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
Two More Bills From Pachulski Stang - Still no MORs - Updated: Ocean Park's 3rd Bill
Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 12:07 PM EST

Yes, the flow of money out of SCO never ends, it seems, and so Pachulski Stang has filed a couple of more bills in the SCO bankruptcy. At some point it has to end for them. They withdrew from the case back in November on the 16th, and here we are in February, and they are filing bills for September and November, but not October. That must still be on its way. That alone seems odd.

And of course there are no MORs from the Chapter 11 trustee yet, despite their representation at the last hearing that they would file the MORs for October and November and hopefully December in January.

October. Did something happen in October that they would like us not to notice until after the March trial? I notice that October was the month SCO settled with AutoZone. Could that be it? We'll have to wait and see, but it's not usual to file for September, then skip a month, and then bill for November. And where exactly are SCO's filings with the SEC? What is going on?

01/21/2010 - 1038 - Monthly Application for Compensation (Twenty-Fifth) and Reimbursement of Expenses of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession, for the Period from September 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 10-Feb-2010. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service) (Makowski, Kathleen)

02/03/2010 - 1047 - Monthly Application for Compensation [Twenty-Seventh] and Reimbursement of Expenses as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession for the Period from November 1, 2009 Through November 16, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 2/22/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

The first bill is titled the 25th monthly application, covering September 1-30. The second is titled their 27th bill covering November 1-16, 2009. That is the date that they withdrew from the case, but this bill is not marked as the final bill. So obviously what is missing is the bill for October.

Mostly what they did in both time frames was work on what they call "the Berger Singerman fee matter" -- that would be this -- and do the paperwork to withdraw from the case. Neither bill is huge, but there is a balance brought forward of $80,518.24. So, what's the deal with the October bill? Why aren't they filing it? It surely isn't because either of these bills were complicated or hard to finish. Bankruptcy court is so loose, they surely won't care. But we do.

Update: Here it is, the bill for October. And here's Exhibit A. Here is the docket:

01/29/2010 - 1046 - Monthly Application for Compensation [Twenty-Sixth] and Reimbursement of Expenses as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession for the Period from October 1, 2009 Through October 31, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 2/17/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/29/2010)

Update 2: Ocean Park Advisors has filed another bill, their 3rd:

02/04/2010 - 1048 - Third Application for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period of December 1, 2009 Through December 31, 2009 Filed by Ocean Park Advisors, LLC. Objections due by 2/24/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 02/04/2010)

I see some of them are spending many hours talking to potential lenders, and on page 5 of Exhibit A, I see an associate working on the MORs, in December. What would this be: "Analysis of certain trade creditor fees.."? On the next page, you see several employees, including a managing director, working on the MORs in early December, and then an associate met with debtor about the MORs. Then there is this notation: "Coordinate deliverables with the Debtor relating to Monthly Operating Report's and year end financial activities" and then they revised the MORs and reviewed them again. Late in December, an associate reviewed "revised Month Operating Reports provided by Debtor". And then on the 23rd of December, he prepared "final versions" of the MORs "for filing". So where are they?

I see someone on page 6 reviewing and then working on independent contractor agreements. On the next page, they are looking into "foreign office cost comparison and approval" and on Dec. 9, there was a meeting with "investor/buyer of non-core assets". On that same page, we find a review of "foreign laws relating to certain debtor issues" and a review of quarterly commissions. On Dec. 29, there is a notation about an "offer from suitor for mobility business," to which one must ask, what mobility business? That notation is followed by a review of "modifications to offer." Then on Dec. 4, "Review device driver upgrade memorandum and estimate". My. Things sound desperate. Then on Dec. 21: "Analyses of runway based on timing of certain disbursements." They seem to be seeking a loan.


  


Two More Bills From Pachulski Stang - Still no MORs - Updated: Ocean Park's 3rd Bill | 272 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 Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 12:42 PM EST
Please make links clicky...

---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).

All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: ais523 on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 12:53 PM EST
In case PJ has made a mistake. Put the correction in the title of your post for
ease of reference.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 01:14 PM EST
:)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everything COMES here
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 01:15 PM EST
Please post completed work here. If posting HTML'd text, please post in
"Plain Old Text" mode so that PJ can copy-and-paste the markups.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wha' Wit October? Thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 01:22 PM EST
Just to keep things organized.
Next thread will be for MORs comments.

JG

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • How about speculation? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 01:34 PM EST
  • Why the MORs are late - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 04:14 PM EST
    • LOL n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 12:44 AM EST
Lack of bills does not excuse copyright infringement in Linux, does it?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 01:29 PM EST
And certainly does not make it go away.

Or is there another reason for your worries?

[ Reply to This | # ]

MORE on MORs! Thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 01:32 PM EST
Based on the last MORs filed, it looked like NewNewSCO was going to run out of
cash somewhere around the end of the 1st Q 2010.

I can't see Autozone paying enough to materially alter that event.

So unless some money shows up from somewhere, it doesn't matter what the trial
outcome is, this zombie is finally dead. Dead. DEAD!

IANACPA,
JG

[ Reply to This | # ]

November bill is for the August bill
Authored by: ChrisP on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 02:30 PM EST
80% of the November bill is for drafting the August bill, so they are running
three months behind. February's bill will be the bill for drafting November's
bill for drafting August's bill. May's bill will be for drafting February's bill
for drafting November's bill for drafting August's bill. And so on for ever.

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't Gross care that they break undertakings??
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 04:16 PM EST

Ms. Fatell ... said that the October, November, and hopefully December MOR's will be filed in January.

Well, looks like they weren't. Never mind about December; "hopefully" gives her a get-out. But for October and November, she said "MORs will be filed in January".

[ Reply to This | # ]

2.5 years
Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 04:53 PM EST
Can Novell or US Trustee (not the Ch. 11 trustee) re-file for conversion, given
the failure to meet minimum requirements, such as MOR's etc..., and the fact
that SCOXQ has been in BK for almost a full year longer than the law allows?

---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please, Sir! I want some MORs
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 09:13 PM EST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Twist

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two More Bills From Pachulski Stang - Still no MORs
Authored by: Ollathair on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 02:38 AM EST

While SCO may think that there day in court will vindicate them, I doubt that it will be much more than a delay before the curtain falls.

Given my experience in company management and operations, both in Public Listed Companies, as well as Private Companies, one of the things that was always a worry was regulators.
Often they could be a dozy mob of twits, who needed to be smacked in the face with national headlines, before they even got out of bed, much less, did there job.

An example for that is the best Ponzi scheme to come out of the USA to date, Madoff.

Now the Feds need to put a few runs on the board, but they don't want to spend a decade in court, just to prosecute what is essentially, small fry. However, most investigators, be they Fed (IRS) Tax, Company (SEC) Watchdogs, or other such, who need a career boost, would simply follow corporate law case's, in particular, Publicly Listed companies, especially where fraud, document destruction, transfer of assets, share manipulation, or the like, seems evident.

However, getting an investigation going for any would be Fed prosecution is very hard, you need a whistle blower, or an inside leak, or scad's of documentation that already point to such malfeasance, or all of those.
Also, you need a budget and strategy plan, as in, how much it will cost to prosecute, as well as how to get the low hanging fruit, first.

However, much easier is letting the civil courts do the heavy lifting for you, then stepping in at the end.

In SCO's case, I can see this to be a natural and obvious outcome, real soon.

Most likely, after the existing trial is over.

However, there is also a fair possibility that given the documented history in Groklaw, as well as any successful appeal by Novell, or any fact or matter which comes to light, such as the MOR's, which show fraud or other criminal activity, or at the least, lack fact or a proper record of known activity, then SCO is going to get roasted and toasted, sooner that they would like.



Lest you think I'm kidding, the IRS have some sterling examples on the site;
IR S Bankruptcy Fraud FY2008
The IRS would be my first worry.
The why of it is actually quite simple.

From the outside, looking in, without actual internal knowledge of SCO's true position, I would, as a company officer, first be concerned with unpaid taxes, incorrectly assessed taxes, especially of assets, such as shares, any tax minimisation schemes, then any overseas transactions, which could be viewed as attempted avoidance, or scam transactions, or both.
These would show up in finance statements, as contradictions, over time.
The other thing of concern, would be the last few financial audits, as to how they compare with what is publicly known.

The single biggest problem with delivery of MORs, would be Mail Fraud, more so if I knew the foundation of most of them were dubious.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two More Bills From Pachulski Stang - Still no MORs
Authored by: itsnotme on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 11:55 AM EST
I disagree, the Judge has allowed them quite a few antics that I think would not
have been allowed in any other court.

One antic I'd like to point out specifically: the fact that he let them bring a
"signed" contract that "just" got signed on the courthouse
steps so they could avoid the conversion proceedings.

And that was their third botched attempt at a re-org plan.

[ 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 )