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
The Agenda for Dec. 5 Hearing - 363 Group No Longer "Objects"
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 03:04 PM EST

Here's the agenda for Wednesday's bankruptcy hearing:
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.
So if they resolve everything, all that will happen on Wednesday is an order will be presented to be signed. If not, you won't hear it argued on Wednesday.

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.


  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 )