239 - Filed & Entered: 12/03/2007
Notice of Matters Scheduled for Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 12/5/2007 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James)

The only item that will be argued on Wednesday is the Cattleback patent sale motion, asking the court to OK it as not fraudulent. Interestingly, "the Debtors have been informed that 363 Group, Inc. no longer objects to this matter".

Heh heh. I hope they're in therapy now to work through those identity issues we couldn't help noticing. So that card was played and is over. Novell and the U.S. Trustee Joseph McMahan still do object. And how.

So that will be the fireworks planned for the day. All the rest of the matters, like the Boies Schiller application, are either resolved or will be continued to another day. I'm thinking it might not be altogether perfect to join the Cattleback agenda day. Nah. Joking. Like they care any more what we think of them.

Here's the maybe item, but only if they resolve everything, about Boies:

• The Boies Schiller application to be hired as special litigation counsel, which the U.S. Attorney Joseph McMahon opposed -- they are trying to work out a resolution, but if they are unable to do so, they request that the matter be set for a hearing on January 8 at 10:00 a.m.

All the rest have been resolved:

• The Mesirow application -- no objections were filed, so presumably this should fly on up
• The motion to hire a CFO temp. The U.S. Trustee opposed certain aspects of the motion, but they've resolved all the issues, and an order will be presented to the court for signing.
• The application to use banks as before, no objection, so the order will be presented for signing at the hearing
• The Tanner application to be accountants - nobody objected, so "this matter is going forward"
• Motion to deem efiling appropriate (not filed, but by A. Petrosfky) - the court isn't positive what relief is asked for, but if he wants to file motions electronically, no one is opposed, but there is this notation: "To the extent that Mr. Petrofsky is requesting to e-file documents ad pleadings, the Debtors do not oppose the relief being sought. If Mr. Petrofsky is requesting different or additional relief, the Debtors would like the opportunity to respond." So SCO is asking for something more clear, if the motion is more than about efiling, which is already not only allowed in US courts but required. So that may be why they are not sure what he means. I guess it would be more accurate to say that they want to *make* sure of what he means.

So, cowboy hats for Wednesday. It's center ring.