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
Minutes from the Bankruptcy Hearing, an Order on 1st Omnibus Objections, and Other Filings - Updated
Monday, November 24 2008 @ 11:50 PM EST

The SCO bankruptcy plods right along. I predicted that the SCO bankruptcy hearing on SCO's First Omnibus Objections to Claims would be short, sweet, and simple, and the minutes of the hearing [PDF] indicate that is exactly how it went. We'll know more when the transcript is made public, but the only interesting detail I see in the rubber stamp session is that IBM sent a lawyer [PDF] to observe, presumably. What it means is that those who did not bother to respond to the objections just had their claims disallowed and expunged [PDF].

Also, Tanner got anointed for its new assignment as accountants to SCO. Is Tanner not the luckiest accountant firm in the world, or what? And the stay has been lifted [PDF] so that the IPO plaintiffs can go forward with that litigation against SCO, subject to the terms agreed upon, that any damages award against SCO will come exclusively from the insurance company and not the bankruptcy estate.

Here are the filings:

612 - Filed & Entered: 11/19/2008
Certificate of No Objection
Docket Text: Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding Eleventh Monthly Application of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, As Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession, for the Period From July 1, 2008 Through July 31, 2008 (related document(s)[583]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen)

613 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Minute Entry
Docket Text: Minutes of Hearing held on: 11/20/2008
Subject: OMNIBUS HEARING.
(vCal Hearing ID (78989)). (SS) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2008 (SS).

614 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Order
Docket Text: Order Approving Expansion of the Scope of Employment of Tanner LC as Accountants to the Debtors Nunc Pro Tunc to October 3, 2008. (related document(s)[158], [311], [330], [488]) Order Signed on 11/20/2008. (LCN)

615 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Order on Motion to Approve
Docket Text: Order Granting IPo Plaintiffs Relief From the Automatic Stay to Pursue Recovery Against Debtors' Insurance. (Related Doc # [568]) Order Signed on 11/20/2008. (LCN)

616 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Certification of Counsel
Docket Text: Certification of Counsel Regarding Order Granting and Sustaining Debtors' First (Non-Substantive) Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 3007 (related document(s)[577]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Form of Order) (Makowski, Kathleen)

617 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service re: [Signed] Order Granting IPo Plaintiffs Relief From the Automatic Stay to Pursue Recovery Against Debtors' Insurance (related document(s)[615]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Makowski, Kathleen)

618 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2008
Affidavit/Declaration of Service
Docket Text: Affidavit/Declaration of Service re: [signed] Order Approving Expansion of the Scope of Employment of Tanner LC as Accountants to the Debtors Nunc Pro Tunc to October 3, 2008 (related document(s)[614]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Makowski, Kathleen)

619 - Filed & Entered: 11/21/2008
Affidavit/Declaration of Service
Docket Text: Affidavit/Declaration of Service of Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC Regarding Proof of Claim Form and Notice of Amendments to Schedules of Liabilities and Time to File Claims in Response to Such Amendments (related document(s)[604]) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Makowski, Kathleen)

620 - Filed & Entered: 11/24/2008
Order
Docket Text: Order Granting And Sustaining Debtors' First (Non-Substantive) Omnibus Objection To Claims (related document(s)[577]) Order Signed on 11/21/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit "A" # (2) Exhibit "B" # (3) Exhibit "C" # (4) Exhibit "D") (JSJ)

As you can see in the minutes, there are two notations that say COC. That means Certification of Counsel. When a lawyer certifies something, it basically means he or she is telling the court that it's true. You or I would have to file a sworn affidavit, but lawyers are considered officers of the court and presumably honorable, so they can just certify. Obviously, lying would be counterproductive and punishable, sorta. Here's an example [PDF] of one from another bankruptcy to show you the way they look. And here's the certification of counsel [PDF] regarding the SCO's First Omnibus Objections to Claims. An excerpt:
2. Responses to the Claims Objection were to be filed and served no later than November 13, 2008. The Debtors received several responses to the Claims Objection. The Debtors were able to resolve certain of those responses wherein the claimant consented to the relief requested. Responding claimants who have not yet been contacted have been removed from the applicable exhibits to the Claims Objection. A hearing was held on the Claims Objections on November 20, 2008.

3. Attached hereto is a revised, proposed Order Granting and Sustaining Debtors' First (Non-Substantive) Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 502(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 3007 (the "Proposed Order").

4. The Debtors request that the Court enter the Proposed Order at the Court's earliest convenience.

The Proposed Order [PDF] reads in relevant part like this:
... it is hereby FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT:
A. Each holder of a claim listed on Exhibits "A" through "D" hereto (the "Claimants") was properly and timely served with a copy of the Objection, the proposed order and the accompanying exhibits.

B. The Objection is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2).

C. The claims listed on Exhibit "A" hereto are claims improperly asserting ownership of stock.

E. The claims listed on Exhibit "C" are claims which were filed against an incorrect Debtor.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

1. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 402(d) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007, the claims listed on Exhibits "A" through "D" hereto are hereby and shall be EXPUNGED and DISALLOWED in their entirety; provided, however, that the disallowance and expungement of claims listed on Exhibit A does not impair or effect the ownership interests of those shareholders.

Then the exhibits are attached. And the judge signed the proposed order [PDF], attaching the exhibits to the order, on November 20, evidently at the hearing. If you'd like to compare it to the first proposed order, here you go [PDF]. Any revisions would be in the exhibits, presumably.

Finally, I'm seeing articles about SCO being all done. I don't think so, personally. Boies Schiller never says die, as you may have observed. We'll know by January what the lay of the land is. And don't forget that the IBM and Red Hat lawsuits remain, as does the Swiss arbitration in the Novell case, in addition to the likely appeal.

Update: SCO tells the Salt Lake Tribune it will file an appeal in a matter of days:

SCO officials believe they can win an appeal of Kimball's 2007 ruling because, they argue, he prematurely ruled in favor of Novell when facts in the case were still in dispute.

A SCO spokesperson said Monday a notice of appeal would be filed within a few days. The case goes next to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The final judgment "reflects Judge Kimball's careful and thoughtful work," said Novell attorney Michael Jacobs of San Francisco. "Novell expects to prevail in the court of appeals."

See what I mean?

  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 )