decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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
Today's Filings: Pachulski, Stang Files Application to Be Paid, Intel Peeks In
Monday, December 10 2007 @ 11:26 PM EST

The law firm of Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones have now filed their detailed bill for their work so far:
274 - Filed & Entered: 12/10/2007
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation (First) and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession, for the Period from September 14, 2007 through September 30, 2007 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 1/2/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)

Folks can object to the bill, but if no one files an objection, it will be paid. From what I've seen, there's no question that they've earned their money. Whoever came up with the strategy to quickly rush things through deserves a bonus. I'm not talking morally, just strategically. But then, morals are not a comfortable topic in bankruptcy court. It's not about that.

But there are some interesting details. Take a look at page 2 of Exhibit A, page 3 of the PDF. Does this mean anything, do you think? On September 20th, the notation reads:

Telephone from and telephone to A. Cunningham at Intel re: pleadings (x2)

Intel? Why is Intel calling SCO's bankruptcy lawyers within a week of SCO's filing? And the subject matter is "pleadings"? Whatever can that mean? Why would Intel be interested in that? There is an Ann Cunningham at Intel, who is listed by LinkedIn as a "Corporate Affairs Specialist" at Intel. Might that be "A. Cunningham"? And corporate affairs specialist... What is that? PR? It is, isn't it? Why would a Corporate Affairs Specialist be calling SCO's lawyers about the pleadings in a bankruptcy? Then there is a second phone call, again initiated by Intel re "status of case" on the 27th. So. A new mystery in the endlessly fascinating SCO saga.

Update: One anonymous reader says that in his or her company, Corporate Affairs is in the Legal Department, under that umbrella.

Of course, Intel is on the creditors' list, the top 20, but it is only owed $23,302.11. It has not appeared, asked for notices, or anything in a public way, I don't believe, and I looked for anyone from Intel on the sign in sheets, and I couldn't find any such signatures. We don't know who attended the 341 creditors' meeting. There has been no official transcript from the court. So who knows? And to be fair, they only talked for a grand total of 30 minutes, so it's certainly possible that it was just a couple of "when do we get our money?" calls. But then it would be a lawyer calling, don't you think? Not a Corporate Affairs Specialist.

And here is the second thing I noticed on Exhibit A. On that same page, just 4 days after SCO filed for bankruptcy protection, the firm was working on confidentiality. Notice on September 18, there is a notation:

Draft and prepare for filing re: Notice of Motion of the Debtors for an Order Providing that Creditors' Committees are not Authorized or Required to Provide Access to Confidential Information of the Debtors or to Privileged Information (.2); prepare service re: same (.1); coordinate filing and serive re: same (.2)

So from the very beginning, confidentiality was high on the list. At that point there was no creditors' committee. But they were hammering away on a motion to make sure any such committee didn't have to share confidential information with the rest of the creditors. Finally, on the 28th, the firm was corresponding with Ryan Tibbits "re: renewal of HP contract".

The bills from the various law firms are where we can see which firm does what. This firm isn't the one really running the SCO show, not after the initial flurry of filings. We see, for example, on page 10 of their Application that they spent only 1.10 hours on the patent sale issue. Dorsey & Whitney's equivalent bill shows it spent many, many hours on that. So did Berger Singerman. Berger Singerman drafted the motion regarding Cattleback. So the bills show us who is doing what. And this firm is the one that did all the initial filings, I gather, and is now doing the document control (I assume that means Kevin McBride *isn't* also going to bill for that too), making sure no deadlines are missed, that all notices are properly sent, handling the pro hac vice filings, keeping all of SCO's numerous law firms in the loop, that sort of thing. That is a horrible assignment, to my way of thinking, with paperwork up to your eyeballs. And indeed, the two largest expenses for the firm were filing fees at court and paying for copying.

So. Intel. Remember when SCO tried unsuccessfully to subpoena Intel in SCO v. IBM? I always remember Intel's lawyer at the hearing saying that Intel had no dog in that fight, that he wasn't sent because Intel favored IBM or SCO. It struck me as odd at the time. But it is definitely echoing in my mind now.

  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 )