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 Amends Schedule F Again (Third)
Wednesday, July 01 2009 @ 06:01 PM EDT

More bills to go over with a fine-toothed comb, and SCO has filed an third amended Schedule F for SCO Operations. That's the list of unsecured creditors. Here's the previous version, if you'd like to compare, and I hope you do, and the original [PDF].

We have now finished the exhibits to SCO's latest proposed APA, and I want to say thank you to everyone who pitched in. What a job that was!

Here are the filings:

06/30/2009 - 822 - Quarterly Application for Compensation (Sixth) and Reimbursement of Expenses of Berger Singerman, P.A., as Co-Counsel to the Debtors in Possession for the Period from January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009 Filed by Berger Singerman, P.A.. Objections due by 7/20/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Exhibit C # 5 Certificate of Service and Service List - Fee Application # 6 Certificate of Service and Service List - Notice Only) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

06/30/2009 - 823 - Interim Application for Compensation (Nineteenth) for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses as Accountants to the Debtors for the Period from June 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 Filed by Tanner LC. Objections due by 7/20/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

07/01/2009 - 824 - Schedules/Statements filed: Sch F,. /Third Amended Schedule F of SCO Operations, Inc. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

07/01/2009 - 825 - Notice of Service /Notice of Amendments to Schedules of Liabilities and Time to File Claims in Response to Such Amendments Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 07/01/2009)


  


SCO Amends Schedule F Again (Third) | 102 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, July 01 2009 @ 06:07 PM EDT
If any.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks discussions
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, July 01 2009 @ 06:08 PM EDT
Please, quote the article's title.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, the off topic thread
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, July 01 2009 @ 06:08 PM EDT
As usual...

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Escrow Accounts
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 01 2009 @ 06:17 PM EDT
Questions:
a) Does the escrow money actually have to be deposited in the United States?
b) Does the schell company purchasing SCO's UNIX assets have to have significant moneys in the United States?

I'm wondering if the escrow accounts can be raided in such a manner that Novell never actually gets paid.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Amends Schedule F Again (Third)
Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, July 01 2009 @ 07:10 PM EDT
They owe:

$185.00 to Novell

$197,760.14 to Suse AG

and $500,650.73 to Amici LLC ( the $250K discount has evaporated)

They owe $450K-odd to various SCO subsidiaries --is that a trick ??

[ Reply to This | # ]

RFC - What has bankrupted SCO at this point.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 01 2009 @ 07:40 PM EDT
The court costs - big bucks
The business costs - Largely inflated by court prep etc...
The Unix Business - never actually made money before they went down the
litigation path.
Recent license moneys - Some big numbers but they haven't paid their license
fees from the licenses they did sell (that's a matter or record now right?)

Damages and court costs for those they have been found to owe damages to --- No
payments so far?


Just to be very clear - they are going bankrupt paying for their own share of
their mistakes. They haven't begun to make any sort of reparations. They are
forestalling this with chapter 11 or chapter 7 (when that happens).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Late Filing with the SEC
Authored by: TomWiles on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 11:28 AM EDT
Guys:

SCO has filed a late notice with the SEC claiming that they can not file their
10-Q due in April because of all of time and expense needed to generate the
court filings.


The following quote is from their NT-10 Filing:

"Due to the time required for preparation of documents and key hearing
scheduled for June 15, 2009, and July 27, 2009 in connection with the bankruptcy
proceedings, the Company requires additional time to file a complete and
accurate Form 10-Q for the three months and six months ended April 30,
2009."

How many think that their explanation is pure spin?

How many think that there is something in the 10-Q that they would be required
by law to disclose that they do NOT want disclosed prior to the July court
date??

The operative term here, I think, just might be 'obstruction of justice'.

Tom

[ 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 )