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.


To read comments to this article, go here
SCO Earnings Release and Investor Conference Call Moved to Dec. 22
Monday, December 08 2003 @ 07:58 AM EST

SCO has changed the date of its 2003 earnings release and invester conference call to December 22 at 9:00 AM. It was going to be today.

This naturally has people speculating why. Groklaw doesn't speculate, no pun intended. However, there is an article in Heise.de that a Groklaw reader has been kind enough to translate, and here is a relevant snip:

In a press release SCO Group announced it is moving its press-conference, concerning the balance of the third quarter, which was originally scheduled for the 8th of December to the 22nd of December. As a reason for this, the company cited an investment of $50 million USD, which has to be accounted for correctly. For doing this, they had to use the help of external experts, which delayed the quarterly statement.

Observers think that the delay and the use of external auditors is a sign that investors have doubts about the correct accounting of the financing by Baystar Capital and the Royal Bank of Canada. Especially the spending of $1 million USD plus stock with a value of $8 million USD to the lawyers Boies, Schiller & Flexner, which whom SCO Group intensified their partnership by means of this financial arrangement, which is to some is controversial.

In a first hearing in front of a court in the lawsuit against IBM, SCO was not represented by the star-lawyer-firm. Instead, Kevin McBride, the brother of SCO CEO Darl McBride, did the negotiations for the SCO Group. His 40-minutes-long speech asking the judge for more time and requesting IBM hand over 40 million lines of code did not persuade Judge Wells.

Here is exactly what the press release from SCO says about the postponement, that it was:

. . .in order for the Company to finalize the accounting treatment for its recent $50 million Series A Convertible Preferred Stock transaction. The Company is in the process of performing a valuation of the conversion feature associated with the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. The Company will utilize the services of an outside advisor to assist the Company in its valuation of the conversion feature.

The accounting for the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock will not impact the Company's revenue or cash balance. The Company also reiterates that its revenue for the fourth quarter ended October 31, 2003 will be consistent with the Company's prior guidance of $22 million to $25 million.

"Upon the completion of the valuation and accounting for the conversion feature associated with the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, the Company will release its year-end financial results.
I do hope the copyright police don't come and arrest me for quoting so much from their press release. You see, at the very bottom of the press release, there is this sentence:
Copyright (C) 2003 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.
I'm sorry to laugh, but isn't the purpose of a press release to get people to quote from your precious words to the max?

There is something else I notice. Their press releases in the past usually had their PR firm's name on them as an alternate contact. This one lists Blake Stowell and a Kathy Martens, a SCO employee. Maybe PR firms don't like getting subpoenaed. Or maybe SCO is pinching pennies. It might explain why they aren't doing so well in the headlines department these days. Not that I'm complaining, mind you.


  View Printable Version


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 )