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
SCO Files August MORs
Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 08:32 PM EDT

SCO has filed its monthly operating reports for August, with the most noticeable change being that total receipts for SCO Operations were higher than in July's MORs, from $390,592 in July to $638,075 in August. That's in the "Accounts Receivable" category, but there's an "N/A" right after it. I don't know why, and they don't explain. Just "N/A".

Net cash flow in July was ($156,589); in August, it was $240,731. Payments to subsidiaries seem to be down, and Novell's SVRx Restricted Cash went from July's $25,217 to August's $54,319. More than double? In SVRx licenses in August? On page 16 under Other Income and Expenses we see "Intercompany Transfers: $129,549". Then "Net Profit (Loss) Before Reorganization Items $(58,609)", and the reorganization items don't do much to change the picture, so the final net loss is $(57,975).

Here are the filings:

1180 - Filed & Entered: 10/13/2010
Operating Report
Docket Text: Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of 8/31/10 (The SCO Group, Inc.; 07-11337) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie)

1181 - Filed & Entered: 10/13/2010
Operating Report
Docket Text: Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of 8/31/10 (SCO Operations, Inc.; 07-11338) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie)

The other thing I notice is that SCO consulted, I gather, with a Canadian law firm, Stewart McKelvey, in April. I can't imagine why. At around that time, the only things happening that I see on the list would be the sale of the mobility assets to Darl McBride, the Yarro loan, the follow up to the trial, and the sale of the Java patent to Liberty Lane.

OMG. A Java patent. That sounds very different now, in the light of the Oracle-Google litigation than it did at the time, don't you think?


  


SCO Files August MORs | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
about those software patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 08:34 PM EDT
Given that a software-only patent is just a glorified calculation that any
sufficiently powerful calculator can carry out, I see it only as a matter of
time until software-only patents are invalidated en masse.

Here's the conundrum: SCO sold a Java patent to Liberty Lane. If the patent is
invalidated for being software-only, and Liberty Lane decides SCO sold them a
bill of goods, what then? Do such accusations go all the way back to the
original patent grantee?

Would the original patent grantees have a case to make against the USPTO? Is
there any chance the fees charged for these patents could ever be refunded,
since the patents never should have been granted in the first place?

What about the patent attorneys? Would they ever have to face the music for
being ignorant of the subject matter, even though they're advising clients on
the patents they're preparing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Jeffrey on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 08:39 PM EDT
Find an error? Document a correction here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Jeffrey on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 08:44 PM EDT
Enter any Newspicks comments here ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Jeffrey on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 08:46 PM EDT
Enter any off topic comments here ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files August MORs - Post Petition Debt
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 09:04 PM EDT
If the auction does not bring in enough funds to pay the Post Petition Debt, Is
Judge Cahn Liable for the outstanding figure?

Judge Gross would know this hence diferring to Cahn on his litigation
strategy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files August MORs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 09:31 PM EDT
And that's what I'm interested in, who bid highest at the auction.

Your construction seems to be past tense, but I believe the auction is scheduled for October 25. The initial bids to qualify bidders was on Oct 5, but that was not the aution itself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stock Prices
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 09:52 PM EDT
SCO's stock is now back up to 7 cents, up from 2 cents or maybe less -- I don't track it closely -- and 7 is where it's been hovering most of the time for the last few months. Do people really make money from these little dips and surges?

You have to look at the number of shares traded as well as the price. The recent total trades are typically in the range of a few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand. This is hardly enough for professional traders to even bother with. Some stock brokers will spend that kind of money on lunch.

This may be just a few people making occasional small trades on their personal accounts to gamble on the minor dips and peaks. Some people don't really care to find out anything about the company they are investing in. They just look for stock that looks very cheap and take a gamble on it going up. They just have large spreadsheets that crank through thousands of (dubious) formulae and then just buy or sell whatever pops out the end.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Accounts receivable
Authored by: Pop69 on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 10:04 PM EDT
"That's in the "Accounts Receivable" category, but there's an "N/A" right after it. I don't know why, and they don't explain. Just "N/A". "

My reading of it is that it's N/A because it didn't go into a specific bank account which is what those columns appear to be for.

The money itself is just the total amount of cash received during the month from sales they've invoiced out or were owed at the begining of the period. The breakdown is on the last page of the pdf.

Given they only invoiced out 253,235 in August I'd be surprised to see the figure this high again next month. It seems to be high because they billed out 613,621 in July.

I haven't been keeping track of amounts billed so I couldn't tell you what the cyclical nature of their billing is. July may be a month when a large number of annual contracts are billed which would skew the figures when looking at them on a monthly basis.

(I am an accountant, but not yours)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stewart, McKelvey, Stirling & Scales
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2010 @ 10:18 PM EDT
The other thing I notice is that SCO consulted, I gather, with a Canadian law firm, Stewart McKelvey, in April. I can't imagine why.

Stewart, McKelvey is a law firm in Halifax Nova Scotia. Halifax is the regional centre for just about everything in Atlantic Canada (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, and Newfoundland). However, that's not a very big region in terms of population and not a centre for the legal or computer industry. If this was a matter concerning SCO Canada (or what little of it remains) as a whole, a firm in Toronto would be most likely to be handling it (SCO Canada was based in or near Toronto).

Stewart, McKelvey apparently handles just about anything related to law - anything from family law to corporate bankruptcy. The most likely reason for retaining them would be that SCO is involved in a minor dispute with someone somewhere in the region. They could be suing someone (e.g. trying to collect a bill from a dissatisfied customer or dealer) or someone could be suing them. I don't believe that SCO has declared bankruptcy in Canada, so I assume they would be operating under normal law in this case. Whatever it is, it's probably not a major issue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Look at the income statement to get a clearer picture
Authored by: hopethishelps on Friday, October 15 2010 @ 04:37 AM EDT

with the most noticeable change being that total receipts for SCO Operations were higher than in July's MORs, from $390,592 in July to $638,075 in August.

Those numbers don't mean much because they're on a "cash" basis, i.e. they bounce around from month to month depending on the exact day when each customer pays its bill.

To get a clearer picture, look at the income statement prepared on an accrual basis, which is about the 16th page of document 1181. We see there that the net revenue was $277,861 which is pretty consistent with earlier months. And they continued to make a loss.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pisano thinks his time is worth $1200 an hour?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2010 @ 07:20 AM EDT
Given his spectacular failure to convince a jury with his... opinions... I
wonder how much the market thinks he's worth now?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Disclaimer issues
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 16 2010 @ 01:46 PM EDT
The disclaimer on the MOR is still huge. It suggests that the trustee is not
doing his job and that SCO has done them questionable things in BK.

a) how normal are the MOR disclaimers
b) Why is the trustee not working to clear up the issues
c) can this thing fold with the MOR disclaimer issues not resolved?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Disclaimer issues - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 16 2010 @ 01:50 PM EDT
Cahn's weasel words
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2010 @ 08:50 AM EDT

Month after month, year after year, we read in the MORs the disclaimer "As the Trustee and its financial advisors have not had sufficient time to review all of the historical information previously reported by the Debtors, the Trustee reserves the right to amend these Monthly Operating Reports, including categorizing some liabilities as pre or post petition obligations."

Last year, that might have been reasonable. But by now, they've had sufficient time. The creditors should call Cahn on this, and file a motion with Gross that this disclaimer either be removed, or time-limited.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Goofed Again
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 17 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT
I seem to have erased the article about the MORs so if anybody has it, please
email me so I can reconstruct. Thanks.

[ 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 )