|
|
| Minutes from the SCO Bankruptcy Hearing Posted |
 |
|
Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 12:57 PM EST
|
Here you go, the minutes from today's SCO bankruptcy hearing:
12/30/2009 - 1016 - Minutes of Hearing held on: 12/30/2009 Subject: OMNIBUS HEARING (moved from 12/22/09). (vCal Hearing ID (102915)). (related document(s) 1014 ) (SS) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/30/2009 (SS). (Entered: 12/30/2009)
So what happened? Al Petrofsky's motion to compel was denied, as I thought it would be, and in fact as I thought it should be. The Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to seal the arbitration exhibit was granted, as we figured it would be. And the judge took the SUSE motion to lift the stay under advisement. We'll know in about a week or so.
Our reporter attending the hearing will tell us more details later in the day, after he gets a chance to type up his notes, but from the Minutes we see the following:
HEARING HELD. AGENDA ITEMS:
#1 - #4 - CNO Filed and Order Signed
#5 - Denied, Order to be submitted to Court
#6 - Judge will issue ruling -with in the next week
#7 - Approved - ORDER SIGNED
#5 is Petrofsky's Motion to Compel, which was denied.
#6 is SUSE's Motion to Lift Stay.
#7 is Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn's motion to file Ryan Tibbitts' exhibit under seal. I couldn't and can't predict the SUSE decision, so we'll have to wait and see, although I think it should be approved and will be appealed if not granted, but the others were not at all hard to guess accurately.
Here's an application to appear by Ted Normand:
12/29/2009 - 1015 - Motion to Appear pro hac vice of Edward J. Normand of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. Receipt Number DEX002245, Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
You can see from the attachment to the Minutes that he in fact appeared by telephone, as did Michael Jacobs.
While we wait for more information, please continue to help us complete the blurbs on the Comes Exhibits. We've really made good progress, but there is a lot more to do. Remember that what matters is to make the collection searchable by keyword. So note headers on emails, any juicy quotes, any companies listed, general topic. Here's the list that we are working to complete.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:11 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:11 PM EST |
How can a court in the USA cause a stay on the arbitration in Europe? What am I
missing?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Arbitration - Authored by: webster on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:15 PM EST
- Arbitration - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:35 PM EST
- Arbitration - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 05:55 PM EST
- Arbitration - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:41 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:13 PM EST |
Please do try to make clickies where appropriate. And, no on-topic stuff in this
thread![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:14 PM EST |
Please be helpful by identifying which Groklaw newspick item you are discussing
in the title of your post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:31 PM EST |
If Gross does not lift the stay, everything is going to get very messy, and
judicial efficiency will be hindered. How can the Utah trial complete
satisfactorily until the result of the arbitration is known?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Stay of arbitration - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:44 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:51 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 02:07 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 04:40 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 07:12 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: Leg on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 06:02 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 02:14 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 03:20 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 04:00 PM EST
- Simple - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 05:43 PM EST
- Stay of arbitration - Authored by: electron on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 04:33 PM EST
- there you go again ... - Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:46 PM EST
- Stay of arbitration - Authored by: Kevin on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 02:25 PM EST
- Stay of arbitration - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 02:35 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 01:59 PM EST |
I don't see this bankruptcy judge lifting the stay for SUSE. He's never denied
SCO anything they want until they have shown a dozen times over they can't be
trusted, and now he's got a third party in charge, so I really don't expect him
to give the debtors or other's anything they want. He's already shown his
primary concern is SCO emerging from bankruptcy, even if doing so means he has
to flout the rules (what are they going to do, shoot him? ring a bell).
However, I do have a question. What happens if SUSE goes to the judge in Utah
and says 'You can't decide this without finishing our arbitration first, here's
what Kimball said', and the judge in Utah agree's and stays the trial pending
the arbitration? Does that leave us in limbo with the Utah and Delaware judges
both saying 'No, you have to go first'?
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM EST |
The hearing started at 10:06. After several housekeeping matters, Mr.
Petrofsky' motion was considered and denied.
At 10:22, Novell/SUSE motion to lift the stay was taken up. Mr. Lewis argued
for Novell/SUSE and Ms. Fatell for the Trustee. After extensive argument, Judge
Gross took the matter under advisement, indicating that he would rule within a
week.
The hearing ended at 11:46.
I will make a fuller report later.
---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 03:23 PM EST |
I asked this before, but we got distracted and I didn't get an answer.
At the Dec. 1 status hearing in Utah (docket #605), Brent Hatch was told to
confer with the other lawyers and submit a proposed scheduling order the next
day.
Do we know if that's happened yet? I don't see any thing on the docket, nor
number gaps where it might have been.
cpeterson, WINAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: electron on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 04:27 PM EST |
One possible benefit that may possibly arise out of this, is that the bankruptcy
judge will have to review the Novell/SuSE/NewSCO case in order to figure out the
truth from the lie... um... untruths that NewSCO has been feeding him.
This may impact well on how later proceedings are decided.
---
Electron
"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SLi on Wednesday, December 30 2009 @ 05:50 PM EST |
The Appendix A contains a Telephonic Appearance Schedule, which contains some
numbers (phone numbers and some "App ID") sort of blacked out, yet
clearly readable. Not that they probably are overly sensitive, especially in
non-OCRable PDF form...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
