 11 filing into a Chapter 7 filing."

No mention of the Trustee's motion anywhere.

[ Reply to This | # ]

XAC/Amici motive?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 01:17 PM EDT
Why would XAC/Amici do this?

Are they true believers? Forgive my scepticism, but I really doubt it.

Are they speaking for BSF? That would mean that BSF wants the case to continue,
even though they're not getting paid any longer. Why would BSF want that? Do
they still believe in the pot of gold at the end of this mess? Again, I doubt
it. Do they want it to continue just for reputation, or advertising (look what
great litigators we are, we can make even this turkey take seven or eight
years)? Possible, maybe...

Or is XAC being "encouraged" in this direction by someone else? If
so, who, how, and why?

Many questions, and few answers...


[ Reply to This | # ]

It's too bad SCOG only wants to share their "evidence" with "partners"....
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 01:19 PM EDT

From the XAC (Amici) filing:

We have worked with SCO's litigation counsel, Boies Shiller & Flexner, and we believe SCO's claims have merit.
I find it astonishing SCOG is so very willing to provide their evidence to close partners yet absolutely refused to provide any evidence to the Court when the time came.

Their best refusal, to me, was when they refused to provide IBM with the information surrounding the "MIT deep divers" and the divers findings due to:

We don't intend to use that evidence in Court!


[ Reply to This | # ]

How Much Value Will the IBM Litigation "Lose" on Conversion?
Authored by: SCOtum on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 01:22 PM EDT
My assumption is that upon conversion, TSCOG will cease to exist. BSF will thus
be released from their fee agreement.

How will this change the "value" of the litigation, and thus the bid
the Chapter 7 trustee will be able to negotiate to sell it off?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: AMackenzie on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 01:22 PM EDT
There are three separate motions for 11 -> 7 on the agenda.

Will they have been consolidated into a single motion, or will all the lawyers
concerned have had to go through the charade of arguing everything three times?

"Just the place for a smirk!", the Boies-man cried,
As he addressed the Court with care.
Supporting each lie with argument snide,
rhetorical whinge, and a prayer.

"Just the place for a smirk! I have said it twice;
That should encourage the judge anew
Just the place for a smirk! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true!"

(with appreciation to Charles from Daresbury.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Court
Authored by: snakebitehurts on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 01:51 PM EDT
Here with Webster, Charlie, and about 4 guys from IV. Court about to begin.
More to follow

[ Reply to This | # ]

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today
Authored by: webster on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 02:17 PM EDT
SCO has purchase sale agreement.

Ten minute recess for IBM et al to see it.

The PIPE Fairy has landed!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I just couldn't resist. A laughter a day...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 02:28 PM EDT
Incidentally, when SCO filed for bankruptcy, the amount Amici was listed at was $500,650.73, making Amici the largest creditor on SCO's top 20 list. Now they claim the debt was $400,000+ but is now voluntarily reduced. Such kindly folks.

That's what friends are for. And SCO has lots and lots of friends like these who, by the strokes of luck, also happens to be loyal partners and, yes, customers.

$400,000+ maybe a large sum of money, but to partners and customers like XAC, it is really just chum change. They don't really need it... right now.


In time like this, I wish I had friends like them.

I do. I do... I really do.

PS: As usual, PJ cracks me up with her style of writing. So, thanks a bunch. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word
Authored by: Cassandra on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 02:51 PM EDT
We can but hope that SCO is dispatched from Chapter 11 straight into the

[ Reply to This | # ]

just selling the document file
Authored by: nola on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 03:50 PM EDT
This is just selling the company for minimal amount to keep the documents out
of the hands of IBM's lawyers

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is there any reason .. prefer *not* to be paid
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 05:08 PM EDT
>Is there any reason on God's green earth that a company owed over $400,000
would prefer *not* to be paid right now so as to kindly help a company it is not
related to in any way so the latter can stay in business?

Under specific circumstances and situtations, during the late eighties,
rejecting the payment of a debtor contributed more to the profitibility of a
company, than accepting it.

I never understood how it worked, but it involved taxes and manipulation of the
IRS, and other federal, state, and local tax agents and authorities. Inasmuch as
both gross and net revenue went down, if the account was paid in full, I doubt
it just extremely creative accounting.

XAC/Amici might be doing something similar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word
Authored by: AndyC on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 05:21 PM EDT
Come on Judge, there are people here who want a ruling!!!! I'm off to bed soon
(up at 5am UK time tomorrow) and I want to see SCOXQ.PK end up as "This
stock is no longer listed..."


Patience is a virtue, seldom in a woman, never in a man... especially if that
man is me!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Material for a Master Class in delaying tactics
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 05:24 PM EDT

Is there a textbook for lawyers on how to delay proceedings, spin them out for as long as possible? This is, after all, a goal of a lot of legal practice (though usually it is the defendant's lawyer who tries to delay things).

If there isn't, I think the moves made by SCO's legal team over the last 6 years would provide excellent material for one. They must have pulled every stunt known to attorneys and invented a number of new ones.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word
Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 05:36 PM EDT
Talk about gaming the system... I'll give Boise that much.

You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 05:57 PM EDT
I've said it (years now) before, and I'll say this again. It's all about delay
and only delay. SCO's actions make sense to me ONLY if the whole plan for years
now is simply for Darl and compatriots to connect a fat salary as long as there
is money. And the strategy has been very successful. When the money runs out,
the games will stop.

[ Reply to This | # ]

2nd Update
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:03 PM EDT
Three things are certain: death, taxes and delays caused by SCO!

I feel like throwing a few chairs....

But, thanks to Webster and the others who were there. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I thought the hope was that the appeals court would rule by the end of August? (n/m)
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:09 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word; 2nd Update
Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:12 PM EDT
Has anyone tried to add up how much of our tax dollars SCO+Boies has wasted so
far? That much should be calculable, more interesting numbers would be monies
spent on lawyers by all parties involved... which I will bet is more than a
princely sum. Its no wonder the big boys with the cash win. Its no wonder our
judicial system is such a joke for the average person.

You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Surprised? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 07:53 PM EDT
Authored by: PolR on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:14 PM EDT
dixit PJ:
Frankly, it would not totally amaze me if the three entities that filed motions to convert were to appeal this. If not, SCO got its desired delay. They believe, if you recall, or at least hope that the appeals court in SCO v. Novell may rule by then.
They should do it as a matter of principle, but I don't hold my breath. By the time such an appeal is heard, July 16th or 27th has passed and the whole appeal is moot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The office of the trustee has only false teeth.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:29 PM EDT
Our Mr McMahon said, many months ago, that this case could not take a third
chapter. Earlier this year, we had the third chapter. The teeth of the trustee
were bared, the motion for conversion ensued. Today we found the teeth were
false, they had no bite.

They say the delaware court is business friendly. It appears to be more than
business friendly. Is Hon Judge Gross but the marionette? We do not see behind
the scenes who pull the strings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gulf Capital Advisory LLC, Docket 807
Authored by: Dave Ivedorne on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:30 PM EDT
...does appear to be registered with the Delaware Division of Corporations.

The file number is 4673545, and the formation date is April 6, 2009.
The interesting bit of docket 807 reflects the appearance that GCA didn't wish
to be properly identified prior to the hearing:
"4. Earlier today, when I first spoke to the purported movant’s local
counsel, Kelly Conlon, she refused to identify her alleged client’s state of
legal formation,
flatly refused even to confirm or deny that the alleged client legally existed
in any jurisdiction, and stated that no further information would be provided to
me and that any concerns I had should be addressed to the Court.

5. Ms. Conlon has since informed me that there was “a typo” in the motions and
that she represents Gulf Capital Advisory, LLC, a Delaware LLC."

Typo! How conveeeeenient!


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:36 PM EDT
In the last six years we have seen delays, extended delays, improper delays,
delayed delays, expedited delays, untimely delays, costly delays, stays and
probably more besides. The US justice system takes these things in its glacial
stride. What it doesn't seem so good at is expedited justice.

That's probably a jaundiced view based on a case study of one. I think what is
clear though, is that if one party wishes to delay for some reason or other
(such as not having a case to begin with and wanting to force a settlement),
there exists ample opportunity to do so. This seems very unfair on the party
(or in this case, parties), that want a rapid resolution of an unjust situation.
To say that the US justice system has failed in this respect would not be

[ Reply to This | # ]

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word; 2nd Update
Authored by: tknarr on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:39 PM EDT

PJ said:

Frankly, it would not totally amaze me if the three entities that filed motions to convert were to appeal this.

Frankly I think they ought to object. It's high time someone said openly "Look, Your Honor. How long have SCO been in bankruptcy? If these buyers are really serious, if it's really an attractive deal, then where have they been for the last 2 years? SCO's legal cases have no value. They're here in bankruptcy because they know they have no value, that they're going to lose them and lose in a big way. If they thought they were going to win the appeal, one of their first requests in bankruptcy would not have been to put the appeal on hold. All this is is another attempt to delay, to avoid settling the matter of how much their creditors will get paid and when, and it's time and past time we called a halt to the delays and settled this matter.".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Right on schedule
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 06:54 PM EDT
A delay... imagine that!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge is fishing for a settlement, to get himself off the hook
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 07:23 PM EDT

Gross want no part of any of this. He wants it to go away. He's trying to force
a settlement. Don't know about Novell these days, but I can't believe IBM will
give in, not after all this time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Any takers?
Authored by: overshoot on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 07:52 PM EDT
200 quatloos that something will come up that will require a postponement of the
scheduled hearing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reports from Courthouse
Authored by: snakebitehurts on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 07:58 PM EDT
I know everyone is anxious. My report has been sent to PJ. We should be seeing
reports from Webster, UD, RSI, and Charlie. Please be patient. A few of them
have a long trek back home. Charlie flew in from Indiana to be there. Court
finally ended at 5:50 pm

Teaser - SCO showed up with an asset purchase agreement. It was signed
literally moments before the hearing. Chaos ensued. Next hearing is July 16.
And it's scheduled for all day. Motion to convert was not heard today.


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Signed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 08:07 PM EDT
    • Signed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 08:28 PM EDT
  • Reports from Courthouse - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 08:15 PM EDT
Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word; 2nd Update
Authored by: snakebitehurts on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 08:47 PM EDT
Actually, they don't seem to care. We all had laptops and used them the entire
hearing. There are open wireless access points that we connected to. Things
just happen so fast and furious in court that it's all we can do to try and
capture what's going on. We end up with gobbledygook we have to transcribe back
into English. In fact, I whacked out my report to PJ and sent it to her, and I
hope she is doing her usual excellent editing. Even with spell check I'm
embarrassed at the number of typos I sent in it.

Now if you tried to take a picture or record audio or video - they may shoot
you. ;) Otherwise there have been no restrictions in this courtroom on laptop


[ Reply to This | # ]

Last Minute Filings in SCO Bankruptcy - Hearing Later Today - Update: 1st word; 2nd Update
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 11:50 AM EDT
As frustrating as all this is, do you think SCO would have come to court with a
signed agreement if Chapter 7 was not pending? Of course the agreement is worth
whatever you imagine it might be worth, but at least they have a signed

I agree to buy your company, unless I don't feel like buying it, then this
agreement is null and void. As demonstration of my ernest intention to buy your
company, one of your stockholders can put up the money to keep you going until I
decide to drop the agreement, or not, in either case your stockholder gets
valuable paper for lighting the fire in the fireplace after gas and electricity
are shut off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

LTCM - Leap-Tide Capital Mgmt?
Authored by: crs17 on Wednesday, June 17 2009 @ 03:05 PM EDT
Was this supposed to be a joke? Was the name Leap-Tide chosen just to have a
company called LTCM?

For those with short memories, Long-Term Capital Management (normally known as
LTCM) was one of the first and by far the largest hedge fund of its time. It
famously collapsed towards the end of the Nineties, causing the Federal
Government to organize a privately-run bail out with the fear of total market
collapse if LTCM went bankrupt. (I'm no authority on this case. Wikipedia has
a decent-looking article on LTCM.)

I can't believe that the person who named Leap-Tide Capital Management did not
see the acronym connection with the old LTCM.

[ 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 )