|
|
| SCO Insider Trades |
 |
|
Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:38 PM EDT
|
Here's a list of all the insider trades since 2002 that I could find so far. I compiled it from SEC public records. I am seeing approximately $1,375,654 in sales since March. I can't guarantee 100% accuracy, though my eyeballs are melting and my head about to explode from trying for it. It's surely the big picture:
11-Aug-03 (8/8/03) - BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
7000 ... $10.90 . . . value= $76,300.00
221,043 shares still owned after transaction.
07-Aug-03 (8/5/03) BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
1900 . . . $12.57 . . . $23,883.00
3100 . . . $12.56 . . . $38,936.00
120,000 shares still owned after transaction.
01-Aug-03 (7/30/03) - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
100 . . . $12.81 . . . $1,281.00
4900 . . . $12.80 . . . $62,720.00
125,000 shares still owned after transaction.
24-Jul-03 (7/23/03) - HUNSAKER JEFF F., VP, Worldwide Mktng
900 . . . $13.44 . . . $12,096
100 . . . $13.43 . . . $1343
500 . . . $13.4 . . . $6700
100 . . . $13.35 . . . $1335
3400 . . . $13.3 . . . $45,220
20,494 shares still owned after transaction.
24-Jul-03 (6/2/03) - RAIMONDI THOMAS P. JR., Director
10000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option 6/2/03 ([right to buy]) price $6.13 . . . $0.00 . . . $0.00= Grant of options (Grant to Reporting Person of a nonqualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year perod commencing from grant date.)
24-Jul-03 - CAKEBREAD STEVEN
10,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy) $4.75) (Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year.)
. . $0.000 . . . $0.00= Grant of options 5/16/03
24-Jul-03 - IACOBUCCI EDWARD E., Director
10,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option [right to buy] -- $4.75) . . . $0.00 . . . $0.00= Grant of options 5/16/03 ("Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year.")
24-Jul-03 - THOMPSON DUFF, Director
10,000 Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy)(Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year. ) price=$4.75 . . . $0.0 . . . $0.00= Grant of options
24-Jul-03 - YARRO RALPH J., Director
10000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option [right to buy] price $4.75 5/16/03 (Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year.). . . $0.000 . . . $0.00= Grant of options
24-Jul-03 - MOTT G DARCY, Director
10,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option 5/16/03 [right to buy] - $4.75) . . . $0.00 . . . $0.00= Grant of options (Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year. )
24-Jul-03 (7/22/03) - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
100 . . . $13.2 . . . $1,320.00
200 . . . $13.19 . . . $2,638.00
3000 . . . $13.07 . . . $39,210.00
800 . . . $13.02 . . . $10,416.00
10800 . . . $12.91 . . . $139,428.00
3700 . . . $13.13 . . . $48,581.00
1300 . . . $13.1 . . . $17,030.00
100 . . . $13 . . . $1,300.00
130,000 shares still owned after transaction.
18-Jul-03 (7/15/03) - WILSON MICHAEL SEAN, Sr Vp Corp Dev
6000 acquired . . . -$0.66 . . . -$3,960.00
2000 . . . $10.8 . . . $21,600.00
4000 . . . $10.66 . . . $42,640.00
0 shares still owned after transaction.
The 6,000 acquired, Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy), were at $0.66.
16-Jul-03 (7/14/03)- WILSON MICHAEL SEAN, Sr Vp Corp Dev
6000 . . . -$0.66 . . . -$3,960.00
200 . . . $10.87 . . . $2,174.00
4800 . . . $10.85 . . . $52,080.00
700 . . . $10.80 . . . $7,560.00
300 . . . $10.77 . . . $3,231.00
0 shares still owned after transaction. The 6,000 acquired, Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy), were at $0.66.
14-Jul-03 (7/11/03)- OLSON MICHAEL P., VP Finance
1100 . . . $10.99 . . . $12,089.00
1000 . . . $10.41 . . . $10,410.00
900 . . . $10.51 . . . $9,459.00
1000 . . . $10.42 . . . $10,420.00
1000 . . . $10.4 . . . $10,400.00
2000 . . . $10.45 . . . $20,900.00
1000 . . . $10.53 . . . $10,530.00
58,830 shares still owned after transaction.
18-Jul-03 (6/13/03) - McBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO
7003 acquired . . . $0.001=price . . . 15,003 owned after transaction.
9-Jul-03 - HUNSAKER JEFF F., VP, Worldwide Mktng
4500 . . . $11.80 . . . $53,100.00
100 . . . $11.76 . . . $1,176.00
100 . . . $11.814 . . . $1,181.40
100 . . . $11.812 . . . $1,181.20
200 . . . $11.81 . . . $2,362.00
25,494 shares owned after transactions.
9-Jul-03 (7/8/03)- BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
3700 . . . $11.10 . . . $41,070.00
300 . . . $11.12 . . . $3,336.00
550 . . . $11.05 . . . $6,077.50
2450 . . . $10.91 . . . $26,729.50
228,043 shares still owned after transaction.
9-Jul-03 (7/8/03 - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
3790 . . . $10.9 . . . $41,311.00
1210 . . . $10.95 . . . $13,249.50
150,000 shares still owned after transaction.
9-Jul-03 - SKOUSEN K. FRED, Director
45000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option [right to buy])(Grant to Reporting Person of a non-qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 2002 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from the grant date.) . . . Grant of option to buy 45,000 at $10.25 Date exercisable= 6/26/2004
30-Jun-03 (6/25/03) - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
5000 . . . $10 . . . $50,000.00
155,000 shares still owned after transaction.
23-Jun-03 (6/20/03) - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
2700 . . . $11.08 . . . $29,916.00
2300 . . . $11.1 . . . $25,530.00
160,000 shares still owned after transaction.
18-Jun-03 - MCBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO
7003 . . . price= -$0.001 . . . -$7.00
15003 shares owned after the transaction.
12-Jun-03 (6/11/03) - OLSON MICHAEL P., VP Finance
1000 . . . $8.66 . . . $8,660.00
1000 . . . $8.65 . . . $8,650.00
2000 . . . $8.61 . . . $17,220.00
1000 . . . $8.6 . . . $8,600.00
1000 . . . $8.59 . . . $8,590.00
66,830 shares still owned after transaction.
9-Jun-03 (6/9/03)- BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
1900 . . . $9.3 . . . $17,670.00
400 . . . $9.2 . . . $3,680.00
500 . . . $9.201 . . . $4,600.50
200 . . . $9.19 . . . $1,838.00
4000 . . . $9.16 . . . $36,640.00
235,043 shares still owned after transaction.
9-Jun-03 (6/6/03)- HUNSAKER JEFF F., VP, Worldwide Marketing
5000 . . . $8.9 . . . $44,500.00
30,494 shares still owned after transaction.
5-Jun-03 (6/3/03)- BAWA OPINDER
15000 . . . $6.0 . . . $90,000.00
0 shares still owned after transaction.
5-Jun-03 (6/4/03) - BAWA OPINDER
7916 . . . -$1.2 . . . -$9,499.20 (Grant to Reporting Person on non-qualified stock options to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a four-year period commencing from the Option Date.)
7916 . . . $6.6 . . . $52,245.60
15,000 shares still owned after transaction.
9-May-03 - BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
5000 . . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
Shares gifted in accordance with Insider's 10b5-1 trading plan filed with the Issuer. 240,860 shares owned after transaction.
9-Apr-03 (4/8/03)- BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
4100 . . . $2.9 . . . $11,890.00
241,094 shares owned after transaction.
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03)- HUNSAKER JEFF F., VP, Worldwide Mktng
100,000 acquired (Non-Qualified Stock Option $2.07). . . $0.000 . . . $0.00= Grant of 100,000 options
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03) - MCBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO
200,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Options $2.07). . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
200,000 shares beneficially owned following the transaction
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03)- OLSON MICHAEL P., VP Finance
50,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option $2.07) . . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
50,000 shares beneficially owned following the transaction
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03)- BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
50,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option $2.07) . . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
50,000 shares beneficially owned following the transaction
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03) - BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
100,000 acquired, nonqualified stock option,$2.07. . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
100,000 beneficially owned following the transaction
12-Mar-03 (3/10/03)- BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
7000 . . . $3.06 . . . $21,420.00
245,194 owned after transaction.
NO INSIDER TRADES REPORTED IN FEBRUARY 2003
NO INSIDER TRADES REPORTED IN JANUARY 2003
NO INSIDER TRADES REPORTED IN DECEMBER 2002
NO INSIDER TRADES REPORTED IN NOVEMBER 2002
16-Oct-02 (10/14/02)- MCBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO (Director box also checked.)
3000 shares acquired, price=$1.13. . . -$1.13 . . . -$3,390.00
5,000 shares owned following transaction. (Note: This is what the form says, but it seems not to match the figure of 5,000 shares acquired Oct. 11, filed Oct. 15, 2002. Correct figure would seem to have to be 8,000, if the numbers acquired are accurate.)
15-Oct-02 (10/11/02) - MCBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO, (Director box also checked; Subject Company - Company Comformed Name is CALDERA INTERNATIONAL INC/UT )
5000 shares acquired, price=$1.13 . . . -$1.130 . . . -$5,650.00
5,000 shares owned following transaction.
TOTAL VALUE OF SHARES SOLD FROM MARCH 2003 to AUGUST 11, 2003= $1,375,654
This form, listed in the totals above, is interesting because of mentioning petroleum. It is listed by the SEC under Caldera, but the form itself says this about the company:
COMPANY DATA:
COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: BENCH ROBERT K
CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0001012655
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: CRUDE PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS [1311]
RELATIONSHIP: OFFICER
STATE OF INCORPORATION: DE
FISCAL YEAR END: 1031
I have no idea what this means about petroleum. I am just reporting it.
The list above isn't financial advice, so don't rely on it for that, naturally. I have provided links so you can verify and do your own searching and comparing. I did think it'd be handy to have this as an overall reference for Thursday, when SCO says it will comment on the sales. Now that Bloomberg has reported on the story, it's useful to document the facts.
As Groklaw reported earlier, the company decided to pay directors in stock a while back, and executives partly in stock. On the other hand, they did that before, and there wasn't the same level of activity. What I see is almost no activity until March, and then kaboom. I see no trading in 2001 at all. Dates are filing dates, followed by transaction dates, when there is a difference. If you note any errors, kindly let me know.
Don't ask me what it means, because I can't say. Literally. IBM has given its opinion in its Amended Answer. I'm not an expert in this area. It's just the research I was able to find, which I present AS IS, as they say. Others can build on it. On this article, if you have important corrections, please email them to me. When I make corrections on an article, sometimes comments get erased.
So, there you are, ready for Thursday.
[Update: SCO's press release regarding insider transactions.]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:39 AM EDT |
| Maybe the petroleum connection has something to do with this?
http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/lam082.P1.08042003
130359.02170.htm
Fred Kroon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 01:07 AM EDT |
| Novell letters throw new light on SCO-IBM case
http://ww
w.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/12/1060588381531.html
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:38 AM EDT |
Another journalist questions Sco's behaviour and PR tactics
http://www.sil
iconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6521752.htm
monkymind[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 06:49 AM EDT |
| Does anybody have any idea why, when Novell sold the Unix rights to the old SCO,
it didn't sell all the rights but kept some, including the right to compel SCO
to waive or revoke any of its (SCO's) rights under the contract?
How would it serve Novell's interests to keep some of the rights? Would they
make any money from them? Why did it reserve the waive or revoke right? It
would be nice to have someone from Novell explain this. Also, what were the
other rights Novell reserved?
david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
| SCO revokes Sequent rights to distribute Dynix: http://www.pcpro.co.u
k/news/news_story.php?id=45865
For a change SCO mentioned filenames!
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
| David L,
This is just an opinion, but I believe that, even if Novelll is not making money
off the copyright, they probably wanted to reserve some rights to be able to
prevent abuse of privileges by the assignee - in this case, SCO.
It would not surprise me if Novell, if they can, decides to step in and also try
and block SCO's latest move of revoking the Sequent rights.
MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
| Well if went similar to the AIX story, then Novell would probably have already
told SCO they can't do it.
Do IBM offer Dynix anymore, anyway?
I didn't see them mention files, just that there's approxiately 148 of them
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
| "It would not surprise me if Novell, if they can, decides to step in and also
try and block SCO's latest move of revoking the Sequent rights."
It probably isn't necessary. Novell holds some patents that were not sold to
SCO. Sequent holds the patents for RCU and NUMA. Refusing to deal with a
competitor is not an absolute right of a patent holder, but why would a court
interfere with IBM/Sequent? Should Sequent cede ownership of their non-obvious
and original work that has been patented to SCO simply because there is an
implementation of it that runs on System V? SCO has already pointed out that
Sequent/IBM owns the copyrights, but that they control the release of the code.
There's the rub. This is patented material. NUMA is totally dependent on a
certain hardware implementation concept anyway, will SCO assert that all
computer hardware is a derivative of System V?
Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 08:58 AM EDT |
| Re: Sequent.
It would be nice if they, or IBM, RH, etc. take this opportunity for a test
case, as a form of decoy, to bring a preliminary injuction case against SCO,
gagging them from demanding any fees, licenses, or revocation of licensed based
on their unproven allegations.
If they can get a judge to gag SCO, until the main lawsuits are setlled, or SCO
presents credible evidence that it has a case, it should be prevented from
unfair FUD.
Sequent should also consider revoking SCO's rights to sell any technology
licences that include Sequent's IP and patents as a reciprocal treatment. Not
sure if they have such contracts that will allow that....
In any case, someone, somewhere (FSF?)should try the preliminary injunction
thing!
tamarian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
Well anon; it could be that "148 files" are only mentioned in the press release
and not in the letter to IBM/Sequent. You never know with those SCO boys!
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 09:35 AM EDT |
| Would IBM now have to get an injunction from a court to nullify SCO's
revocation? Will IBM now have a reason to get an immediate action on IP that SCO
is using now? How would Novell work into this?
IANAL, so I don't know what is goign to happen next...
Fooboy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 09:36 AM EDT |
| > It probably isn't necessary. Novell holds some patents that were
I think they (Novell) would, probably, so they (IBM and Novell) have multiple
layers of reasons, why SCO can't terminate Dynix license.
I was wondering, would it be possible for IBM's Sequent subsiduary to launch
separate litigation against SCO, or do they have to merge that into the existing
case?
SCO planned earnings conference call on August 14th. I wonder if anybody on the
other side of the fence, will use that opportunity to throw McBride off
track.
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
The insider stock trading can be used to impeach SCO witnesses. Their comments
and actions can be called into question. Were they acting on the merits of
their claim against IBM and the Linux world or were they simply trying to boost
the price of their stock before they cashed some in? IBM can intersperse some
questions throughout the cross-examination and question the motives and
credibility of the witness. E.G.- "Mr. Darl, you issued a press releasing
indicating that you would collect $799 from everyone in the world who purchased
or downloaded free Linux. You then cashed in $80,000 in stock options the
folowing week. You took no steps to collect the $799. Were you making this
statement just to manipulate your stock price?" The answer doesn't matter. It
is the question that counts.
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
| It's GREAT that this (insider dealing) is starting to be reported in the
mainstream press. I whenever I saw an article about SCO with no mention of the
insider sales I sent an email with a link to the Yahoo "insider" pages.
I got 2 replies back basically saying "we consider that a non-issue". I wonder
how those "tech news" outlets, which are closer to the situation that Bloomberg
and WSJ are going to explain their total months-long blindness to this issue
especially since many people wrote and TOLD them what was going on.
I also sent emails about 'Canopy suborning trading and dealing within a small
group of Canopy controlled companies to benefit only Canopy (see Vultus
acquisition) and to the harm of other shareholders.' No replies on that one.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
| Could it be that SCO is somehow going to use the Sequent additions because were
not they supposed to be treated as if it were part of the original System V
Software???
http://biz.yahoo.com/prn
ews/030813/law050_1.html
<QUOTE>
SCO's System V UNIX contract allowed Sequent to prepare derivative works and
modifications of System V software "provided the resulting materials were
treated as part of the Original [System V] Software." Restrictions on use of the
Original System V Software include the requirement of confidentiality, a
prohibition against transfer of ownership, and a restriction against use for the
benefit of third parties. Sequent-IBM has nevertheless contributed approximately
148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels,
containing 168,276 lines of code. This Sequent code is critical NUMA and RCU
multi-processor code previously lacking in Linux.
</QUOTE>
Mike Smith[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
| Sanjeev, I can imagine that any newspaper of magazine is very carefull in
printing unproven allegations of wrongdoing. The tech papers probably don't have
any journalists capable of researching SEC filings; but that's something the WSJ
and Bloomberg do routinely.
Mike, the Sequent allegations are interesting because they seem to have some
merit. (SCO will not be laughed out of court immediately.) I'ld like to see a
detailed analysis though.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
| Mike, I have read somewhere that the side letter is supposedly how AT&T
understood all contracts, not just the IBM license. In other words, it is an
explanation, not a revision. IANAL, so I am not sure if this is correct, but if
it was, it would seem to undermine Sequent's (Dynix) being different from IBM's
(AIX) at least in this regard.
In any case, the concept of derivative work that SCO is using seems unusual.
Sequent independently published and patented many of their additions prior to
their use in Dynix. It seems to me as if (1) I published a short story in a
magazine, (2) I later published the short story in an Anthology, (3) I later
published the short story again in a different magazine - and the anthology
publisher now told me, I shouldn't have done that because step (2) somehow makes
the short story a derivative work of the anthology.
Furthermore, it seems possible that Caldera employees may have helped and
encouraged the addition of at least some of Sequent's stuff into Linux - Hellwig
seems to have asked IBM to do more RCU stuff in Linux, and gave them suggestions
(a link) about what to do. Caldera seem to be aware of Linux's new scaling
features, as it's all over their marketing literature. If this is proven, and
relevant, it would be SCO suing IBM for something they wanted IBM to do!
And there's more... IBM also have at least one (and may be more) UNIX
implementation not based on AT&T code at all. That would be the S/390 (formerly
MVS) UNIX. So IBM have at least one source of UNIX knowledge (and possibly
others) which is not related to AT&T code.
And there's more... on the trade secrets. As you know, there are many books
about UNIX internals (click around Amazon they're mostly interlinked), like the
Lions book, etc.. The Lions book seems to have been published when "Old SCO"
finally agreed in about 1996 it was okay (after years of it being surpressed,
but allegedly privately circulated). History here http://li
nux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2002/02/28/caldera.html
However more intriguing is a book about UNIX internals by Steve D. Pate, 1996,
who seems to have worked at "Old SCO", apparently as a "Senior Kernel Engineer",
at the time he wrote it.
Here's the link to the Steve Pate book that I'm talking about
http://www.amazon.com/exec
/obidos/tg/detail/-/020187721X/qid=1060798328/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-6342557-0660
029?v=glance&s=books
I'm pretty sure Steve Pate thanks a lot of people at "Old SCO" in the
acknowledgements section of his book, for giving him info.
SCO should know about all these books, as quite a few are recommended in old SCO
or Caldera, web pages or FAQs (including the Pate book)
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
| >>>> Sanjeev, I can imagine that any newspaper of magazine is very carefull in
printing unproven allegations of wrongdoing
I was completely in sync with this in my emails to the various sites.
I did not ask them to print "there is/was wrongdoing", just point out that SCO
insiders had started selling large amounts of stock after the lawsuit was
launched.
That is factual, verifiable, publicly available info (I provided links) and is
becoming a more commonly used yardstick throughout the financial press to
determine what executives think of their own companies.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
I've emailed the details to PJ but it looks as though the records she checked
only covered what Yahoo class as Automatic sales and there are furter sales that
yahoo class as Planned sales so this list isn't complete.
Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
| http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=27713
"Beginning in July 2001, the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering were named as
defendants in a series of class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Actions”) by parties
alleging violations of the securities laws..."
Yes, more corporate naughtiness from SCO/Caldera dating back to 2001, and
ongoing. I particularly like the bit:
"The Company has notified its underwriters and insurance companies of the
existence of the claims. The initial round of motions to dismiss under the
securities laws were recently denied on the basis that the Plaintiffs had
alleged, but not proven, proper causes of action. The actions are now in the
discovery phase of litigation. Management believes, after consultation with
legal counsel, that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial
position."
"alledged but not proven..." -- PRICELESS!
Belzecue[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
| You guys are getting so good at this! Just to let you know, I have in the works
two articles, one on UNIX books and one with some more detail on the 2001
lawsuit.
John and Fred: nice catch. Really, everyone. The comments are getting better
than the articles. No kidding.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
| You can probably ignore this as I am just exploring how my earlier post on your
site ended up with my nick associated with a porn/spam site url I am no way
associated with or would endorse.
This url was somehow added to my post { http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar12
3/ } without my knowledge. Either my system, my ISP's web proxy, the
POST packet in transit, or this site has been compromised. This second post is
troubleshoot test to help narrow the suspect list.
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
Test 2
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
Test 3
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
Repair Attempt 1
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
| Would appear this site uses email as the primary identifier and I used a throw
away junk@email address for my first email, a
habit thats developed from being asked for it allot then being spammed later if
you answer honestly. It had been previously used by another poster and
associated with that porn url. If you dont specify a url a previous one is
used. Specificly stating a different url overwrites the previous stored one and
is retroactivley applied to all posts with said email addy. I've sanitized it
tobe Google news.
Nothing more to see here. Move along.
Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
Another article on SCO stock sales here in CRN.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 14 2003 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
| Supa,
Would you please email me the details? Thanks.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
