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
Tanner Bills SCO for Another $54,000 for June
Friday, July 04 2008 @ 05:43 PM EDT

Tanner has filed yet another bill, its 9th, asking this time for $53,612.50 for June. And $439.68 in expenses. We haven't seen a bill as large as that from Tanner since February. You'd think for all that money, they'd be able to teach SCO how to file MORs that are comprehensible.

The three categories of services this time were for "Audit", "Tax", and "401(k)Audit". It's an interim bill, meaning it is asking for 80% of most of the bill to be paid now, or around $40,000, and the rest later. Tanner was approved to expand its role in February to include doing SCO's state and federal taxes, and in June its role expanded to include doing the audit of the 401(k), so that explains the large bill. It was approved to bill for the audit $17,000, and that means it gets 100% of that bill now, not just 80% it gets for hourly work.

But it is also asking for $17,515.50 for 124 hours of work on the taxes, and yet the bill states that they have only begun to perform the tax procedures, as it calls them. So what was the time spent on?

Here's what they tell us:

In that regard, the Applicant has conducted communications with the Debtors' Chief Financial Officer, Controller and other employees in the Debtors' accounting department regarding the data required for the Applicant to perform the tax procedures.
124 hours of that? Really? Here's the rest of what might account for the hours: Tanner says they also "provided requested analyses regarding the plan of reorganization."

The costly reorganization plans strike again. Why is it placed under the category Taxes? Should it not be billed under Reorganization? I suppose they'll say it's because that is what they were asked about in connection with the reorganization, and indeed in Exhibit A, the breakdown of hours, you see "Corporate Tax Return" as the sub-category under Taxes, but if it was for the reorganization, now that SCO, according to Heise, says it has a new investor, is it once again work for absolutely no result? I mention it because some of you are trying to keep track of how much has been spent on reorganization plans, and this might slip by, seeing as it's put under the category Taxes. It's taxes, but in connection with the reorganization plan.

Here are the filings:

510 - Filed & Entered: 06/30/2008
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service for 7th Monthly Fee App of D&W Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Schnabel, Eric)

511 - Filed & Entered: 07/02/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation (Ninth) for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Accountants to the Debtors for the Period from June 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008 Filed by Tanner LC. Objections due by 7/22/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James)

512 - Filed & Entered: 07/03/2008
Certificate of No Objection
Docket Text: Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding Sixth Monthly Fee Application of Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC as Financial Advisors to the Debtors for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period from May 1, 2008 through May 31, 2008 (related document(s)[493] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen)

It's off topic, but I think you'll find this interesting. It's an order from Magistrate Brooke Wells, who worked on the SCO v. IBM case, in another music industry attempt to run to court and get an ex parte order to find out identities of file sharers in Utah. She grants the subpoena but also doesn't allow them to get the information until the company, Off Campus, being subpoenaed can move to quash within 10 days.

  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 )