decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

What To Do About SCO? Let's Spend More Money on Professional Advisors
Saturday, October 03 2009 @ 10:06 PM EDT

I have a friend whose theory of life is that when you are down to your last $100, rather than skimping, you should go out and spend it on a luxurious, wonderful meal, because afterwards you'll think of something. SCO's Chapter 11 Trustee must be a kindred spirit.

Mr. Cahn has filed with the bankruptcy court an application to hire a financial advisor/investment banker, Ocean Park Advisors, to advise him on what he should do about SCO. Should they reorganize, sell off and shut down or what? It's complicated. Not to mention expensive. Wait. Does SCO have any money it doesn't already owe to someone?

Here are the filings, including also a quarterly bill from Pachulski Stang:

10/02/2009 - 923 - Application to Employ Ocean Park Advisors LLC as Financial Advisor and Investment Banker Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. Hearing scheduled for 10/23/2009 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/16/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Proposed Form of Order # 4 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/02/2009 - 924 - Quarterly Application for Compensation (Seventh) and Reimbursement of Expenses of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession, for the Period from April 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 10/22/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Exhibit C # 5 Proposed Form of Order # 6 Certificate of Service and Service List - Fee Application# 7 Certificate of Service and Service List - Notice Only) (Jones, Laura Davis) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

In the application, it says this is the why of it:
7. Prior to the Petition Date, sales of the Debtors' UNIX-based products and services were declining due to financial difficulties and other factors, which culminated in the filing of these chapter 11 cases. In addition, there has been negative publicity surrounding the litigation relating to the Debtors' ownership of UNIX and related copyrights that has, to some degree, hampered the Debtors' ability to compete in the marketplace.
That's not why. The company never made a profit ever, except the quarters when Sun and Microsoft got SCOsource licenses. Most of us have never believed that was about obtaining Debtors' UNIX-based products. We saw it more as an anticompetitive misuse by proxy of the courts. And we don't believe SCO owns UNIX or the copyrights.

Which marketplace, by the way? The litigation lottery? You need a competitive offering to compete, and SCO chose to use the Sun and Microsoft money to pay lawyers instead of techies. People noticed.

I think SCO has been bawling about its lot in life, but why has there been "negative publicity" surrounding the litigation? The main reason is because Darl McBride filled a couple of notebooks, which he proudly brought onstage in 2003, with his allegations about mountains of code allegedly improperly copied into Linux. He got a lot of favorable press at first, but then SCO couldn't prove their allegations. That mountain melted like the Wicked Witch of the West into a puddle of more or less nothing when exposed to the bright light of discovery.

That can lead to bad PR. But SCO isn't the victim of that story; it was the initiator. Cluebat for you: If everyone is saying that SCO is a donkey, might it be wise to consider whether it is just possible SCO *is* a donkey? Six years later, SCO still hasn't shown the public the code they promised they *already had* in 2003. What might that mean?

If SCO wishes to alter the negative PR, show the code. Oh, and prove the copyright ownership. By that I mean, prove the provenance of the code, each hop starting with AT&T for each file claimed, if any. No. Do it, if you can. I'll bet you can't. The old stuff SCO is talking about is, I believe, supposedly in SYSV4.2. Prove the ownership of errno.h, for example. I'd like to see that. Then ask yourself, is there any valid copyright on it, let alone who owns it. SCO smeared the good name of Linus Torvalds, after all. That leads to negative publicity right there.

Show the code, and while you are at it, please explain why it's acceptable legally to insist that allegedly infringed copyrighted code remain in Linux with SCO charging license fees to time indefinite on code no one wants, instead of showing the code so it can be removed? Is that how copyright law works? Since when? That's even if SCO owned the copyrights. A scheme like that invites derision. And it did.

The filing continues:

8. Since the Appointment Date, the Trustee has spent considerable time familiarizing himself with the Debtors' operations, financial condition and pending litigation. The Trustee has determined, in the exercise of his business judgment, that the complexity of the financial difficulties require him to employ experienced professionals to render the Services in connection with these chapter 11 cases.
Good idea. But what kind of professionals? How about some techies? And don't pay them a thing. Money twists some people into willing knots. Just ask any UNIX graybeards or Linux kernel guys any technical question at all about the merits of SCO's case, and you'll get only one answer, the one Linus gave a long time ago: They are full of it.

Not understanding the technical side of this litigation is the only thing that I think can lead to any confusion. So if you'd like a friendly tip, find technical advisors and then you'll know exactly what to do.

Instead they hope to hire advice about how to either get SCO on its feet, hardy har, or sell off its assets. SCO didn't find a buyer for its patent, I gather, since that is one task listed as a possibility. And then here comes a mention of Mr. Norris again, believe it or not, and after the court already told us that the prior "offer" was not made in good faith.

Well, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again, I gather. I'd look into those financials rather carefully if I were you. Then follow the money. We'd all like to know who it is that is so determined to shackle Linux to a troll.... oops.... I mean to a toll bridge.

So, what are the terms? This is a deal worked out between the Chapter 11 trustee and OPA, as they refer to Ocean Park Advisors, recognizing "the substantial efforts that will be required of OPA." SCO is a hard sell, all right. You can read the various tasks contemplated on page 4 of the application, things like reviewing SCO's "business, operations and financial results" -- that sounds like a gloomy prospect -- and then advising the Trustee about "potential Financing Transactions" or maybe coming up with a plan to restructure the debts or liquidate the assets.

They'll be paid on an hourly basis, with the Managing Director getting $400-$500 an hour, the VP $250-400, etc. down the line. There is a retainer of $40,000, which I assume comes from the money the Utah District Court ruled was owed to Novell. What about "Sell Side Services" compensation?

Sell Side Services refer to things like "determining the value of its intellectual property". *That* might take a while. Also it would include "evaluating potential purchasers" and maybe conducting an auction. Well, look on the bright side. At least Berger Singerman won't be running the auction.

Sell Side is maybe not going to happen. But if OPA is asked to do any such tasks, they clean up quite nicely. First they get a retainer of $30,000. If the sale doesn't close within 90 days, they get another $30,000. That might slow things down, don't you think? How about a bonus instead for doing it quickly? But get this: the retainers are "fully earned upon payment thereof, whether or not a successful Sale Transaction occurs". Nice work if you can get it. This is a case where it pays *not* to work at all.

If they work on a Norris deal, there's no retainer obligation. I guess that would mean that Norris is being given the inside track, in that it's cheaper to sell to Norris than to anyone else. Not that SCO hasn't paid a fortune already on Norris deals.

If they sell that patent for the Trustee, OPA gets 15% of the deal, but with a minimum "Success Fee" of $60,000. Why anyone would buy a patent until after the Supreme Court rules in Bilski is a mystery to me. So that might be a well-earned 60 grand.

If the Trustee "consummates an Asset Transaction," OPA gets $150,000 as a "Success Fee" plus 1.5% of the Aggregate Consideration. By that last they mean this, defined on page 7:

(c) For purposes hereof, the term "Aggregate Consideration" means (x) the total amount of cash and the fair market value (on the date of payment) of all of the property paid and payable (including amounts paid and payable in respect of convertible securities, preferred equity securities, warrants, stock appreciation rights, option or similar rights, whether or not vested, plus (y) the principal amount of all indebtedness for borrowed money or other liabilities of the Company and/or other relevant entities, as applicable, as set forth on the most recent balance sheet, or, in the case of the sale of assets, all indebtedness for borrowed money or other liabilities assumed by the third party.

Aggregate Consideration shall also include the aggregate amount of any dividends or other distributions declared by the Company and/or other relevant entities, as applicable, after the date hereof, and, in the case of the sale of assets, the net value of any current assets not sold by the Company and/or other relevant entities, as applicable. Aggregate Consideration shall also include all amounts paid and payable in respect of any license, royalty, non-competition or lease agreements.

For purposes of calculating Aggregate Consideration, (i) all equity interests will be deemed transferred where a Sale Transaction is effected by the transfer of equity interests, (a) constituting more than 30% of the then outstanding equity securities of or equity interest in the relevant entity, or (b) possessing more than 30% of the then outstanding voting power of the outstanding equity securities of or equity interest in the relevant entitity, and (ii) the value of securities (whether debt or equity) that are freely tradable in an established public market will be determined on the basis of the average closing price in such market for the 10 trading days....

I give up. There is no way to hand type such stuff and stay awake. So read the rest as it drones on and one in the PDF. But you catch the drift. No? I read it that they know how to think of every last way to get every last dime owed them. They didn't just have to type it; they had to think of it all. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but when SCO has no money to pay its debts now, one can't help but wonder when the money spigot for professionals gets turned off.

Like I say, just go into the server room and ask your techies what SCO's claims are worth. They'll tell you. For free. And in the end, when they're proven right, you won't have to pay them a "Success Fee" either.

Yes, I'm kidding around. But underneath, there is a serious point. The key to evaluating SCO's worth is to grasp the tech, know the history of UNIX and Linux, and understand how the GPL works. Because the simple truth as I see it is, the GPL scuttles SCO claims, all of them, no matter who owns the copyrights. If OPA wants to know why the GPL has that effect, I suggest contacting the Software Freedom Law Center. They can explain it to you.


What To Do About SCO? Let's Spend More Money on Professional Advisors | 301 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT - Off Topic thread starts here
Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, October 03 2009 @ 10:11 PM EDT
Please make links clicky

Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location

All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, October 03 2009 @ 10:13 PM EDT
News Pick article in title if possible

Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location

All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections - if any ???
Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, October 03 2009 @ 10:17 PM EDT
Correction suggestion in title if possible please...

Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location

All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What To Do About SCO? Let's Spend More Money on Professional Advisors
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, October 03 2009 @ 10:34 PM EDT
It sounds like the guy is totally confused. I am not surprised.

SCO litigation was always about confusing people to convince them it is fire and
not mirrors hidden under all that smoke screen. They have engineered their case
to be as complex and difficult to unravel as possible. Newcomers are sure to
have some hard time getting up to speed. Almost every judge that had to deal
with SCO had to go through at least one or two years learning curve just to
figure out what Linus Torvalds would have tell them from day one: they are full
of it. Of course there is no reason a Trustee should be any different no matter
how skilled he is.

Since SCO wouldn't learn from GPL remedial classes, perhaps a Trutee is
different? Could there be any use to write a GPL HOWTO at the intention of
Chapter 11 Trustees in dire need for guidance? A Trustee is bound to read
Groklaw, isn't it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't Ask A Tech
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 03 2009 @ 11:04 PM EDT
The problem is that most techs (statistically all techs) can't talk business.
(Not a real weakness with the Groklaw community as a whole.) Business leaders
need to make decisions, and they need to understand the consequences of their
decisions before they are made. Techs tend to talk about technology, and the
implications of technology choices on future technology decisions. Those two
thought flows very seldom intersect in someone that can translate back and
forth. Case in point, Caldera emulated it's namesake when it got rid of techs
in management, and brought in business people, who wanted to make money.

Asking a tech usually results in business gibberish. Far safer to hire experts.
I really despise this. Business people need to learn something about the tools
they use. Toolmakers need to learn something about the markets (and language)
their tools are used in. I do understand that jargon increases communication
efficiency among members of a specific discipline, we all need to learn some of
the other guy's jargon. (Or we get farce like this case.)

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | # ]

What SCO patent?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 12:08 AM EDT
(I hope that this gets in the right place.)

What SCO patent? For years SCO was litigating with IBM without any mention of a
patent, only copyrights and contract issues. If SCO hac any patent in Unix, it
would have been mentioned in the lawsuit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who exactly is Ocean Park Advisors, and are they any good?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 12:31 AM EDT
I tried to find info about them on the web, and all I've found so far is some
very curious stuff.

Their founder, W. BRUCE COMER III, evidenty was (is?) also the President, CEO
and CFO of something called Allegro Biodiesel.

From an November 2008 Edgar entry for Allegro, this odd entry (note the bit in

<i>On November 13, 2008, pursuant to approval from our Board of Directors,
we entered into a new services agreement (the “2008 Services Agreement”) with
Ocean Park Advisors, LLC (“OPA”), pursuant to which OPA will assist the Company
in monetizing non-operating assets and seeking a strategic transaction. The
2008 Services Agreement supersedes the agreement we entered into with OPA in
September 2006 (the “2006 Services Agreement”). The 2006 Services Agreement is
now terminated and of no further force or effect. The 2008 Services Agreement
provides for an initial term of one year, after which time it may be terminated
by either party upon sixty days’ advance written notice. Pursuant to the terms
of the 2008 Services Agreement, OPA will still have the right to appoint two
directors to our Board, and certain of OPA’s professionals and consultants will
continue to perform general and administrative functions for us. In
consideration of the services provided by OPA to us, we will pay OPA a monthly
base fee of $18,000, reduced from $60,000 under the 2006 Services Agreement.
Also, OPA agreed to waive $184,399.06 of its accrued but unpaid fees under the
2006 Services Agreement and to be paid the applicable portion of the balance of
such fees (totaling $200,000) upon the achievement of one or more specified
milestones set forth in the Agreement (the “Milestones”). Additionally, OPA
will receive the applicable portion of bonus payments of up to $60,000 if it
achieves one or more of the Milestones.

The 2008 Services Agreement also provides that applicable accrued fees and
bonuses will be paid to OPA if the Agreement expires or is terminated without
“Cause” by us (as defined in the Agreement) and we complete one or more of the
Milestones within two years of the date of expiration or termination of the
Agreement, or our Board fails to use good faith efforts to complete one or more
Milestones within such time frame.

<b>Bruce Comer, our President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal
Financial Officer and a member of our Board of Directors, is a principal of OPA.
Mr. Comer did not participate in the consideration or approval of the 2008
Services Agreement by our Board. </b></i>

Now normal is it for a person to be a CEO of two companies doing business with
each other?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ocean Park who?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 12:59 AM EDT
As soon as I saw the name a bell rang, but neither Google nor
Groklaw's search can tell me which bell. Their home page and
Google maps address are all deja vu, but I just can't slot them
into the web of Pelican, and the Arabs, Cattleback et al...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corporate Bankruptcy Rituals
Authored by: webster on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 01:13 AM EDT

What a delight, the Trustee's petition. Maybe there is some action here. The slowly appellate pace just doesn't amuse. But Cahn is on the prowl. PJ is outraged at the squandering of Novell's Judgment. Will Cahn take her advice to "ask the techies"?

  1. Right off the bat in the title we see Nunc Pro Tunc to September 15, 2009. NPT is the Latin for "I've taken the liberty of using them since September 15 so we have to pay them." Cahn is obviously a cocksure fellow who has no doubt that that young fellow, Judge Gross will approve this. He also isn't going to be satisfied with any in house advisors or law firms. He is covering his assets. Years of litigation and statutory reaction thereto, plus a little lobbying, have shaped the ritual. All know their roles. This is how the corporate game is played by the big boys with deep pockets. So the littler boys play it that way too, a few million is enough. When you lose, you lose. When all is gone, you can't even cut your losses, but bankruptcy let's one lose more on one's own terms, especially if the other side doesn't win either.
  2. This is probably a boilerplate request used whenever a trustee seeks a Financial Advisor. It has statutory backing. Note that he asks for timekeeping shortcuts for OPA's billings. p. 3. The terms are "customary and reasonable" and expected to be approved. P. 5. These guys are going to present an independent assessment of SCO's business situation. Their prime motivation is not FUD though its financial value may be explained to them and become apparent. They should see they are on the downside. So OPA is going to inventory the attic and other places and come up with a plan. The boiler plate continues and one stumbles into another deep indentation describing another creature that habituates the financial world - "Sell Side Services." To those familiar with the SCO Saga this appears to be a delusion of comic optimism. They are talking deals. Oh, beJesus, just search Groklaw for deals. PJ wouldn't lie. It's yard sale time. Can OPA be specific?
  3. The document shows how every Financial Consulting Advisor has been cheated in the past by adding all known ways value has heretofore been dodged to the aggregate amount of the anticipated transaction. Their retainer is like a lawyers.
  4. There is no doubt that this application will be approved. Cahn would not have accepted the appointment without agreeing to counsel, financial advisors and whatever else is essential.

It's late.


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

[ Reply to This | # ]

I get it now
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 03:11 AM EDT
So somewhere there's this money fountain that SCO has found a tap to and so
everyone just keeps latching on and expanding the pool...


I need to go shower.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You are not being fair here.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 03:55 AM EDT
The trustee is now in charge of the company. Being in charge does not entail
doing everything yourself, but getting it done. Something like folding a
business is not done lightly and on a hunch. So he is trying to get experts,
independent ones, to work on the assessment.

He is not expected to do all the assessment himself. His job is to make the
decisions. But the decisions are not to be based just on reading Groklaw.

The value of assets need to be determined, and that is not a matter of
watercooler communication.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ocean Park related to Ocean Tomo?
Authored by: gumnos on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 05:43 AM EDT
I remember Ocean Tomo cropping up in multiple places/stories here on GL. Any
relation to Ocean Park?


[ Reply to This | # ]

What To Do About SCO? Let's Spend More Money on Professional Advisors
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 07:23 AM EDT
I imagine Mr. Cahn has to avoid taking on any personal liability for what SCO
spends its money on; i.e. so that if any participant in this saga decides to sue
him personally, all US courts will grant him a 'get off free' pass out.

Certainly I wouldn't take on his role unless I had such an assurance.

Hopefully that comes with an assurance that he cannot benefit financially from
this mess, at least not to any greater extent than his professional fee for
taking on the role. Ideally his reputation would benefit from 'competent
sort-out' and it would be good advertising for his future business ventures, if

Hopefully he'll soon conclude that SCO is trying to dig coal from an an
exhausted coal mine. There is no coal there to sell, You can dig all you like
but there is no coal and no prospect of revenue from the market.

And then they'll stop.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The code they promised they *already had* in 2003...
Authored by: luvr on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 08:34 AM EDT
"Six years later, SCO still hasn't shown the public the code they promised they *already had* in 2003. What might that mean?"

The dog ate it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What To Do About SCO? Let's Spend More Money on Professional Advisors
Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 08:58 AM EDT
In some ways, this reminds me of the recent Ontario "eHealth" scandal,
where many millions of taxpayers money was squandered with little to show for
it. I get the impression that a lot of these "consultant" deals are
simply a make work project, to help rid someone of their cash.


(I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cahn is fully onboard, folks.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 08:58 AM EDT

Cahn has succumbed to SCO's persuasion, as I expla ined before.

He's one of the gang now. Darl may not have any business skills, but he surely has persuasion skills. After all, he was once a Mormon missionary. If you can convince adults that Joseph Smith translated the Golden Plates from Ancient Egyptian into English using seer stones, you can probably convince anyone of anything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What To Do About SCO? Let's Spend More Money on Professional Advisors
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 10:57 AM EDT
I have a friend whose theory of life is that when you are down to your last $100, rather than skimping, you should go out and spend it on a luxurious, wonderful meal, because afterwards you'll think of something
Aha! Maybe that explains the large number of Utah eateries which appeared in SCO's creditor list when they first declared bankruptcy...

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, how else to you get to liquidation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 01:44 PM EDT
I was surprised that anybody was willing to take over SCO. Its not the sort of
thing I would wish on an enemy. Knowing the kind of characters he will be
dealing with Cahn won't want to take a position like liquidation without due
diligence, iron pants, belts and suspenders and maybe even some razzle-dazzle.
Maybe he is hoping for a life after SCO, and he only has so many years left.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What To Do About SCO? Let's Spend More Money on Professional Advisors
Authored by: Gringo on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 03:08 PM EDT

I liked PJ's response to Mr. Cahn's application to hire a financial advisor/investment banker.

"That's not why" is her simple and powerful response to what was mistated as the reason for the filing of the chapter 11 cases. She then proceeds to tear to shreds the lies that SCO has repeated so many times they have come to believe themselves, and clearly have infected other with.

She clearly communicates in a nutshell the facts as we who have followed this saga for many years see them, and beyond that, as knowledgeable Unix and Linux professionals the world over see them.

She communicates all this concisely - in a manner that should prove to be readably digestible by Mr. Khan or executives of Ocean Park Advisors should they happen to wander by. If one of these mentioned persons should pause but a moment and consider the situation in light of PJ's response, he will find the perspective he gains will make it well worth his while. Armed with knowledge gleaned from reading Groklaw, one responsible for sorting out the stinking mess that is SCO will be much better equipped to do his job more quickly and efficiently.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sound's like 'Bleak House'
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 04:15 PM EDT

Those 'professionals' sure are good at drain every wallet and purse in the room.

What the trustee knows is that there is no money to start new litigation, saw against the 'debtors in possession' or the law firms. But there are bills to pay. So continue the loser suits and hope Novell or IBM sue for peace.

I can see Novell dropping out, once the copyrights are 'released' back to them; a quit claim sort of solution.

IBM will not settle. They want blood; lots of blood. It's the only solution that keeps the glob flies off their back in the future.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In the digital media space?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 05:17 PM EDT

From the OPA web site:

"Currently advising a technology company in the sale of its intellectual property in the digital media space"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does SCO pay its bills?
Authored by: Baud on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 09:41 AM EDT
I am afraid SCO is very short of cash.

In its quarterly application dated September 30th, PSZ&J wrote:

On July 20, 2009, PSZ&J filed its Twenty-First Monthly Application of Pachulsky Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expense as Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession for the Period from May 1, 2009 through May 31, 2009 ("Twenty-First Monthly Fee Application") requesting $19,917.00 in fees and $1,006.07 in expenses. PSZ&J has not received any payment of fees or expenses requested in the Twenty-First Monthly Application.
The certificate of no objection was filed on August, 12th. And as of September, 30th (49 days later) the bill was still unpaid. Draw your own conclusion!

Btw, SCO has carefuly avoided to disclose any financial information (MOR and 10Q) since the hearing in July. Coincidence, maybe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The answers are in the document.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 12:55 PM EDT
So Cahn has done some work and discovered he needs the financial
"wizards" to come in and figure things out. His preliminary assessment
has put a couple options on the table that he wants OPA to look at. The details
are in OPA's "Success Fee". The first is the patent transaction. The
second appears to be an asset sale, preferably with Norris, and the third
appears to be a sale of the litigation. It's in paragraph (ii) of the
"Success Fee, where it lists:

"(ii) an Assets Transaction with a value of $2 million involving the
assignment of the Company's rights with respect to certain ligation; and
(iii) an Asset Transaction with a value of $6 million involving the sale of
other assets"

So it appears from Cahn's initial analysis that he thinks he can sell the patent
(1), sell the company's Unix sales (2) (probably to Norris) and the bombshell is
it appears someone has at least made a preliminary offer to buy the litigation
for $2 million. My guess is Darl and his cronies have made an offer (whether
serious or not).

So Cahn is essentially looking at taking the company to Chapter 7 and
liquidating everything. The bad news is it appears someone wants to buy the
rights to the litigation against IBM. Lets hope they are well funded for IBM's
counter suits and damages.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The feeding will continue until the trough is empty
Authored by: vb on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 01:17 PM EDT
Before it was Darl and his gang feeding at the trough. Now it is Mr. Cahn and
his advisers feeding at the trough.

This saga will not go on much longer based on the observation that the trough is
nearly empty.

I have no doubt that Mr. Cahn has figured out SCO's game by now. But before he
goes on the offensive, he needs to line up his defense line and find support for
his decisions. What better way than to invite his linemen to come feed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whose word should he take?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 04:43 PM EDT
I actually find this understandable and inevitable. Of course he's going to need
his own assessment and of course whats left of the company is going to pay for
We can pat ourselves on the back for having watched this whole sorry mess but he
has to answer to a huge list of opinion and sort out his truth.
Companies spend money to do things -- the trustee needs to be informed. I think
chiding him for this is a little small. SCO may be primed to implode but this
guy still needs to know if there's a blast radius.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Look on the bright side
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 04:57 PM EDT
The faster tSCOg spends money, the faster they go Chapter 7.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Daryl v2.0?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 07:16 PM EDT
So ... this is the second time (at least) that the chapter 11 trustee has signed
his name to documents that make material mistatements about the litigation.
Sounds to me like he just blindly accepts whatever Daryl and company tell him.

[ 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 )