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
SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 02:29 AM EDT

SCO has filed its proposed plan. I have only quickly skimmed it, but what I see immediately is that it wishes to sue Linux users, and it lists a Java patent, and I'm guessing there may just be a connection someday. Who knows? SCO loves to sue, I've decided.

It wants to sell some of the Mobility business, retaining part of it, along with selling the Unix business and "many of [SCO's] subsidiaries" to an entity called UnXis. I've never heard of it either. Think there might be trademark issues? Try going to Google and search for "unXis Delaware" and you get a list of UNIX jobs and such. The APA is signed by Stephen Norris. If you go to Delaware Division of Corporations, you'll find there is a UNXIS, Inc. incorporated this month, on the 12th. You'll find the part about suing other Linux users on page 3 of the Motion, paragraph 5.

SCO will retain the litigations, and I gather the plan is to make them as close to counterclaim-proof as one can be. We'll read the details together. If they provide them. I note the opening words say that the APA is attached as Exhibit A, "without voluminous schedules and exhibits". I don't know about IBM, Novell, and the US Trustee's Office, but I would prefer to read those voluminous schedules and exhibits, myself. They say it'll be posted someday on their website.

[Update 2: SCO has posted a FAQ on their website, that makes me wonder if this is really a sale or just a renaming. Let me show you some key paragraphs.

Notice how they describe the "sale", which seems to be more rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and calling it unXis -- I've highlighted the significant bits:

Overview

unXis to Acquire SCO's UNIX Business

On Monday, June 15th, SCO notified the bankruptcy court that The SCO Group had signed a definitive Purchase and Sale Agreement with unXis, Inc. (unXis) which we believe should help resolve in our favor the motions by IBM and Novell (and the US Trustee) to convert our Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to a case under Chapter 7 liquidation. This sale of the UNIX business, and some mobility assets, to unXis would favorably resolve the bankruptcy for our creditors, customers, shareholders and partners. ...

The Court has set the date of July 27 th to review the agreement and motions and has stated that it will enter a decision within a few days thereafter. SCO is confident and optimistic that the agreement with unXis will satisfy all conditions and parameters to allow SCO to pay its creditors, satisfy any legal claims, emerge from bankruptcy and to move the UNIX business forward with unXis in a very exciting way.

The Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) has been signed by The SCO Group and certain of its subsidiaries as sellers and unXis, as buyer, pursuant to which the UNIX product business will be sold to unXis. unXis has been organized by Gulf Cap Partners LLC and the MerchantBridge Group. MerchantBridge is a London-based private equity and direct investment company with strong links in the Middle East and a prestigious pedigree of transactions in the telecommunications and related sectors (www.merchant-bridge.com). Gulf Cap Partners was formed by a number of private equity professionals from the US and the Gulf to take advantage of the substantial changes in the private equity markets brought about by the financial crisis (www.gulfcappartners.com). Both Gulf Cap Partners and MerchantBridge will take an active role in the management of unXis.

A few of the key components of the PSA are as follows:

  • The buyer's management team is expected to consist of new and existing SCO management that will lead the UNIX business forward.
  • The SCO Group will continue with certain natively grown Me Inc. mobility applications and continue its efforts to reach a successful conclusion of litigation issues related to Novell, IBM, RedHat, and AutoZone and other potential defendants. Darl C. McBride will continue as CEO of The SCO Group.
  • Most of the current SCO staff, including developers, support personnel, sales and marketing are expected to join unXis.
  • All UNIX products as well as the SCO Mobile Server products will be sold to unXis.
  • OpenServer and UnixWare product lines will be kept up to date and maintained into the future with new product roadmaps.
  • Significant investment will be put into "virtualization" products.
  • Significant investment will be made to develop and market a next generation UNIX operating system platform.

SCO customers and partners can feel confident that they will be able to continue to purchase licenses, receive support and development for the core SCO UNIX products now and into the future.

By the way, did you catch the part about "other potential defendants" in addition to Novell, IBM, Red Hat and AutoZone? Everybody pretty much goes to unXis, leaving McBride as captain of the Good Ship SCO, and he gets to sue and sue and sue, while the assets have gone to unXis, so if SCO loses all the litigation, then the victors get no spoils and can't be be made whole by the legal process. But what particularly struck me is SCO saying that they will be able "to move the UNIX business forward with unXis in a very exciting way." "With unXis"? In what sense? Is SCO selling to itself? It starts to hint that this is more a renaming, taking in some new management who seem to have financial expertise, and SCO keeps skipping along as unXis, with the dangerous litigation spun off safely into a litigation troll. Is that not what you see? For example, notice this Q and A:
Q: How do I continue to purchase SCO licenses and receive SCO technical support during this transition time?

A: SCO will continue as a separate entity until the purchase agreement is approved by the Bankruptcy Court and the transaction is closed. Customers will continue to purchase SCO licenses from their respective SCO distributor and/or reseller. This process has not changed.

For customers with a current SCO support contract, SCO will continue to provide support, honor, and fulfill all existing UNIX product commitments. In short, business continues without interruption, even after the asset sale is approved and the asset purchase agreement is finalized.

How can SCO continue to provide support if all the employees went to unXis, if SCO and unXis are really two different entities and not just a renaming of the company into two parts? And get a load of this:
Additionally, with certain exceptions, most customers of unXis will not be subject to claims by SCO.

Q: Will unXis be involved in, or exposed to, the existing litigation? A: No. unXis has no interest in any SCO litigation and will focus on developing new generation systems addressing the current and future needs of its customer base. Upon approval of the court, unXis and its major customers will be fully protected against the existing litigation.

In short, SCO will sue some of unXis' customers? Most? Existing litigation? You might want to think about what that means for you, if you are considering becoming a unXis customer or staying as one, if this division and renaming is approved. - End Update 2.]

Here are the filings, for your reading pleasure:

06/22/2009 - 814 - Quarterly Application for Compensation [Sixth] and Reimbursement of Expenses as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession, for the Period from January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 7/13/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Certificate of Service and Service List - Fee App# 6 Certificate of Service and Service List - Notice only) (Jones, Laura Davis) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

06/22/2009 - 815 - Motion For Sale of Property under Section 363(b) /Debtors' Motion for Authority to Sell Property Outside the Ordinary Course of Business Free and Clear of Interests and for Approval of Assumption and Assignment of Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in Conjunction With Sale Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 7/27/2009 at 09:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 7/20/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A - Part 1 # 3 Exhibit A - Part 2 # 4 Exhibit B # 5 Exhibit C) (Billion, Mark) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

Mark Billion? Who is that? Perfect name for a SCO lawyer filing this plan, I must say. Must be from Central Casting. No. Just a Pachulski, Stang attorney. They've filed another bill, as you see.

Here is the paragraph about suing:

5. In summary, the Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that the Purchaser will buy and the Debtors will sell generally, the Debtors' UNIX business and many of its subsidiary companies, and certain of their Mobility products. The Debtors will retain certain Mobility applications, their cash, their accounts receivable, and their litigation and related claims against International Business Machines Corporation, Novell, Inc., AutoZone Corporation, Red Hat and certain Linux users which are not material customers of UnXis (excluding certain large-scale users of Linux servers) that are claimed to have infringed against UNIX copyrights....
I suppose that could mean the DaimlerChryslers of the world, the companies that signed contracts with AT&T and Santa Cruz, never imagining that a day would come when a SCO Group would arise, with the contracts in its teeth, looking for blood. Of course, SCO would have to get Novell off its back first, and then it would have to prove it owns the copyrights, and then it would have to prove infringement of specific copyrighted materials, not one step of which SCO has so far been able to accomplish.

But look at the yearning, the determination to do harm to Linux. Is it not a bit like the feeling you get watching a horror movie?

On selling off many of the subsidiaries, I surely hope IBM and Novell and the US Trustee's Office looks closely at the money flow.

Here's a screenshot of the filing in Delaware:

If anyone can help doing text of the APA itself, Exhibits A and A2, I'd appreciate it a lot. Since SCO mentioned at the last hearing that they used the failed York APA as a template, you probably can too. It might be interesting to compare them, anyway.

Here's the Motion as text. As I was doing the HTML, I couldn't help but notice that it says that if the court of appeals overturns the Utah court, then the letter of credit for the benefit of Novell, Inc. will be extinguished. When would that happen, though? After it goes all the way to the Supreme Court?

Update: I don't think SCO necessarily intends for Novell to get paid. And I am not convinced Mr. Norris and unXis are in this venture with a whole heart. Take a look at this part of the APA [PDF], page 21, at the bottom of the page, about the letter of credit being set aside to pay Novell, if the appeals court affirms:

(iii) in the event that an amount in excess of the face amount of the Letter of Credit-Sun is owed and payable to Novell, Purchaser shall have no obligation to pay all or any portion of such excess; and

(iv) in the event that (A) on or prior to August 31, 2009 the District Court Sun Agreement Judgment is neither affirmed in whole or in part nor reversed and/or remanded in whole or in part or (B) for any reason whatsoever, the Letter of Credit-Sun is not drawn by SCO Group or Escrow Agent on behalf of and in the name of SCO Group on or before December 31 2009, the Letter of Credit-Sun shall terminate and SCO Group shall have no rights with respect thereto and Purchaser shall have no obligation to pay such portion of the Purchase Price.

What? Say, what? UnXis pays out nothing if there is no ruling by August 31? Or, even worse, they pay nothing if SCO doesn't draw on the letter of credit by December 31, 2009? How in the world would that happen, when they already set it up SCO only pays Novell after the appeal is final, IIRC? If the court remands part of the case, and there is a jury trial, do you sincerely believe it will be over, including appeals, by December 31st? Me neither. In short, I don't see how this could be considered a guarantee to pay Novell what is due. Do you? Same old, same old. SCO is nothing if not consistent. I gather, then, that the deal dies on August 31, unless SCO prevails on appeal in some manner. So, it's SCO, asking the bankruptcy court to let Norris once again join SCO in getting a delay based on a wing and a prayer, hoping against hope the appeals court rules favorably and in time. But Norris risks nothing if SCO goes splat on or prior to August 31. Note the stalking horse fee, though. They never leave that out, do they? That's how much Mr. Stephen Norris and whoever is funding this little detour really believes in SCO.

As for SCO, it wants a delay, but I suspect this APA is sending a message to IBM to buy them on the 27th, and make this headache go away. I hope IBM doesn't, but that's how I read this document.

*****************************

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re:

THE SCO GROUP, INC., et al.,1

Debtors.
Chapter 11

Case Number 07-11337 (KG)
(Jointly Administered)

Hearing Date: July 27, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. (prevailing Eastern time)
Objection Deadline: July 20, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (prevailing Eastern time)

DEBTORS' MOTION FOR AUTHORITY TO SELL PROPERTY OUTSIDE
THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS FREE AND CLEAR OF INTERESTS AND
FOR APPROVAL OF ASSUMPTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF EXECUTORY
CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES IN CONJUNCTION WITH SALE

The above-referenced debtors in possession (collectively, the "Debtors"), by undersigned counsel, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363(b) and (f), and 365, and Rules 2002(a)(2), 6004(a), (b), (e), (c), (f) and (h), 6006, 9007 and 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, seek an order:

(a) Authorizing the Debtors to sell certain described assets (the "Purchased Assets"2); outside the ordinary course of business and free of interests to unXis, Inc. (the "Purchaser"), pursuant to the terms of a Purchase and Sale Agreement, a true copy of which (without voluminous schedules and exhibits) is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Sale");

(b) approving the Debtors' assumption and assignment of certain described executory contracts and unexpired leases ("Assumed Executory Contracts") in connection with the Sale; and

(c) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND3

1. The Debtors seek authority to sell the Purchased Assets outside the ordinary course of business and free and clear of all liens, claims, interests and encumbrances, with the exceptions of the Assumed Liabilities and Permitted Encumbrances as detailed in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, in order to maximize the value thereof and preserve value for the benefit of the estates.

2. The Debtors' goal has been to preserve their businesses and the marketability and value of their assets for the benefit of creditors and equity holders. With that goal in mind, and as amply supported by the testimony received in Court at the hearing on June 15, 2009, and otherwise, the Debtors have worked diligently nearly non-stop since these cases were commenced to find and negotiate a transaction to sell the Purchased Assets.

3. Specifically, among many other such efforts with other interested parties, the Debtors spent many weeks trying to conclude a transaction with York Capital Management in late 2007 and early 2008. Thereafter, in February, 2008, the Debtors filed a plan based largely around a sale of some of its assets to Steve Norris Capital Partners. These previous efforts foundered on the uncertainty of the Debtors' right to transfer certain rights and intellectual property necessary for a purchaser to successfully operate its business plan surounding UNIX.

4. As generally testified by the Debtors' Chief Executive Officer, Darl C. McBride, on June 15, 2009, negotiations with respect to a sale of the UNIX assets became somewhat less complex upon the receipt of a ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Utah

2

on June 16, 2008 (the "Final Judgment"), that clarified the Debtors' title to the UNIX intellectual property in the following ways:
A. The Final Judgment confirmed that SCO owns the UNIX business, and that, although Novell retained older UNIX copyrights, SCO did obtain other "ownership" rights and, therefore had the right to release claims relating to those ownership rights.

B. The Final Judgment confirmed that Novell never owned or had any license to OpenServer.

C. The Final Judgment confirmed that SCO had the right to conduct its SCOsource licensing business without payment to Novell.

D. The Final Judgment confirmed that Novell had no right to claim any UnixWare royalties after December 2002 and that the requirements for that royalty obligation were never met.

5. In summary, the Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that the Purchaser will buy and the Debtors will sell generally, the Debtors' UNIX business and many of its subsidiary companies, and certain of their Mobility products. The Debtors will retain certain Mobility applications, their cash, their accounts receivable, and their litigation and related claims against International Business Machines Corporation, Novell, Inc., AutoZone Corporation, Red Hat and certain Linux users which are not material customers of unXis (excluding certain large-scale users of Linux servers) that are claimed to have infringed against UNIX copyrights. The foregoing was an extremely broad generalization; readers are directed to the actual Purchase and Sale Agreement for much more precise detail, and ultimately to the Schedules and Exhibits to the Purchase and Sale Agreement which will be made available at this website: http://ww.sco.com/company/legal/unxisagreement. In return for those assets, the Purchaser will pay the Debtors $2.4 million, made up of the $250,000.00 on deposit in the Trust Account of Berger Singerman, P.A., plus $2,150,000.00 payable by delivery of a letter of credit at the

3

closing of the transaction (the "Closing"). In addition, the Purchaser will post a letter of credit for the benefit of Novell, Inc., which shall be used, if necessary, to contribute to the full payment of the judgment against the Debtor, The SCO Group, Inc., held by Novell, Inc., arising from litigation still pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, and on appeal. Should that judgment be set aside by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the letter of credit shall be extinguished, and none of such funds will be available to the Debtors. Also, the Purchaser will assume certain identified Assumed Liabilities.

II. RELIEF REQUESTED

6. By this Motion, the Debtors request entry of an order, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B authorizing the Sale to the Purchaser pursuant to the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Sale Order") and the approval of the Debtors' assumption and assignment of the Assumed Contracts.

A. The Purchase and Sale Agreement

7. The proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement in the form of Exhibit A provides for the Sale of the Purchased Assets, with pertinent terms4 including:

Purchased Assets:
Section 2.2
"Purchased Assets" described in Section 2.2 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement including, but not limited to:

(A) All Equity Interests and other interests of the SCO Group in each of the Purchased Subsidiaries;
(B) All Assumed Executory Contracts;
(C) All Products of the Sellers except certain mobility and personal productivity Products; and
(D) All technology and intellectual property used by Sellers in the business (except as noted below).
(E) See Section 2.2 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for additional items that are included in the definition of

4

- Purchased Assets.
Excluded Assets
Section 2.3 and Exhibit
D.
United States Patent No. 6,931,544, "Method and Apparatus for Executing Multiple JavaTM Application on a Single JavaTM Virtual Machine," issued August 16, 2005, and all foreign counterparts thereof, and all extensions, reissues, and reexaminations thereof (collectively, the "Java Patent"), with certain limitations set forth in Section 2.3 of the APA, and Pending SCO Litigation Claims as defined in the Purchase and Sale Agreement. See Section 2.3 and Exhibit D of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for additional items (including cash and accounts receivable) that are included in the definition of Excluded Assets.

Certain mobility and personal productivity Products.

Retained SCO Rights
Article XII
SCO Group retains its claims in pending litigation against Novell, IBM, AutoZone and Red Hat, and the rights in copyrights and contracts claimed by the SCO Group in the Novell litigation that are finally determined in the pending Novell litigation to belong to the SCO Group, for the purposes of continuing the pending litigation and also asserting claims against third parties on the grounds that the Linux operating system and Linux-based products infringe those rights. The Purchaser and its present and future material customers (excluding certain large-scale users of Linux servers) are protected against and released from such claims by SCO Group. These rights become vested in the Purchaser upon the occurance of certain events, and in any event at the end of 10 years.
Assumed Liabilities
Section 2.4; Schedule
2.4(a)
"Assumed Liabilities" described in Section 2.4 and Schedule Schedule 2.4(a) of the Purchase and Sale Agreement as follows:

(A) All Liabilities related to the Purchased Assets, to the extent such Liabilities are expressly set forth in Schedule 2.4(a); and
(B) All executory obligations under the Assumed Executory Contracts first arising after the Closing.

Excluded Liabilities
Section 2.5
"Excluded Liabilities" described in Section 2.5 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement including, but not limited to:

(A) Any Liabilities arising out of or related to Excluded Assets, including Liabilities first arising or accruing prior to Closing under Assumed Executory Contracts; and

5

- (B) Any Contracts of the Subsidiaries and all Liabilities arising thereunder, other than Assumed Executory contracts and related Liabilities as set forth in Section 2.4(b).
Purchase Price:
Section 3.1-3.3
The aggregate purchase price for the Purchased Assets is up to (i) $5,400,000.00 payable by delivery of: (a) the Cash Deposit; (b) the Letter of Credit-Balance; and (c) the Letter of Credit-Sun, and (ii) assumption of the Assumed Liabilities. See Sections 3.1-3.3 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for details of the Purchase Price.
Cash Deposit:
Section 3.1, 3.2 and
4.6(c)
$250,000.00 (in the possession of the Escrow Agent). The Cash Section 3.1, 3.2 and Deposit will be forfeited to the Sellers if the Purchase and Sale Agreement is terminated by the Sellers due to a breach by the Purchaser pursuant to section 4.4(f) of the Agreement.
Private Sale:
Purchase and Sale
Agreement Generally
Section 7.2(d)
This is a private sale; no auction is contemplated. However, if the Court determines that an auction is necessary, or if the Court accepts a higher or otherwise better bid at the Sale Hearing, the Purchase and Sale Agreement includes certain stalking horse protections for the Purchaser, including a break-up fee in an amount equal to 4% of the Purchase Price.
Agreements with
Management: Section
4.2(g) and 4.2(h);
Exhibit E
One condition of closing is an employment agreement, in a Section form satisfactory to the Purchaser, regarding certain persons identified in Exhibit E. Another condition of closing is a non-compete agreement with the CEO of the SCO Group.
Non-Compete: Section
8.9
An agreement by the Sellers not to engage in a competitive business for a period of 5 years (3 years in the UK) after the Closing Date in the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, the UK, and all of the countries in which the Sellers have provided products and services through distributors or resellers (except as otherwise provided for in Article XII of the Purchase and Sale Agreement).
Closing Deadline:
Section 1.1
The closing deadline is set forth in the definition of "Termination Date" in section 1.1.
Use of Proceeds:
Section 3.3
As contemplated by the Letter of Credit-Sun, some portion of the Purchase Price, based on terms and conditions set forth in subsection 3.3(a)-(c), will be paid to Novell, Inc.
Record Retention:
Section 2.2(j)
The Sellers have the right to retain copies of Books and Records that are included in the Purchased Assets.
Successor Liability:
Section 1.1
Subsection (viii) of the defined term Sale Order contemplates that that Order determine that the Purchaser is not a successor to the Sellers or otherwise liable for any of the Excluded Liabilities and permanently enjoining each and every holder of

6

- any of the Excluded Liabilities from commencing, continuing or otherwise pursuing or enforcing any Action or Encumbrances against Purchaser or the Purchased Assets related thereto.
Sale Free and Clear of
Liens:
Section 1.1
Subsection (ii) of the defined term Sale Order contemplates that that Order approving the Sale of the Purchased Assets to Purchaser be free and clear of all Encumbrances (other than Permitted Encumbrances) whatsoever under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and any other applicable sections of the Bankruptcy Code on the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase and Sale Agreement including, specifically and without limitation, the release and covenant in Section 12.3, and authorizing Sellers to proceed with the transaction.
Relief from Bankruptcy
Rule 6004(h):
Section 1.1
Subsection (iii) of the defined term Assumption and Assignment Order contemplates that that Order provide, in part, that the provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) will not apply and that there would be no stay of execution under Rule 62(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

B. The Sale Hearing

8. The hearing to consider authorizing the proposed sale of the Purchased Assets as contemplated by the Purchase and Sale Agreement and to approve the assumption and assignment of Assumed Contracts incident to the Sale will be held on July 27, 2009.

III. AUTHORITY FOR RELIEF

C. Sales Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 6004(f)

9. Sales of assets outside the ordinary course of business are governed by section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 6004(f). Section 363(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in pertinent part that, "(t)he trustee, after notice and a hearing, may use, sell or lease, other than in the ordinary course of business, property of the estate." 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1). The use, sale, or lease of property of the estate, other than in the ordinary course of business, is authorized when there is a sound business justification for such action. See Comm. of Equity Sec. Holders v. Lionel Corp. (In re Lionel Corp.), 722 F.2d 1063, 1070 (2d Cir. 1983);

7

In re Phoenix Steel Corp., 82 B.R. 334, 335-36 (Bankr. D. Del. 1987) (stating that judicial approval under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code requires a showing that the proposed action is fair and equitable, in good faith and supported by a good business reason).

10. The business judgment rule is a "policy of judicial restraint born of the recognition that directors are, in most cases, more qualified to make business decisions than are judges." International Ins. Co. v. Johns, 874 F.2d 1447. 1458 n.20 (11th Cir. 1989). In that regard, "(w)here the debtor articulates a reasonable basis for its business decisions (as distinct from a decision made arbitrarily or capriciously), courts will generally not entertain objections to the debtor's conduct." See Committee of Asbestos-Related Litigants v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 60 B.R. 612, 616 (Ban. S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citation omitted). When a valid business justification exists, the law vests the debtor's decision to use property out of the ordinary course of business with a strong presumption that "in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company." See Official Comm. of Subordinated Bondholders v. Integrated Res., Inc. (In re Integrated Res., Inc.), 147 B.R. 650,656 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

11. Lastly, as noted in In re Trans World Airlines, Inc., 2001 WL 1820326, *4 (Bankr. D. Del. April 2, 2001), "a § 363(b) sale transaction does not require an auction procedure." Accord Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6004(f)(1) (providing for "Public or Private Sale.") (Emphasis Added); Ramsay v. Vogel, 970 F.2d 471,473 (8th Cir. 1992) ("Under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(f)(1) such a sale may be "by private sale or by public auction."); Local Rule 6004-1(b)(iv)(D) (requiring, in part, that sales motions disclose whether an auction is contemplated). The Court also noted that

8

"(t)he auction procedure has developed over the years as an effective means for producing an arm's length fair value transaction." Id.

12. For the reasons explained herein, the decision by the Debtors to enter into the Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Purchaser is one that is well within the scope of their business judgment, and the sale can and shall proceed without an auction. In any event an auction is not practicable here primarily because the Debtors cannot afford having an investment banker run the process, there is simply no time left to do so in light of the July 27, 2009 hearing date, and this Court directed at the June 15, 2009 hearing that there would be no auction but, instead, that the Court would rule on or shortly after the July 27th hearing whether to authorize this sale. Regardless, the purpose of an auction, to produce "an arm's length fair value transaction," id., has in fact been met in this case by the significant prior sale efforts made by the Debtors as referenced herein.

D. Assumption And Assigment of Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases

13. The assumption and assignment of the Assumed Contracts is an integral part of the proposed sale and should be approved by the Court. Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in pertinent part, that a debtor in possession, "subject to the court's approval, may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor." 11 U.S.C. §365(a). By enacting section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Congress intended to allow a debtor in possession to assume those leases/contracts that benefit the estate, and to reject those that are of no value or are burdensome to the estate. See Cinicloa v. Scharffenberger, 248 F.3d 110, 119 (3d Cir. 2001); Leland v. Gardinier, Inc. (In re Gardinier, Inc.), 831 F.2d 974, 976 n. 2 (l1th Cir. 1987); In re Whitcomb & Keller Mortgage Co., Inc., 715 F.2d 375,379 (7th Cir. 1983).

9

14. It is well established that decisions to assume or reject executory contracts or

unexpired leases are matters within the "business judgment" of the debtor. See Gardinier, 831 F.2d at 976 n.2; In re G. Survivor Corp., 171 B.R. 755, 757 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994) (noting that "(i)n determining whether a debtor may be permitted to reject an executory contract, courts usually apply the business judgment test. Generally, absent a showing of bad faith, or an abuse of discretion, the debtor's business judgment will not be altered") (citations omitted); see also NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 523 (1984); Sharon Steel Corp. v. National Fuel Gas Dist Corp., 872 F.2d 36, 40 (3d Cir. 1989). Accordingly, courts approve the assumption or rejection of an executory contract or unexpired lease unless evidence is presented that the debtor's decision to assume or reject was "so manifestly unreasonable that it could not be based on sound business judgment, but only on bad faith, or whim or caprice." In re Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043, 1047 (4th Cir. 1985).

15. Adequate business justification exists to merit judicial approval of the proposed assumption and assignment of the Assumed Contracts. The Assumed Contracts are valuable assets of the Debtors' estates and represent an integral part of the proposed sale of the Purchased Assets. To the extent that the Debtors can assign them as part of the sale, the sale will generate cash which the estate can use to satisfy claims and avoid or reduce potential claims against the estate.

16. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a debtor to assume and assign an executory contract if the debtor:

(A) cures, or provides adequate assurance that (it) will promptly cure, such default other than a default that is a breach of a provision relating to the satisfaction of any provision (other than a penalty rate or penalty provision) relating to a default arising from any failure to perform nonmonetary obligations

10

under an expired lease of real property, if it is impossible for the trustee to cure such default by performing nonmonetary acts at and after the time of assumption, except that if such default arises from a failure to operate in accordance with a nonresidential real property lease, then such default shall be cured by performance at and after the time of assumption in accordance with such lease, and pecuniary losses resulting from such default shall be compensated in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph;

(B) compensates, or provides adequate assurance that the trustee will promptly compensate, a party other than the debtor to such contract or lease, for any actual pecuniary loss to such party resulting from such default; and

(C) provides adequate assurance of future performance under such contract or lease. . . .

(f)(2) The trustee may assign an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor only if -

(A) the trustee assumes such contract or lease in accordance with the provisions of this section; and

(B) adequate assurance of future performance by the assignee of such contract or lease is provided, whether or not there has been a default in such contract or lease.

See 11 U.S.C. §§ 365(a), (b)(1), (f)(2). Accordingly, section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the proposed assumptions and assignments of executory contracts and unexpired leases, provided that the defaults under such contracts are cured and adequate assurance of future performance is provided.

17. It is well settled that the meaning of "adequate assurance of future performance" depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, but that a contract counterpart is not required to receive an absolute guarantee of future performance. See, e.g., In re Glycogensys, Inc., 352 B.R. 568, 578 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2006) ("(I)t is appropriate to evaluate the financial condition of the assignee and the likelihood that the non-debtor party will receive the benefit of

11

its bargain from the assignee"); Carlisle Homes, Inc. v. Arrari (In re Carlisle Homes, Inc.), 103 B.R. 524, 538 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1989) (adequate assurance of future performance does not mean absolute assurance that debtor will thrive and pay rent); In re Natco Indus., Inc., 54 B.R. 436, 440 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985) (same). The Debtors will provide all parties to executory contracts and unexpired leases to be assumed and assigned pursuant to this Motion with an opportunity to be heard, and in connection with the Sale Hearing, the Debtors will provide evidence that all requirements for the assumption and assignment of the Assumed Contracts to be assigned to the Purchaser will be satisfied. Thus, the Debtors respectfully submit that, by the conclusion of the Sale Hearing, assumption and assignment of the Assumed Contracts should be approved.

E. Procedures Regarding Cure Amounts

18. To facilitate the sale and the assumption and assignment of the Assumed Contracts, the Debtors propose to serve a notice of assumption and assignment and of the proposed cure amounts relating to such Assumed Contracts in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit C (the "Assumption Notice") no later than 15 days prior to the Sale Hearing and request that the Court approve the following procedure for fixing any cure amounts owed on all Assumed Contracts.

19. The Debtors will attach to the Assumption Notice their calculation of the undisputed cure amounts that the Debtors believe must be paid to cure all prepetition defaults under all Assumed Contracts (the "Cure Amount"). The Debtors request that if a non-debtor party to any Assumed Contract disputes the Cure Amount or objects to the assumption and/or assignment of an Assumed Contracts that such party be required to file an objection (the "Cure Objection") on or before 4:00 p.m. (prevailng Eastern Time) five calendar days prior to the Sale Hearing (the "Cure Objection Deadline") and serve a copy of the Cure Amount Objection so as to be

12

received no later than 4:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) on the same day, upon (a) the United States Trustee, [address], Wilmington, Delaware 19801; (b) counsel for the Debtors: Berger Singerman, P.A., Att.: Arthur J. Spector, Esq., [address] Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301; (c) the Debtors: c/o Mr. Ryan Tibbitts, General Counsel, The SCO Group, Inc., [address] Lindon, Utah 84042; and (d) counsel for the Purchaser: Leslie Allen Bayles, Esq., Bryan Cave LLP, [address] Chicago, Illinois 60601.

20. If any such party fails to timely file and serve a Cure Amount Objection by the Cure Objection Deadline, such party shall (i) be forever barred from objecting to the Cure Amount and from asserting any additional cure or other amounts with respect to such Assumed Contracts and the Debtors shall be entitled to rely solely upon the Cure Amount; and (ii) be deemed to have consented to the assumption and assignment of such Assumed Contracts and shall be forever barred and estopped from asserting or claiming against the Debtors, the Purchaser (or a higher and better bidder at the Sale Hearing as determined by the Court) or any other assignee of the relevant Assumed Contracts that any additional amounts are due or defaults exist, or conditions to assumption and assignment must be satisfied under such Assumed Contracts.

21. If a Cure Amount Objection is timely filed, the Cure Amount Objection must set forth (i) the basis for the objection, and (ii) the amount the party asserts as the Cure Amount. After receipt of the Cure Amount Objection, the Debtors will attempt to reconcile any differences in the Cure Amount believed by the non-debtor party to exist. In the event, however, that the Debtors and the non-debtor party are unable to consensually resolve the Cure Amount Objection, the Debtors will segregate any disputed Cure Amount pending the resolution of any such disputes by this Court or mutual agreement of the parties.

13

22. Based on the foregoing, the Debtors respectfully request that the Bankruptcy Court approve the assumption and assignment of the Assumed Contracts.

F. The Proposed Notice of the Sale Hearing Is Appropriate

23. The Debtors have marketed these assets (and others) diligently for most of the previous 21 months and the marketplace has spoken. The Debtors believe that the transaction contemplated by the Purchase and Sale Agreement is the highest and best offer for the sale of the Purchased Assets available. The Debtors believe that the consideration offered by the Purchaser is the highest that the Debtors can reasonably attain at this point in time, given the damage that has occurred to UNIX over nearly the last decade. But of additional importance to the Debtors, it is the Debtors' belief that the Purchaser is the best party to whom to entrust the stewardship of the Debtors' UNIX business, and that the interests of the Debtors' employees, resellers and customers will be best served with the Purchaser in control of the UNIX business. Under Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a) and (c), the Debtors are required to notify creditors of the proposed sale of the Purchased Assets, including a disclosure of the deadline for filing any objections to the sale and the time and place of the hearing to consider the sale and any objections thereto. The Debtors request that the notice of the Sale Hearing, and the deadline to file objections to the Sale, be deemed adequate if

(a) Within three business days after the filing of this Motion, the Debtors, or their agent, serve by first class mail, postage prepaid, copies of this Motion and all exhibits thereto, including the Purchase and Sale Agreement (without Schedules and Exhibits), which documents include the date, time and place of the Sale Hearing, and the time fixed for filing of objections to the proposed sale, upon the following entities (collectively, the "Notice Parties"):
i. the United States trustee;

ii. all creditors entitled to receive notice pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002;

14

iii. all taxing authorities who have filed claims or are listed in the Debtors' schedules;

iv. all parties that have requested special notice pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002; and

v. all persons or entities known to the Debtors that have asserted an interest in, all or any portion of the Purchased Assets, including entities that previously pursued a transaction with the Debtors for these assets.

24. Prior to the Sale Hearing, the Debtors or their agent will file an affdavit of service of this Motion.

25. The Debtors submit that the notice procedures herein comply fully with Bankruptcy Rule 2002 and are reasonably calculated to provide timely and adequate notice of the sale by auction to the Debtors' creditors and other parties-in-interest, as well as those entities that previously expressed an interest to the Debtors in, purchasing the Purchased Assets.

IV. RELIEF UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 6004(h) IS APPROPRIATE

26. Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) provides that an "order authorizing the use, sale, or lease of property... is stayed until the expiration of 10 days after entry of the order, unless the court orders otherwise." Fed. R. Ban. P. 6004(h). The Debtors request that any order authorizing them to sell the Purchased Assets pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement be effective immediately by providing that the 10-day stay under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) will not apply.

27. The purpose of Bankptcy Rule 6004(h) is to provide sufficient time for an objecting party to appeal before an order can be implemented. See Advisory Committee Notes to Fed, R. Ban. P. 6004(h). Although Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) and the Advisory Committee Notes are silent as to when a court should "order otherwise" and eliminate or reduce the 10-day stay period, Collier on Bankruptcy suggests that the 10-day stay period should be eliminated to allow a sale or other transaction to close immediately "where there has been no objection to the

15

procedure." 10 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY, ¶ 6004.10 (15th rev. ed. 2006). Collier further suggests that if an objection is overruled, and the objecting party informs the court of its intent to appeal, the stay may be reduced to the amount of time actually necessary to seek a stay, unless the court determines that the need to proceed sooner outweighs the interests of the objecting party. Id.

28. The Debtors request that the Court rule that the 10-day stay period under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) not be implemented or, in the alternative, if an objection to the sale is filed, reduce the stay period to the minimum amount of time needed by the objecting party to seek a stay pending appeal.

V. NOTICE

29. Notice of this Motion has been or will be given to the following parties or, in lieu thereof, to their counsel, if known: (i) the Office of the United States Trustee; (ii) the creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims against the Debtors' estates (on a consolidated basis); (iii) all creditors of the Debtors; (iv) those entities that previously expressed to the Debtors an interest in pursuing a transaction for the purchase of the Purchased Assets; and (v) any party that has filed a request for notices with this Court prior to the date of this Motion. The Debtors submit that, in light of the nature of the relief requested, and the July 27, 2009 Sale Hearing Date, no other or further notice need be given.

16

WHEREFORE, the Debtors respectfully request entry of an order in the form attached hereto granting the relief requested herein, as well as granting any other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: June 22, 2009

PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP
[signature]
Laurie Davis Jones (Bar No. 2436)
James E. O'Neill (Bar No. 4042)
Kathleen P. Makowski (Bar No. 3648)
[address, phone, fax, email]

and

BERGER SINGERMAN, P.A.
Arthur J. Spector
[address, phone, fax, email]

Co-Counsel for the Debtors


1The Debtors and the last four digits of each of the Debtors' federal tax identification numbers are as follows: (a) The SCO Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Fed. Tax Id. #2823; and (b) SCO Operations, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Fed. Tax ID. #7393.

2All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Purchase and Sale Agreement (Asset Sale Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 363) (the "Purchase and Sale Agreement") attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

3For greater detail regarding the background of the Debtors' business and events leading up to the filing of these cases, the Debtors refer the Court and parties to the Declaration of Darl C. McBride, Chief Executive Officer of the Debtors, in Support of First Day Motions (Docket No.3) fied on the Petition Date and incorporated herein.

4The terms set forth herein are summary in nature only. All interested persons are respectfully directed to the Purchase and Sale Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A for a complete recitation of all of the terms and conditions of the sale of the Purchased Assets to the Purchaser.

17


  


SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More | 254 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 02:36 AM EDT
Please note the correctable text in the title of your post.

---
Once they have you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers - Slothrup's Third Proverb

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Trustee May Sell?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 02:46 AM EDT
I really fail to see how it helps their case to quote from bankruptcy law that
shows the US Trustee may sell assets outside the course of ordinary business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, the Off Topic thread
Authored by: bezz on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 03:06 AM EDT
Always something else interesting to talk about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Picks Discussion
Authored by: bezz on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 03:08 AM EDT
Please use the article name in the Title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't do it, UnXis!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 03:13 AM EDT
SCO will take your money then use it to sue you!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What were they thinking?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 03:24 AM EDT
Not much, if anything at all.
A lot of people already use the five letter sting
U-N-X-I-S.
1) They don't actually believe that this will fly.
2) They plan to keep the SCO identity.
3) They plan to trademark "UnXis"
4) ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

UnXis - because one day SCOXQ.BK will UN EX IST
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 03:27 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue More Linux Users
Authored by: bezz on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 03:36 AM EDT
I focused on only a few pages of this complex document. I can see why the US Trustee's representative and Novell / IBM lawyers punted when it was dropped on them without warning because it took me hours of reading to go through a few pages. Please forgive any transcription errors as this was not a cut and paste document for me.

From “Article I Certain Defined Terms”:

"Cash Deposit" means $250,000.

"Letter of Credit-Balance" means that certain irrevocable letter of credit issued on ' or before the fifth Business Day after the Bankruptcy Court enters the Sale Order, for the benefit of Seller in the face amount of$2,150,000 and expiring on the Termination Date, to be held by Escrow Agent and drawn upon as provided in Section 3.2.

“Letter of Credit-Sun" means that certain irrevocable letter of credit issued at Closing for the benefit of SCO Group in the face amount of $2,850,000 and expiring on December 31,2009, to be held by Escrow Agent and drawn upon as provided in Section 3.3, which letter of credit, subject to the foregoing, shall be issued (or confirmed and payable) by the financial institution that issued the Letter of Credit-Balance.

Looking at the sale agreement, some highlights from “Article 3 Considerations”:
3.1. Purchase Price. The aggregate purchase price for the Purchased Assets is (i) $5,250,000 (the "Purchase Price"), payable by deliver of (a) the Cash Deposit, (b) the Letter of Credit-Balance and (c) the Letter of Credit-Sun and (ii) assumption of the Assumed Liabilities.
OK, the "purchase price" is $5.25 million in three escrow accounts. One for all creditors, one specifically for Novell and a small one ($250K) for all creditors. The tactic is to make it look like Novell is assured to get paid and the creditors who have not bothered to show up will get some money. Hardly the assured payment of all debts SCO apparently promised at the last hearing, but smart. Novell is the only creditor with a defined claim that has bothered to show up.

Take a quick look at the initial terms of disbursement for the Letter of Credit-Sun:

3.3. Letter of Credit-Sun. Concurrently with the Closing, Purchaser will deposit with Escrow Agent the Letter of Credit-Sun, which Letter of Credit-Sun will be held and released in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Post-Closing Escrow Agreement and this Agreement. The Letter of Credit-Sun will be drawn by Escrow Agent and paid to Novell, or released by Escrow Agent and delivered to Purchaser, as follows...

(a) As used herein, the the "District Court Sun Agreement Judgment" means that portion of the Final Judgment entered on November 20, 2008 by the U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central Division, that Novell is entitled to payment from SCO Group in connection with the 2003 agreement between SCO Group and Sun Microsystems, Inc. (the "Sun Agreement"). If following the Closing and on or before August 31, 2009, the District Court Sun Agreement Judgment is affirmed in whole or in part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the "Appeals Court") as a result of the appeal by SCO Group of the District Court Sun Agreement Judgment (the "Appeal"), then Escrow Agent shall be authorized and directed by SCO Group to draw on such Letter of Credit-Sun on behalf of and in the name of SCO Group to the extent required to satisfy such payment obligation to Novell determined in the Appeal (subject to paragraph (c) below)

Sounds pretty good for Novell. If the Appeals Court affirms Judge Kimball's findings with respect to Sun, Novell gets paid from an escrow account. Well, one that expires on December 31, 2009, if you bothered to read the definitions. But it is not even that assured. Take a look at paragraph (c) below:
(c) Notwithstanding anything in clause (a) or (b) above to the contrary:

(i) the monies so drawn by SCO Group or Escrow Agent on behalf of and in the name of SCO Group shall be used solely to pay Novell in accordance will the final judgment of the applicable court;

(ii) in the event that the amount determined in a final, non-unfulfillable judgment to be owed by SCO Group to Novell is less than the face amount of the Letter of Credit-Sun, then only such amount that is so determined to be owed and payable by SCO Group to Novell maybe drawn on the Letter of Credit-Sun and paid to Novell on behalf of and in the name of SCO Group, and the remaining balance of the Letter of Credit-Sun may be terminated and canceled by Purchaser;

(iii) in the event that an amount in excess of the face amount of the Letter of Credit-Sun is owed and payable to Novell, Purchaser shall have no obligation to pay all or any portion of such excess; and

(iv) in the event that (A) on or prior to August 31, 2009 the District Court Sun Agreement Judgment is neither affirmed in whole or in part nor reversed and/or remanded in whole or in part or (B) for any reason whatsoever, the Letter of Credit-Sun is not drawn by SCO Group or Escrow Agent on behalf of and in the name of SCO Group on or before December 31 2009, the Letter of Credit-Sun shall terminate and SCO Group shall have no rights with respect thereto and Purchaser shall have no obligation to pay such portion of the Purchase Price.

[formatting and highlights mine]

WHOA!!! What an out!

Unreal. Part (iii) means little because there is no chance Novell could be remanded to Utah and a judgment in excess of what it received at bench trial entered before December 31.

Part (iv)(A) is just another delay tactic to take SCO to August 31. "If we get any kind of favorable ruling from the Appeals Court, we're going to do great in a trial!" If the Appeals Court denies all of SCO's claims before then, Novell gets paid from an escrow account. If any of SCO's appeals are affirmed and the case gets remanded, the escrow account is only held until December 31 pending a new ruling from Utah. Yeah, like that will happen before the end of the year. After December 31, the escrow account reverts to whoever put the money in; no money to pay Novell.

I'll give SCO credit. They finally put up something that kind of looks real. But whoever funded this plan left themselves some very big outs so that only if everything goes SCO's way are they on the hook to pay. If SCO gets a ruling remanding part of its case back ti Utah, the escrow account will expire before Novell could possibly get a ruling. It also skillfully cuts all the creditors who have failed to show out of the decision and puts the onus on Novell. Remember, IBM, Red Hat and Autozone are not defined-amount creditors and SCO has objected to their proofs of claim.

Basically, it is a plea for the judge to give SCO a chance to survive to at leats August 31 because they promise they will pay Novell in full if the appeal is entirely denied.

I'm not the caliber of Novell's Mr. Lewis and the rest of the team. They should have a field day with this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

unXis?
Authored by: AMackenzie on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 03:40 AM EDT
unXis? "..which are not material customers of unXis"?

What, exactly, is an unXi? What is it like to be a customer, material or
otherwise, of an unXi? I'm not sure I'd want to be one. Is SCO an unXi,
maybe?

Hmm.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: mupi on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 04:19 AM EDT
5. In summary, the Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that the Purchaser will buy and the Debtors will sell generally, the Debtors' UNIX business and many of its subsidiary companies, and certain of their Mobility products. The Debtors will retain certain Mobility applications, their cash, their accounts receivable, and their litigation and related claims against International Business Machines Corporation, Novell, Inc., AutoZone Corporation, Red Hat and certain Linux users which are not material customers of UnXis (excluding certain large-scale users of Linux servers) that are claimed to have infringed against UNIX copyrights....
It seems to me that the new company (UniXis) is reserving the right to pursue ligation against "certain large-scale users of Linux servers", since those are being excluded from the list of things which are excluded from the sale. Companies like AutoZone, DaimlerChrysler, for example, would fall into that category, going forward, if there's any such companies the SCO *hasn't* already sued.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UnXis
Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 04:20 AM EDT
UnXis Consulting, whose website claims them to be UnXis Inc, is based out of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Whois shows a registration date of February 2008. It looks like a small
outfit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 05:09 AM EDT
SCO has posted details as if it's a done deal:
http://www.caldera.com/company/legal/overview.html

Q: When is the transaction expected to close?

A: The Bankruptcy Court is expected to review the proposed sale on July 27 th and make a ruling within two days. We expect the transaction to close shortly thereafter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • "We expect..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 02:03 PM EDT
SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 05:37 AM EDT
Please, Oh please, let this end.

What is wrong, so bad, with the US justice system that it can't just say enough
is enough!

If I were a US tax-payer, I'd be very peeved by now.

Ignoring the "who-owes-who-what", how much money is this rubbish
costing tax-payers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 05:53 AM EDT
It wants to sell some of the Mobility business, retaining part of it, along with selling the Unix business and "many of [SCO's] subsidiaries" to an entity called UnXis. I've never heard of it either.
I'm not sure if it is the same unxis. But, whois ( http://www.who.is/whois/unxis.com/ )says :

REGISTRY WHOIS FOR UNXIS.COM
Name.com Rapid Blog Mask
Domain Search:

Domain Name: unxis.com

Registrar: BRANDON GRAY INTERNET SERVICES, INC. DBA NAMEJUICE.COM
Whois Server: whois.namejuice.com
Referral URL: http://www.namejuice.com
Status: OK

Expiration Date: 2009-08-03
Creation Date: 2005-08-03
Last Update Date: 2009-06-17

Name Servers:
ns1.sedoparking.com
ns2.sedoparking.com
See unxis.com DNS Records

Information Updated: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:16:34 UTC
UNXIS.COM SITE INFORMATION
http://www.unxis.com/ Thumbnail
IP: 82.98.86.178
IP Location: Frankfurt Am Main, Germany
Website Status: active
Server Type: Apache



Maybe it is a false lead. Still, that domain expires very soon, so it may well be SCO's partner planning its demise ahead.


---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge McConnell's resignation is effective Aug. 31
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 06:32 AM EDT

Judge McConnell is expected to leave the 10th Circuit bench effective Aug. 31.
Tell me I'm reading too much into that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: s65_sean on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 06:55 AM EDT
Didn't SCO tell the bankruptcy court that they expect the appeals court to rule
by the end of September?

Now they're submitting a plan that will pay Novell, but only if the Appeals
court comes back with a ruling by the end of August.

That, in and of itself, should be enough of a reason for Novell to object to
this plan, and for the bankruptcy court to rule against the plan.

Although, as I have learned from PJ, Novell and IBM should object for as many
possible reasons that they can think up, because that's the way that the US
court system works. You need to present all of your arguments at once, so that
if the court finds a flaw in one argument, the other arguments can still be
considered.

A quick question to anyone who knows the rules. Can the bankruptcy court change
the terms of the plan, say to change the deadlines for the letter of credit to
dates that are more realistic for a final appeals ruling, and tell the purchaser
"take it or leave it", or are the bankruptcy court's only choices to
either approve or disapprove of the plan?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • My bad - Authored by: s65_sean on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 07:03 AM EDT
What cannot be reversed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 07:37 AM EDT

IANAL, but as I understand the US legal system, not every finding of Judge Kimball can be overturned. Only his legal reasoning can be challenged. His findings as to the facts, cannot.

So in the worst possible scenario, in which an appeal court disagrees with all of Judge Kimball's legal reasoning, what would be left? Maybe a lawyer can comment?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 08:55 AM EDT
Why do I get the image of Novell, IBM and the BK Trustee all in a room together
wading through this stuff and the grins on their faces slowly widening as they
realize that this plan has about as much substance as a Neutrino and start
picking holes in it.

I'm hopping that they walk into court with a large bound document of objections,
the last page reading.

Because of the continued failure of SCO to file a complete reorganization plan
we request that the court convert SCO to chapter 7 immediately.

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BSF's cut?
Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 09:49 AM EDT
One thing that has been consistently missing from these sales agreements, and
seems particularly glaring here, is settlement of Boies Schiller & Flexner's
cut. According to their fee agreement, they should be getting 33% of any
settlement, asset sales proceeds, or other recovery.

So if the purchase price is $5,250,000 then BSF should be getting ~$1.7M of it.
Could they have waived their claim to this? If not, I don't see how there will
be enough left to pay the creditors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question to the Missing Postings Bureau
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 10:34 AM EDT
I probably missed the postings where this was answered ages ago, if so I
apologize but here goes...

The purpose of Chapter 11 is to see if a company can be brought out of it as a
viable entity, if not on to chapter 7 you go. This APA(and all the others)
sells almost all of SCO's "going concern" except for the ligation. The
ligation either will be a win for SCO or not. If not it will be the end of
company. Is this an acceptable criteria to the court to rehabilitate a company
instead of invoking a Chapter 7 on it? I guess it must be otherwise why has this
been allowed to go on for so long.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 02:15 PM EDT
This is a private sale; no auction is contemplated. However, if the Court determines that an auction is necessary, or if the Court accepts a higher or otherwise better bid at the Sale Hearing, the Purchase and Sale Agreement includes certain stalking horse protections for the Purchaser, including a break-up fee in an amount equal to 4% of the Purchase Price.

I don't see how the court could feel itself bound by SCO's agreement with Norris. If at the sale hearing the court decides to accept a different offer, I don't see why the judge couldn't just tell SCO that the proposed sale agreement isn't approved. For that matter, the court could just tell SCO that it doesn't like the deal and will instead order the trustee to liquidate the estate. It's only if the court first approves the terms but then changes its mind later that the 4% fee might be acceptable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Plan - More of same old same old
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM EDT
Full of glowing superlatives about vague nothings, short on details and
specificity, supporting documents not in evidence, all wrapped up in a can't
miss, good as gold, sure thing letter of credit that expires immediately upon
achieving the desired two month delay.

It's worked perfectly so far...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl McBride, CEO of SCO Operations ?
Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 02:41 PM EDT
The Sale document is signed by Darl McBride 3 times:

As CEO of The SCO Group

As CEO of SCO Operations

As SCO of SCO Global


Is my memory faulty, or was Jeff Hunsaker the CEO of SCO Operations ??

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is the motivation?
Authored by: dwiget001 on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 05:02 PM EDT
<< ...But look at the yearning, the determination to do harm to Linux....
>>

Yeap. No matter how Darl (or other SCO talking head) tries to spin this as their
"protecting our business" motivation, it does not hold water.

SCO (formerly Caldera) was a Linux distributor and contributor.

Either A) Darl (or someone pulling his strings) is insane (in other words,
irrationally on a continual "attack Linux bent") or B) Darl has some
deal to continue this farcical charade. There is a possible "C", which
could be a little of both.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Masterpiece of the Impenetrable
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 05:21 PM EDT
IANAL. I've tried to decipher this APA document over the last twelve hours and I
have to confess defeat. For me, this is simply impenetrable. I dont know,
perhaps it's been written to confuse, to misdirect.

So as much as I've been able to misunderstand, this is designed to (a) create of
SCO an assetless litigation troll (with no income, how does the troll survive,
not explained), and (b) pretend to, but in practice avoid, providing cash to pay
the judgement Novell have against SCO.

Still, I'm guessing Gross will give this the nod. Thanks Delaware.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 06:30 PM EDT
Watch your language - we (the US) have NEVER had a justice system, only a legal
system. In case you haven't figured it out by now, they are not the same thing.

If we had a justice system, this case would have died on day two, and someone
would be rotting in prison for attempting to defraud the many companies
involved.

We have a legal system - it is not about right or wrong, it is about playing the
game within a flexible set of rules, with an umpire (judge)who may or may not be
sympathetic to your side, using expensive pinch hitters (lawyers) to play for
your side. The only winners in this game are those who profit from it - and that
isn't the people with shallow pockets.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Well stated. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 11:30 AM EDT
On Information And Belief
Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 06:45 PM EDT
<Cynicism>
As observers to the history of The SCO Group's business practices over the last
few years, we could not fail to notice their continued practice of making bold
and unsubstantiated claims that then fade to nothing when exposed to the cold
hard light of the legal process.

Which would be quite acceptable were it not for the fact that this behavior
tends to cost other companies and awful lot of money in legal fees.

So here's a side thought. We've seen, from their wild and occasionally
hysterically funny interpretation of the law, that The SCO Group don't
necessarily have a good grasp of the principles of Intellectual Property,
copyright, patents, or "protectable" artifacts such as methods and
concepts.

So how about this.


"On information and belief" [ i.e. I have no concrete evidence of this
whatsoever... yet ] I wonder if The SCO Group, of Linden, Utah, have
accidentally, during their development of the latest release of Unixware,
accidentally permitted their developers to see, review, examine, operate, read
about or otherwise acquire information about the GNU/Linux Operating System.
Because the GNU/Linux Operating System is developed entirely in public, with all
source code freely available for public download, scrutiny and, with certain
restrictions, modification, then on information and belief I wonder if any part
of GNU/Linux, no matter how small, has accidentally been incorporated into one
or more of The SCO Group's Product Offerings.

With this basis, then, on information and belief of suspected copyright
infringement, I wonder if I might be able to bring Class Action suit against the
SCO Group. To pursue my claims I would of course require all versions of
Unixware developed by SCO, along with developer notes, documentation, working
papers, design documents, emails, reference material, sandwich wrappers and
napkins from the canteen { which of course may carry evidence of the design
process } pertaining to all editions of Unixware that The SCO Group maintain
they own right and title to.

I wonder if such a discovery request, given the potential nature of the breadth
of developers involved with the GNU/Linux Project - and it's associated
application ecosystem - would be sufficient to tie up The SCO Group's legal
department for the foreseeable future.

Obviously such discovery would have to include any and all emails with any third
parties that relate to actual or potential licensing deals, including but not
limited to those signed with Microsoft and Sun Microsystems. It will certainly
be necessary to depose SCO directors and employees, along with representatives
of other companies, such as Microsoft and/or Sun, to establish precisely which
claims of ownership SCO made as to the code included in the registered business
deals.

Obviously I wonder if, given the legal precedent set on ladder-theory discovery,
it would be appropriate to ask for developer notes and source code, going all
the way back to Charles Babbage's Difference Engine, for I feel sure that
somewhere in the IP theories, SCO managed to demonstrate that they owned all of
this, too.




OK, it's late and I'm being silly.

But it does strike me as unfortunate that the legal system has entitled SCO to
retain the initiative and dance a merry dance around 3 Judges, and [
notwithstanding the none-too-soon demise of their business ] get away with no
adverse consequences. Even that's not such a big deal, given the amount of money
they have been paying themselves...


IBM made a bit of a start with their counter-claims, but recently there has been
little follow-through. In all seriousness, I wonder if there may be sufficient
evidence to show that in fact Unixware has taken advantage of Linux
developments, and not the other way around. If only that could be shown, then
the consequences would be *much* more interesting!

I guess we can live in hope...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - APA Attachments available
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 08:21 PM EDT
Docket item #819

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't be just a renaming
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 09:41 AM EDT
This can't be just a renaming - there must be some kind of input of capital if
they are going to get out of bankruptcy. I wouldn't be surprised if the input of
capital isn't entirely what is appears to be, but it must exist in some form.
(Well, if this were anything other than SCO it would, with SCO one can never be
100% sure of anything actually making sense.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

adequate assurance of future performance
Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 09:53 AM EDT
I notice SCO's motion for approval seems to fixate for a paragraph or two on the
issue of "adequate assurance of future performance."

Of course if past performance were any guide, there would be more than adequate
assurance that newSCO will continue to lose money. The only clearly identified
opportunity, or to state it obversely, the only not utterly obfuscated
opportunity for enrichment is continued litigation.

But it would seem to me unlikely that a bankruptcy court, no matter how jaded,
would look favorably on a business plan that says plainly we expect to make
money by suing our customers.

Of course we Groklawphiles have the advantage of knowing just how well that plan
worked _before_ bankruptcy. Since the Utah oourt found the copyrights did not
transfer to SCO, it's pretty specious to contract that SCO "retains" a
right to litigate in the fashion D. McBride used to pontificate about to all
media reps who would listen. In fact it pretty well guarantees that
"breakup fee" SCO has so badly wanted for Stephen Norris and posse, at
4% of the supposed "sale price" (what is 4% of a letter of credit that
on its face is unlikely ever to be made available?).

Hey, SCO may be losing money in litigation now, but if anyone could make it up
on volume... it will be BSF and Stephen Norris's Capital Partners.

regards, hm


---
"Mail-order schools lure fledgling code jockeys with promises of big bucks and
excitement. But a new survey finds hirings are rare." Computerworld, 12/11/95

[ Reply to This | # ]

A variation on an old game
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 10:25 AM EDT

Bankrupt companies used to pull the following maneuver: the company is split into 2, one containing all the assets (call it company A) and the other one, all the liabilities (call it company B).

Company A then happily stays in business, paying the bosses and owners large salaries.

Company B is in a hopeless position because it only has debts, so it goes into liquidation. The creditors - the people to whom the original company owed money - get the assets of company B, i.e. nothing.

It sounds too crude and simple to work, but it does work, far too often.

The interesting thing, though, it that that's not what's happening here. SCO really doesn't have any assets that anybody might want, except its remaining cash. The number of licensees of SCO's software is shrinking faster than a snowflake in Death Valley, their SCOSource "business" has never made money and is ridiculed throughout the industry, and their "new products" are about the most underwhelming new products ever launched. Is this "asset sale" really just about transferring more money into the pursuit of nuisance lawsuits?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's New Proposed Sale Plan - correct address - Wants to Sue Linux Users Some More
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 10:11 PM EDT
DaimlerChryslers

Lets see, if I remember correctly they claimed Chrysler had a Unix license and
they used Linux and they sent it to a closed plant, or something like that.

Let's hope they remember they need to sue Fiat now.

Oh, right, the judge dismissed it with prejudice.

[ 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 )