|
|
| What's Scheduled for the July 27th Bankruptcy Hearing? |
 |
|
Friday, July 24 2009 @ 09:13 AM EDT
|
We have the Notice of Agenda, the list of all the matters that will be handled at the SCO bankruptcy hearing on the 27th, barring any more Perry Mason moments, and Noah Phillips' motion for admission pro hac vice was granted. So he hops on board just in time for the most intriguing hearing ever.
Barring last-minute dramatics, the agenda boils down to the three motions by IBM, Novell and the US Trustee to convert, or dismiss, SCO's bankruptcy to Chapter 7, plus SCO's motion to sell to unXis, and its motion for authority to assume and assign executory contracts and leases, and finally the SCO motion to seal the Appendix to its response to the IBM and Novell motions to dismiss or convert. But there absolutely will be dramatics, I think we can safely assume, due to the information IBM has presented in its Objection to the sale on what it has found out in discovery. The word fraud has surfaced, and allegations of bad faith, so nothing else matters in comparison.
Here are the documents:
07/23/2009 861 Order Granting Motion for Admission pro hac vice of Noah J. Phillips, Esquire. (Related Doc # 859 ) Order Signed on 7/23/2009. (BMT) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
07/23/2009 - 862 Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing 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. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service and Service Lists) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
Here are the documents, all PDFs with text for some, that you'll need
to follow along, if you attend particularly:
- [750] The US Trustee's Motion to Convert
[PDF]
[text]
- [751] IBM's Motion to Convert
[PDF]
[text]
- [753] Novell's Motion to Convert
[PDF]
[text]
[778] SCO's Response
[PDF]
[text]
[778Ex1] SCO Exhibits (customer letters)
[PDF]
[text]
[783] Renaissance Venture's Objection
[PDF]
[partial
text]
[804] XAC's Objection
[PDF]
[805] LeapTide's Objection
[PDF]
[798] IBM's Reply
[PDF]
[text]
[796] Novell's Reply
[PDF]
[text]
- [784] SCO's Motion to File Appendix Under Seal
[PDF]
[803] IBM's Objection
[PDF]
[text]
- [815] SCO's Motion for Authority to Sell Property Outside the
Ordinary Course of Business
[PDF]
[text]
[819] Exhibits to Sales Agreement
[PDF]
[
text];
Exhibit A to Motion, the Sales Agreement as
[text]
[851] Novell's Objection
[PDF]
[852] IBM's Objection
[PDF]
[860] SCO's Response
[PDF]
[text]
- [832] SCO's Notice of Cure Amounts
[PDF]
[text]
[833] Exhibit A to Notice of Cure Amounts
[PDF]
(continued in 2 more PDFs
[here])
[849] Oracle's Limited Objection
[PDF]
M/S Sunray Computers' Objection [not docketed]
[858] Novell's Response to SCO's Notice of Cure Amounts
[PDF]
- [856] Order re July 27th Hearing
[PDF]
[text]
Note that the Notice of Agenda lists the Novell Response to SCO's
Notice of Cure amounts as docket #859, but it should be #858. I hope I
have everything right. I can't imagine how in the world they will
cover all of this in one hearing.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Erwan on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
If any...
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
Please, quote the article's title.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
As usual...
If you think there is life after monday's hearing.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 09:36 AM EDT |
| I can't imagine how in the world they will cover all of this in one
hearing.
A necessary first step would be to follow through on the threat
to not permit discussion of the other lawsuits, or anything that has not been
submitted to all parties before the deadline, ... and to react with extreme
prejudice on the second attempt to bypass those restrictions (we all know those
attempts will occur).
After that, two simple orders will suffice:
1.
conversion to chapter 7 is granted, assign a trustee to take over all management
of the windup of the business
2. all parties are directed to fully co-operate
with the investigation into the alleged fraud; in particular, all potentially
relevant paperwork must be preserved
John Macdonald [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
There have been earlier occasions when we thought SCO was at the end of the
rope, but they've always managed to weasel out of the noose. It will be very
exciting to watch on Monday what sort of magic SCO attempts this time, and
whether despite the best trickery known to their counsel, their luck will have
finally run out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 09:42 AM EDT |
In what order do they hear the Motions? If it's the order on the sheet, could
SCO be in chapter 7 after the Trustee's motion and the remainder become moot?
Does the Judge here all the motions before deciding on any of them? Does he have
to rule on all of them in case one or more are apealled?
Sorry, I'm a Brit and I don't know the US court process.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: scav on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
It's a bit early to speculate, but...
Would an order to convert the bankruptcy to chapter 7 always give the Judge's
reasons for doing so, and might these in the future be precedent to head off
similar delay tactics in bankruptcy courts?
Not that there's necessarily anything uniquely bad about SCO within the category
of slimy chancers in well-deserved bankruptcy.
I hope Groklaw will have Newspicks items about cases where post-SCO case law
comes back to spank SCO-wannabes for many years to come.
---
The emperor, undaunted by the judge's ruling that he had no clothes, pressed on
with his siege of Antarctica, hoping to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
| Here ---
Self Assembling Möbius Strip - See other side for
details.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
| At this point is the lack of MORs a significant breech or of minor concern? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
This isn't the first, or second, or third time we thought we were seeing the
last nail driven into SCO's coffin. And I predict it won't be the
last.
SCO's lawyers are expert at creating confusion and bamboozling
judges. Look at their track record: they've spun out a case based on
absolutely no evidence for six years. Remember, they have
produced no evidence that IBM violated any copyrights, and a court has ruled
that SCO doesn't own any of those copyrights anyway. Six
years.
On Monday, they do have some evidence. It's flaky, almost
certainly bogus, and possibly fraudulent. But their lawyers have got something
to work with! Given what they accomplished with nothing to work
with, I forecast a big success for them on Monday, in the form of yet another
delay. At least another month, I venture to predict. And then SCO will come up
with more reasons for delay, and their continued existence. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: l8gravely on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 12:14 PM EDT |
So what's the rate of appeals for conversion to Chapter 7, since there seems to
be all sorts of safeguards in terms of appeals you can make in US Courts. Which
is honestly fine with me, though I admit it can be tortuous to wait for.
But say that Judge Gross puts them into Chapter 7, does SCO immediately appeal,
is the order stayed and Darl and crew stay in charge? Or does the US Trustee
take over while the appeal is being heard, but SCO stays in chap 11 holding
patern?
At this point, I'm trying to imagine what SCO can pull out of a hat (or which
music they can play to tap dance around the issues... :-) so that they get more
delay.
Obviously, if they have money on the table at the hearing, they might escape.
If they have a better PSA, they might escape. If they appeal an adverse
ruling... where does that leave them?
Cheers,
John
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
| If, on Monday, the judge decides to convert SCO's bankruptcy to chapter
7, what
recourse, if any, does SCO have to forstall? Can they appeal to
a higher
court or is the word of Judge Gross final?
---
You just can't win with
DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
>I can't imagine how in the world they will cover all of this in one hearing.
My guess is that the judge will give SCO time to tell its
story. If it will not add up then he will just fire the current
management of SCO, without converting to chapter 7, and put a
trustee. The trustee will get a couple of weeks to study the
issues and then the Chapter 7 issue will be solved in an
agreement with IBM & Novell that the judge will just rubber stamp.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
No reply to IBM's objection to the motion to file under seal is listed. How
could SCO possibly miss the opportunity for a reply?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
I'll be wondering if Boies attorneys will say they were unaware of Darl's
payments to Norris; perhaps, even, that Darl lied to them. If so, does that give
Boies a plausible reason to stop representing SCO, immediately and in the
future?
I hope that whoever attends Monday's hearing pays particular attention to
Norris' testimony, assuming he's there. It would be hard for me to imagine
Monday's hearing without Norris being there.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
Mentions of Germany keep reminding me how easily they
disposed of SCO's phony claims. Can any of our German
readers quote the text of the German statute that allowed
them to do that? I'm curious to see if it would pose any
constitutional questions in the U.S. If not, then we should
adopt it.
I see that there have been new rules either proposed or
already adopted in the U.S. that would make lawsuits harder
to implement -- requiring specific allegations, not just a general
claim of tort. Makes me wonder if SCO prompted this, or if it
rises to the level of the German statute.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
Webster's agency arguments, it seems to me, go far beyond the
immediate hearing -- all the way to Microsoft's paid shills, not just
on the blogs but into the trade press and mainstream press -- and
even to Wall Street.
Lyons was shilling SCO from the start. Does a "consulting" agreement
come under agency? Is "consulting" Norris's loophole?
(Presumably this would require a written agreement, under the
statute of frauds. Ooops, there's that word again.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
First: There is no purchase/sale. As IBM put it, the PSA is illusory. Norris
has told IBM under oath that he has no backers for the PSA he signed. As of the
NewSCO reply he has not pledged his own money as backing (They didn't cite that
happening). The most elementary requirement of the Bankruptcy Court (Show Me
the Money (TM)) has not been met. Thus there is no PSA to approve. Thus the
motion to approve a PSA is moot.
Second: With no alternative in sight the judge grants the motions for conversion
to Chapter 7.
Easy wasn't it. 20 minutes max if everybody is very polite. 5 minutes if they
follow NYC courtesy rules.
The only thing that could remotely resurrect the PSA would be teller's checks on
FDIC insured US Banks for the whole of the 'purchase' price. Payable to the
Clerk of the Court. Physically placed in the judge's hand. Even then there
would be all those issues Novell and IBM have raised.
No. I think its done. Except for the US Attorney, the FBI, and possibly the
Grand Jury.
Let's all have a moment of silent commiseration for the US Trustee who has to
clean up this mess.
And Thanks to PJ
JG
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 24 2009 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
I can't imagine how in the world they will cover all of this in
one hearing.
No problem: 2.5 hours for SCO, 2.5 hours for
IBM and Novell, and half an hour for the US Trustee, plus a bit more for opening
and closing arguments. 2.b of the hearing order (SCOGBK-856).
The tone
of the hearing order, and its very direct prohibition of some of SCO's
previously observed tactics, leads me to visualize a countdown timer on the
judge's desk.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
