|
|
| Ocean Park's 8th Bill |
 |
|
Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 12:37 AM EDT
|
Ocean Park has submitted its 8th monthly bill in the SCO bankruptcy. They're the firm hired by SCO's Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn to help him figure out what to do with SCO. And eight months in, I think we can all agree that they've done an awe-inspiring job under Cahn's leadership of running the company completely into the ground, and then digging some more straight down toward the center of the earth, all without paying the creditors a blessed sou. For which labor they would like to be paid now another $38,186.00 for the merry month of May. Tra la. When you consider that when SCO filed for bankruptcy protection, it had $9 1/2 million in assets [PDF], and only a little more than $3 million in liabilities, it's been truly amazing to watch this company commit suicide by bankruptcy court. And with so many professional helpers!
The bill:
07/01/2010 - 1130 - Monthly Application for Compensation of (Eighth) for the period May 1, 2010 to May 31, 2010 Filed by Ocean Park Advisors, LLC. Objections due by 7/21/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
Exhibit A is the breakdown of who did what, so it's pages of entries like this: 5/27/10 - Bruce Comer Managing Director - 0.3 - $142.50 - Review and respond to emails related to operating and commercial issues And many more like this:5/3/10 - Vinod Bhat - Associate - 1.7 - $425.00 - Follow up with Debtor management on budget
5/4/10 - Vinod Bhat - Associate - 0.7 - $175.00 - Review and approval of payables
5/5/10 - Michael Hakim - Associate - 1.1 - $231.00 - Revisions to budget, internal discussions re the same.
I will give SCO some free advice. No. Darl said There's No Free Lunch. So for 5 cents, then, here's my advice to them. Close down, turn out the lights, apologize to the world for all the pain you caused for absolutely no good reason, and call it done. It would really save a lot of money. Then maybe there'd be a few dimes to give to the ever-patient creditors. Of course, that's not SCO's wave length. Instead we see on May 6 "Follow up on Litigation budget." Ah. The everloving litigation budget. The dream has not yet died, one discerns, at least as of May 6. That's before Judge Ted Stewart ruled for Novell in June and drove the last nail into SCO's coffin there in Utah. So in May in Delaware, they're still thinking there's a chance. There's always been money to throw at litigation, with or without any realistic hopes. And for what? On May 11, there's "Review of restructuring plan with management." Are they kidding? Restructure how? With what? And may the public inquire *when*? I imagine them in the meeting laughing and playing tiddlywinks. "OK, Mark, put it down as review of restructuring plan. Hahahahaha." High fives all around. They might as well charge for basket weaving in those meetings. Because this doesn't look like a restructuring. You can't restructure a software company without engineers. Duh.
If you try, all you have is a dying company -- because who wants software from a company that has no engineers to support it and update it? -- a company dying from stupid greed and a strong dash of beyond-stupid anticompetitive high jinks. And worse. Much, much worse. Who sues their own customers if they want to stay in business? And poor Vinod at Ocean Park, preparing drafts of a presentation for the Trustee in early May that as of July still has not yet seen the light of day. Not a word in court. No press release. As quiet as a tomb. I think one can guess what they are really talking about in those internal discussions now.
How about this for Topic A? How does SCO pay Yarro back now that SCO lost to Novell and it can't bully Linux end users any more, and there's no hope of shaking IBM down without copyrights? And if SCO can't pay back the loan, how does it explain to the court -- and more importantly to the public and the Department of Justice -- that they didn't seem to have many internal discussions about what would happen to the loan if SCO lost in SCO v. Novell. Where was the plan? It's not like no one inquired. Novell asked at the hearing about how they planned to pay back the proposed loan if SCO lost at trial, and there was no substantive answer. They had no detailed analysis, but they thought they could pay, I recall them saying. So, when does that happen? When do they pay? All the budgeting seemed to be for if SCO won. So what to do? What to do? Just hand all the assets over to Yarro after defaulting on the loan? No wonder the court hearings keep getting cancelled. What in the world is SCO going to say about what I think I would call at best an irresponsible loan, despite the judge calling it fair, reasonable and adequate. Adequate for whom? Fair to whom? What's his definition of adequate? Who borrows money if there's no realistic plan of paying it back?
I gather we all must wait to see what SCO comes up with next. No doubt the lawyers are thinking, trying to come up with something. Will they appeal? I can't imagine what. The judge ruled for them in almost everything during the trial. What in the world does the prolonged silence mean?
Hush. They're thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: complex_number on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:11 AM EDT |
Please post the befroe & after to make PJ's work easier.
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: complex_number on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
You know the Rules...
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: Brooding re: Bilski - Authored by: webster on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:32 AM EDT
- OT: Brooding re: Bilski - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 09:12 AM EDT
- OT: Brooding re: Bilski - Authored by: Winter on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- OT: Brooding re: Bilski - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 10:13 AM EDT
- IP Czar - Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 10:35 AM EDT
- IP Czar - Authored by: Stumbles on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- pseudo term - Authored by: webster on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- pseudo term - Authored by: cbc on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- pseudo term - Authored by: J.F. on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- pseudo term - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Excuse me... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 11:14 PM EDT
- pseudo term - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 05 2010 @ 05:36 AM EDT
- IP Czar - Authored by: J.F. on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- And so truth, and the socratic method lost to FUD... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 11:24 AM EDT
- OT: Brooding re: Bilski Was initial scope of patents the hidden manufacturing process? - Authored by: tce on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- Bilski redux - So? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- First batch of Pixel Qi SOLD OUT. plus link to Video of one in wild... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 11:42 AM EDT
- YouTube - 1' of "5 years of Linux kernel development in Git" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:37 PM EDT
- All Creative Work is Derivative - Authored by: artp on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- iTunes Store hacked? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ankylosaurus on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
Please include a link to the original article as items move of the News Picks
section rather faster.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JimDiGriz on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
Jim waits for the pin to drop.
Tick, tick, tick.
JdG[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: complex_number on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:19 AM EDT |
of what little $$$ SCO has left in their petty cash drawer.
I think the following saying sums this up perfectly.
"Money for Old Rope"
It is no wonder that most Lawyers are not the most popular people around if they
can get away with stuff like this LEGALLY.
Pah.
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ak on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
The answer to such an abstract question seems to be obvious. People who for some
reason fear for their personal future or well-being and imposters.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:36 AM EDT |
Sorry if this is a silly or repeated question.
If a party involved in a court case disagrees with a verdict handed down, then
they are entitled to appeal that decision to a Circuit, and so on, up to the
Supreme Court of The United States.
What about bankruptcy decisions?
Why can't the creditors appeal the absolutely irresponsible and senseless
decisions being handed down by Judge Gross?
It seems obvious - based on track record to date - that he intends to continue
to approve new patterns in the arrangements of the deck-chairs on the SCOtanic
until it has completely submerged.
It seems that he is willing to allow arrangements that could see the last
remaining SCO assets - being handed over to Yarro. [ Whilst this may not be
illegal, one has to question whether permitting this is in the best interest of
the company and it's creditors - no to both questions, from the evidence we
have].
In other words, there seems to be more than enough evidence on the record that
Judge Gross is not acting in the best interests of the Chapter 11 company or the
creditors.
So what recourse do those creditors have to do something about this - to protect
their assets if they believe that the Court is not doing the job properly?
Any ideas?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Appeals? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 02:39 AM EDT
- Appeals? - Authored by: Ed L. on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 05:40 AM EDT
- Appeals? - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 09:07 AM EDT
- Appeals? - Authored by: russellphoto on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- Appeals? - Authored by: ak on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 12:00 PM EDT
- Appeals? - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 05:56 PM EDT
- My biggest question is.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 06 2010 @ 01:13 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
I feel sorry for the average schmo down in the US. Don't get me wrong. This is
serious entertainment to watch this from the safety of another country.
Hollywood doesn't write stuff this good.
What I don't get though is you guys are armed to the teeth down there. If any
one could take back their government it has to be the American public. Why
haven't you done it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 04:15 AM EDT |
Do we ever will see "Trustee" Edward Cahn to get its fair share of prison
service as all the other shenanigans McBride, Yarro, et al? But that is probably
in another of those parallel universes, another one of which is where McBride
wins, Edward Cahn is full of integrity, Bill Gates has coding abilities, Steve
Ballmer is adorable, and so on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- fad chance - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- BZZZT! Bad blunder - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 05 2010 @ 04:30 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 07:24 AM EDT |
Agreed "awe-inspiring" indeed.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 07:31 AM EDT |
.
---
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 | # ]
|
- No need... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 12:22 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
| They're thinking about billing for thinking. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
The SCOG has painted itself into a corner and is fighting like a cornered
rat. There are a few mice scurrying around picking up the crumbs that the rat is
leaving that will scamper away for other feeding grounds when there is nothing
left but a stinking carcass.
I don't think that Novell has any idea that they will ever get any more money
from the SCOG. But they should be able to garner some of the assets that they
sold to the original SCO which were transferred to the SCOG. That will be
precious little even at that.
But what we are hearing is the SCOG's death rattle. I have litle sympathy for
the company, but it is a shame what some greedy people have done to what was
Caldera and to the innocent investors and stockholders. (I am sure there are
many such who have been defrauded.)
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
| The May 17th hearing scheduled before Judge Gross was canceled on May 12th.
The OPA billing makes clear that on 5/5/10 Vinod Bhat was tasked to prepare
a powerpoint presentation for Cahn. He spent hours on the slide transitions, and
his bosses reviewed his work on the next days.
The big show happened on
May 10th. All hands, Cahn, Fatell, the OPA honchos and Bhat participated. The
billings show the call/presentation and prep lasted 1 to 1.8 hours.
No
follow-up or adjustments by OPA in the next days for Cahn, so whatever was
presented was either perfect or completely impossible. Cahn cancelled the
hearing on the 12th. Despite having been briefed, he did not want to
present "The Plan" to Gross after seeing it in all its glory.
OPA did go
to management with the plan on 5/11 and for the next week Bhat adjusted the
"Litigation Budget" after input from Tibbitts. Looks like there were some
layoffs in May, but OPA does not bill for those actions.
A week later, on
5/17, Bhat came back to revising the Powerpoint in prep for another Cahn
meeting. This time he spent 5.4 hours one day, and 3.4 hours the next adjusting
the slide animations.
That revised plan was presented on 5/19. OPA's big
dogs billed 3.5 hours. Fisler and Comer came down from NY's Penn station on the
Amtrak for a 2 night stay on 18th. They gave the dog and donkey show on the
19th, and snuck out of town the next day. No billing subsequent until 5/26
(another week passes) when Comer (not Bhat) starts making adjustments and
implementations.
Cahn stipulates to paying the $625K constructive
trust to Novell on 6/4/10.
Stewart shreds any remaining hope on 6/10
The OPA and Blank Rome bills start flowing on 6/18. AND Cahn hides in
his closet and cancels another hearing before Gross on the same day, 6/18/10,
that his law firm starts pushing its long overdue billing.
One of
SCO's few remaining engineers is pink-slipped on 6/23.
"The Plan" is not
presentable in open court. It appears to consist of a schedule of submission of
legal bills and "Litigation Budget" items. The endpoint of the plan appears to
be when any remaining cash is used up after Certificate of No Objection filings
for the bills.
I have prepared a Remaining Cash Accounting plan as a
Google Spreadsheet here. I cede permission for V. Bhat to use this
summary in his presentation, it might save him some of his very valuable
time.
POST AUTHORED BY STATS_FOR_ALL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
What in the world is SCO going to say about what I think I would
call at best an irresponsible loan, despite the judge calling it fair,
reasonable and adequate. Adequate for whom? Fair to whom? What's his definition
of adequate? Who borrows money if there's no realistic plan of paying it
back? It still boils down to Cahn deciding that SCO deserved to win
and Gross accepting that opinion. If you could figure out how that happened,
everything else would make sense.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rubberman on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
| Actually, it should be "Hush. They're stinking."... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
Gee, you'd think that, out of all the truckloads of money the 'experts' are
hauling off, Cahn and his cronies could spare maybe a couple of hours worth of
measly pesos for some low level schmuck at SCO to update the company website,
its public face to the world. No, Cahn, who can seem to write books and
supposedly has a law degree, can't figure out how to update the company website
to (at the very least) remove false and disproven information and display
current legal decisions. Now that's pitiful, and to think he's a former JUDGE.
DUH![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
| As linux users against McBride and Yarro [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
I don't recall seeing the assets vs. liabilities before, but that's just me.
With $9 million in assets and $3 million in liabilities, I don't understand how
this farce remained in bankruptcy court. My impression has been that you had to
have more liabilities than assets to be in bankruptcy court. But, I'm not a
lawyer, so I put some faith in logic.
With assets triple of liabilities, there has never been any motion to dismiss
the petition. Nothing from creditors, nothing from the U.S. trustee's office.
Can the judge take judicial notice of assets vs. liabilities and dismiss the
petition on his own?
Well, I guess it's too late now; the liabilities now really do exceed assets.
I'll have to renew my membership in the Flat Earth Society.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
But not an answer in sight. A once proud company killed. Reputations ruined
(does anyone think that Darl is ever going to land a job in the computer
industry ever again?)
I think that the biggest question is when Delaware, and other 'business
friendly' states will fix their immoral bankruptcy laws. Management gets to keep
running the company (and collecting their paychecks) while the creditors get to
pay legal fees, and see none of their money.
---
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, July 05 2010 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
>>The judge ruled for them in almost everything during the trial.<<
And they still lost.
Definition of insanity: Continually doing the same thing and expecting different
results.
---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 05 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Who borrows money if there's no realistic plan of paying it
back?
Well, lots of people would do that. Heck, if somebody offered
to lend me $10 million for 40 years, I'd accept in a heartbeat: I'm 65 years
old, and my plan would be to spend most of it before I died.
The relevant
question is: Why would somebody lend money if there's no realistic plan
of paying it back?
Finding the answer to that question might be very
illuminating. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 05 2010 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
God - I'd love a job like Vinod Bhat's!
But I'm only an engineer (mechanical) so my pay is crap
AND I actually have to do something[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, July 06 2010 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
How can a company take out a loan, giving "first interest" in property
or assets, when there are other creditors who already have interests in those
properties and assets?
E.g. how does this "first interest" thing work, particularly for a
company that is already in bankruptcy?
Now that they bankruptcy is more or less true, how come these people aren't at
the _back_ of the line for cash disbursements?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, July 06 2010 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
#1132, #1133
SCO-TIP lost less than $1M that month.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
