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
SCO Files an Amended Schedule F
Monday, November 17 2008 @ 02:12 AM EST

SCO, or more precisely, SCO Operations has filed an amended Schedule F [PDF], its list of unsecured nonpriority creditors, or in bankruptcy lingo "creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims". Here's the original Schedule F [PDF], if you wish to compare the lists. Schedule F is found on page 7 of the older PDF.

It is interesting to compare, even without fully understanding what it all means.

Here's the docket entry:

11/12/2008 - 605 - Response to Debtors' First Omnibus Objection to Claims (Non-Substantive) Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 3007 (related document(s) 574 ) Filed by Deborah Roth (TAS) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

11/17/2008 - 604 - Notice of Service /Notice of Amendments to Schedules of Liabilities and Time to File Claims in Response to Such Amendments (related document(s) 130 , 390 , 392 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Schedule F) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

Boies Schiller has been blacked out, I see, and so has Dorsey & Whitney, Fillmore Spencer LLC, American Express, Hatch James & Dodge, Profile Consulting, Sales Synergy Canada, Stealth Insight, and Hyperion. Oh. Also 'Jeff Hunsaker - Commissions' is blacked out. So is Sandeep Gupta, although he's not on the original list. I can't explain that one. Strhold Spa was on the first list but it's not on the new one and it's not blacked out either. Hmm. I think it's Strhold S.P.A., by the way, a software distribution and marketing company with a Linux Competence Center that also seems to do conferences and migrations to Linux (unless my computer can't read Italian), not some Italian spa SCO partied at. Just kidding around. I'm sure there is very little partying going on at SCO these days. Well. After AIG, who knows, really? Interestingly, Strhold S.P.A. distributed Xenix and UNIX in the 80s. Both Novell and IBM use their services, you may have noticed from the home page.

There are new items too, like Initial Public Offering Litigation, John Maciaszek (remember him at trial? His severance of $486.91 for 10 years service at SCO?), Krishna Aluri (who was laid off in the same wave as Maciaszek, and listed as owed $693.07 in severance after 11 years of work), Sontag Consulting, SUSE, Soltis Investment Advisors, SWire Coca Cola, USA Mobility Wireless, and Win4Lin added to the new list.

SUSE? I wonder what they owe to them and why.

Folks and entities getting this notice have deadlines to respond with a proof of claim The total amount on the amended Schedule F owed to unsecured nonpriority creditors is $3,553,669.98. The total for unsecured nonpriority claims on the original Schedule F was only $2,533,975.36, so the arrow points upward on debts, to the tune of about a million. Even though some are no longer on the list, others have hopped on. I suppose that's kind of normal for a bankruptcy, that you'd find more claims after the first filing. But what about the ones blacked out? Do they belong on a different list?

SCO's filing references Bankruptcy Rule 1009 and the notes to 1009 say that it's essentially administrative, and that usually it's mainly to let the trustee know, in addition to those affected. However, the notes mention this:

Absent a request in some form by a party in interest, the court should not be involved in administrative matters affecting the estate....

If a list or schedule is amended to include an additional creditor, the effect on the dischargeability of the creditor's claim is governed by the provisions of Sec. 523(a)(3) of the Code.

Here they are, the provisions of Section 523(a)(3):
§ 523. Exceptions to discharge

(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt—...

(3) neither listed nor scheduled under section 521 (1) of this title, with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permit—

(A) if such debt is not of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing; or

(B) if such debt is of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim and timely request for a determination of dischargeability of such debt under one of such paragraphs, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing and request;

I understand that whole page to be saying that some debts, like fraud while acting as a fiduciary (paragraph 4) -- say, that sounds familiar -- or if you put a diamond necklace on your credit card the day before you file for bankruptcy, are not dischargeable. But even if something is normally dischargeable, if you fail to list it in time for the creditor to file a proof of claim, or at all, it's not going to be discharged. That can lead to various complexities, like whether to bother to reopen the bankruptcy, as you can read about in this appeals court ruling from Texas, where a party simply forgot to list something and the creditor found out after the bankruptcy was done. Of course, SCO's is a Chapter 11, not a 7, and it's in Delaware, not Texas, but the concept is more or less the same.

The bottom line is: it's in SCO's interest to list everything it knows about. If, just for imagining's sake, it ends up filing a cramdown plan, it could clear the decks rather nicely, in theory anyway.

Except for any debts due to fraud while acting as a fiduciary? I honestly don't know what the rules are for sticky wickets like that, but I have a funny feeling we are going to find out in due time.

You probably noticed that there's also another pro se response filed, responding to SCO's First Objection to Claims. In legal things, every detail matters. Note the meaning of the word 'proof', for just one example of things I think are being overlooked by some. I worry that folks who don't get legal advice from a bankruptcy lawyer could wake up one day to learn they have no claims left. That's what this part of the dance is for, I suspect, from the perspective of the debtor -- to flick off debtors who haven't filed perfectly or aren't paying attention or need to be on a different list.

  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 )