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
More Bills in the SCO Bankruptcy - Another Half Million or So
Friday, September 04 2009 @ 12:21 AM EDT

More bills in the SCO bankruptcy, a 22nd bill from Pachulski Stang (for June), another Tanner bill (covering April through June), and the 23rd bill from Berger Singerman, this one for July:
09/02/2009 - 905 - Application for Compensation (Twenty-Third) of Berger Singerman, P.A. for Compensation and for Reimbursement of Expenses for July 1, 2009 thorugh July 31, 2009 Filed by Berger Singerman, P.A.. Objections due by 9/22/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service & Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 09/02/2009)

09/02/2009 - 906 - Application for Compensation (Seventh Quarterly) of Tanner LC for Compensation and for Reimbursement of Expenses for April 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 Filed by Tanner LC. Objections due by 9/22/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service & Service List# 4 Certificate of Service & Service List [Notice ONLY]) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 09/02/2009)

09/03/2009 - 907 - Application for Compensation (Twenty-Second) of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP for Compensation and for Reimbursement of Expenses for June 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 9/23/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service & Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

Get a load of Berger Singerman's bill. In the month of July, the total bill is $294,925.25. The previous balance due was $214,063.54, and SCO paid $4,954.48 of it, so the total now due is a whopping $504,034.31, $196,343 of it for litigation counseling in July. That's a lot of money. I seem to recall that at the last hearing, they said SCO's monthly cash burn was $281,000/month, so they exceeded their usual rate. SCO wasn't actually bankrupt until they filed for bankruptcy. But look at them now.

Over $2,000 went for certified copies of transcripts Berger Singerman paid for. They complain at one point that IBM got a deposition transcript before they did. And they have a listing for court reporters also, for a total of $3,094.77 for that expense. Over $2,000 went for Xeroxing alone. And over $900 for Westlaw database searches, $617 on a single day in just one hour's time. Wait. All four searches are on July 31st, so that's $915.02 for 4 searches lasting a total of 4 hours on Westlaw in a single day. I'm trying to imagine how one could do that.

I see on July 2nd an item on the Berger bill mentions "confidential settlement issues". Hmm. This is in a bankruptcy context, so it could mean settlement of someone's claim, someone other than our major players. Maybe the Boies thing? That's on page 18. On the next page, you find the item, "work on Hank II" and on July 12th there is an entry "consider needed updates and minutes regarding unXis and Hank II. Review Hank II term sheet". The next day, they consider "comments from Hank II." Stephen Norris is mentioned also, so this is a confirmation of the SCO version of all the possible deals, but a lot of time was spent in July also on what to do about Novell and the APA, should a sale be possible. On the 14th, I see "emails to/from Maximus counsel regarding sale motion." Who or what is Maximus? There was a conference with "successor in interest to Maximus JSP regarding sale motion". [ Update: Might it have reference to Palm's Maximus, a personal organizer?]

One can't help but notice this entry for July 16:

Further edits to Novell assumption and related issues list. Discussions with SCO team regarding resolution. Discuss and prepare testimony for D. McBride regarding 1995 Novell APA, input from R. Tibbitts regarding comments to unXis APA, based on D. McBride's testimony, conference with Bill Broderick regarding Unix 5, SVRX and related issues. Call Jim Kearns and follow up with Bryan Cave follow up regarding various tasks concerning APA and closing matters, and follow up regarding Hank II.
Prepare Darl's testimony? That doesn't sound quite right. Then you see on the 16th through 18th conferences and emails about issues raised by McBride's deposition and by the various objections raised by IBM and Novell, and you see them working on an amendment to the unXis sale agreement. Then on the 22nd, there was a "special meeting among litigants and Judge Gross" and Berger Singerman worked on the PSA agreement "throughout the day". Through the 24th, they are still tweaking the amendment. If you recall, they showed up at the hearing on the 27th with it, as a nice surprise item. What happened between the 24th and the 27th? It is like a traceroute, where the last hop isn't traceable.

And on the 29th, we see a conference with McBride "regarding potential shareholder committee." There's also a .10 phone call on July 10, about a potential new investment. On page 30, we see research on the assignability of copyright licenses and "affect on APA". On the 14th, we find "REVIEW OF CATAPULT." Whatever that is.

On pages 30 and 31, there was a flurry of activity regarding "potential settlement", but they don't say with whom or about what, but it's under the header "Settlement and Compromise", so again, it seems to be about some claim.

On page 33, C. Kemp is mentioned. The next page says there was correspondence with J. Hunsaker "regarding reneging of C. Kemp" and a meeting regarding "C. Kemp issue" and then email about "arrangements in light of change in witness plans" and "research regarding unavailability of witness" and "Department of Navy issues" and the next page shows a telephone cal to C. Kemp. Lots of scurrying about over witnesses and "emergency research issues and trial witnesses." I gather Mr. Kemp didn't wish to appear. As late as July 20, Bill Broderick was still expected to testify, I see on page 38. The next day, though, there is an entry, "issues with witness". And again the next day. Remember Chad Kemp, who was subpoenaed by IBM but never showed up for trial? We'd guessed it was Broderick who skipped out, but while he didn't testify either, the arrow points to Kemp, I'd say. Maybe they both changed their willingness.

That same day, Berger Singerman folks are reviewing correspondence regarding the $100,000 payments, presumably Darl's to Norris, and it lists the "Sunrise Project".

On July 23rd, we see they're still working on the amendment, and they "debrief" McBride about the Ryan Tibbitts deposition and they mention a "new offer" from "C. Hale". That's the York Capital guy who showed up at the July 27th hearing saying he'd like to bid too, and IBM used that to say an auction would be more appropriate than a private sale to unXis.

On page 43, it's after the July 27th hearing, and you'll find post-trial activity, with discussions with Darl as to "business solution to dispute" and "offer to IBM" and then on July 31, there are entries about "next steps" and "memos re reactions from unXis, Novell and IBM" and communications to the judge about SCO's proposal regarding an examiner. That idea went nowhere. On August 5th, the court ordered that a Chapter 11 trustee be appointed. And there you have it, $196,343 of scurrying about in litigation services in July alone. "Payment Due Upon Receipt."

So, that's $504,034.31 due Berger Singerman, $4,125.50 to Tanner for June, and a net balance due of $67,971.61 to Pachulski Stang. An additional $576,131.42 that Novell will never see.

As for Pachulski's bill, it's for June, not July, so it's a lot quieter. Pachulski was involved in several strategy sessions regarding the June 15 hearing, but I don't see any involvement in any buyer activity in that bill. They all went to lunch at the Rodney Grill, I see, 12 in the party, attorneys and client, on June 15. A transcript cost them $509.25. On page 17, there is also an item, Outside Services. Might that be for the expert to attend the hearing referenced on page 10? If not, I have no clue. Most of their expenses were litigation related also.

I always like to look through the Exhibit A's to see if anything unusual is listed. Perhaps someone can explain what this means in Pachulski's bill, on page 5 of the Exhibit A?

6.10.09 KPM Review, respond to email correspondence from L. Oberholzer regarding dandling document request from A. Petrofsky 0.10 395.00 $39.50
I had no idea what the definition of dandling was, so I looked it up, and I still have no clue what it means in connection with a document, only with a baby ("To move (a small child) up and down on the knees or in the arms in a playful way.")

  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 )