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
Ocean Park's 8th Bill
Sunday, July 04 2010 @ 12:37 AM EDT

Ocean Park has submitted its 8th monthly bill in the SCO bankruptcy. They're the firm hired by SCO's Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn to help him figure out what to do with SCO. And eight months in, I think we can all agree that they've done an awe-inspiring job under Cahn's leadership of running the company completely into the ground, and then digging some more straight down toward the center of the earth, all without paying the creditors a blessed sou. For which labor they would like to be paid now another $38,186.00 for the merry month of May. Tra la.

When you consider that when SCO filed for bankruptcy protection, it had $9 1/2 million in assets [PDF], and only a little more than $3 million in liabilities, it's been truly amazing to watch this company commit suicide by bankruptcy court. And with so many professional helpers!

The bill:

07/01/2010 - 1130 - Monthly Application for Compensation of (Eighth) for the period May 1, 2010 to May 31, 2010 Filed by Ocean Park Advisors, LLC. Objections due by 7/21/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 07/01/2010)

Exhibit A is the breakdown of who did what, so it's pages of entries like this:
5/27/10 - Bruce Comer Managing Director - 0.3 - $142.50 - Review and respond to emails related to operating and commercial issues
And many more like this:
5/3/10 - Vinod Bhat - Associate - 1.7 - $425.00 - Follow up with Debtor management on budget

5/4/10 - Vinod Bhat - Associate - 0.7 - $175.00 - Review and approval of payables

5/5/10 - Michael Hakim - Associate - 1.1 - $231.00 - Revisions to budget, internal discussions re the same.

I will give SCO some free advice.

No. Darl said There's No Free Lunch.

So for 5 cents, then, here's my advice to them. Close down, turn out the lights, apologize to the world for all the pain you caused for absolutely no good reason, and call it done. It would really save a lot of money. Then maybe there'd be a few dimes to give to the ever-patient creditors.

Of course, that's not SCO's wave length. Instead we see on May 6 "Follow up on Litigation budget." Ah. The everloving litigation budget. The dream has not yet died, one discerns, at least as of May 6. That's before Judge Ted Stewart ruled for Novell in June and drove the last nail into SCO's coffin there in Utah. So in May in Delaware, they're still thinking there's a chance. There's always been money to throw at litigation, with or without any realistic hopes. And for what?

On May 11, there's "Review of restructuring plan with management." Are they kidding? Restructure how? With what? And may the public inquire *when*? I imagine them in the meeting laughing and playing tiddlywinks. "OK, Mark, put it down as review of restructuring plan. Hahahahaha." High fives all around. They might as well charge for basket weaving in those meetings.

Because this doesn't look like a restructuring. You can't restructure a software company without engineers. Duh. If you try, all you have is a dying company -- because who wants software from a company that has no engineers to support it and update it? -- a company dying from stupid greed and a strong dash of beyond-stupid anticompetitive high jinks. And worse. Much, much worse. Who sues their own customers if they want to stay in business?

And poor Vinod at Ocean Park, preparing drafts of a presentation for the Trustee in early May that as of July still has not yet seen the light of day. Not a word in court. No press release. As quiet as a tomb.

I think one can guess what they are really talking about in those internal discussions now. How about this for Topic A? How does SCO pay Yarro back now that SCO lost to Novell and it can't bully Linux end users any more, and there's no hope of shaking IBM down without copyrights?

And if SCO can't pay back the loan, how does it explain to the court -- and more importantly to the public and the Department of Justice -- that they didn't seem to have many internal discussions about what would happen to the loan if SCO lost in SCO v. Novell. Where was the plan? It's not like no one inquired. Novell asked at the hearing about how they planned to pay back the proposed loan if SCO lost at trial, and there was no substantive answer. They had no detailed analysis, but they thought they could pay, I recall them saying. So, when does that happen? When do they pay?

All the budgeting seemed to be for if SCO won. So what to do? What to do? Just hand all the assets over to Yarro after defaulting on the loan? No wonder the court hearings keep getting cancelled. What in the world is SCO going to say about what I think I would call at best an irresponsible loan, despite the judge calling it fair, reasonable and adequate. Adequate for whom? Fair to whom? What's his definition of adequate? Who borrows money if there's no realistic plan of paying it back?

I gather we all must wait to see what SCO comes up with next. No doubt the lawyers are thinking, trying to come up with something. Will they appeal? I can't imagine what. The judge ruled for them in almost everything during the trial.

What in the world does the prolonged silence mean?

Hush. They're thinking.


  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 )