Isn't it amazing how fast courts can move when SCO isn't dragging its feet?
At this pace, the IBM case would have been over in 2004.
11/02/2009 - 598 - NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Chambers/slm) Status Conference set for 11/23/2009 10:00 AM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (slm) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
I do hope there are some of you out there who will be able to attend. Even though it's a status hearing, there likely will be discussion of Novell's plans going forward, and I'd hate to miss that. Wouldn't you? It will also be our first opportunity to see The Honorable Ted Stewart in action.
Update: The date has been changed to December 1 at 1:30 PM:
11/03/2009 - 599 - AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Chambers/slm) Status Conference RESET for 12/1/2009 01:30 PM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (slm) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
I've been looking at some of the decisions he's made in various court cases over the years, and I found something that I think will interest you, although not in a good way. It might explain, though, in part why Utah is the scam magnet that it is. In the case of Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and Private Fuel Storage, LLC v. Dianne R. Nielson et al, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a decision by Judge Stewart, but in the ruling, I found this nugget of information:
Under Utah law, stockholders are generally not personally liable for the debts of a corporation. See Norman v. Murray First Thrift & Loan Co., 596 P.2d 1028, 1030 (Utah 1979) ("[I]n order to disregard the corporate entity, there must be a concurrence of two circumstances: (1) there must be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist, viz., the corporation is, in fact, the alter ego of one or a few individuals; and (2) the observance of the corporate form would sanction a fraud, promote injustice, or an inequitable result would follow."). The Supreme Court has noted that "[l]imited liability [of stockholders] is the rule not the exception; and on that assumption large undertakings are rested, vast enterprises are launched, and huge sums of capital attracted." Anderson v. Abbott, 321 U.S. 349, 362 (1944). That's a very high bar, if you think about it. It's much easier to pierce the corporate veil in New York; if a corporation fails to pay sales tax, that alone will do it. Making shareholders sue-proof surely doesn't help. On Utah being called the scam state, just go to Google and search for 'Utah scam' and you'll see what I mean.
Lots of hearings coming up, actually. Erwan has updated our
Timelines summary page, specifically the upcoming motions schedule.
There are five or six hearings scheduled in four litigations until Christmas:
12-Nov-2009 Apple vs Psystar (same day both in California)
And Wayne Gray is baaaack at it, asking for the bankruptcy stay to be lifted:
20-Nov-2009 SCO Bankruptcy
23-Nov-2009 SCO vs Novell
07-Dec-2009 SCO vs Autozone
22-Dec-2009 SCO Bankruptcy
Update 2: Here's his lawyer, I presume:
11/02/2009 - 942 - Motion for Relief from Stay to Permit the Debtor, The SCO Group, Inc., to Participate in Florida Federal Court Action and Pending Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Proceeding. Fee Amount $150. Filed by Wayne R. Gray. Hearing scheduled for 11/20/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 11/13/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Attachments 1-6) (Duhig, Peter) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
11/04/2009 - 946 - Motion to Appear pro hac vice Thomas T. Steele. Receipt Number DEX001363, Filed by Wayne R. Gray. (Duhig, Peter) (Entered: 11/04/2009)