|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
As I noted in a post above, this stipulation was well before
TSG's filing to convert to Chapter 7. So I'm not sure it even
means anything anymore. But I'm betting BS&F point this out
to the Court at some point.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cpeterson on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
Perhaps Judge Nuffer would like SCO to clearly admit, in a Federal Court
filing, that IBM is free to pursue its claims as well, so that point doesn't
have to be argued any more.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 09:34 PM EDT |
Judge Nuffer is responding to SCO's Motion to Reopen [IBM-1095]. Briefing on
this Motion was completed on Dec 8, 2011 [IBM-1102].
Well after briefing was completed (Feb 16, 2012), SCO obtained a joint
stipulation with IBM [SCOBK-1396] that the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy
Court was to be modified [not actually lifted, although that aspect is
irrelevant here.] This modification would bear great weight on SCO's Motion to
Reopen, but how should SCO bring it to the attention of the Utah Court?
SCO chose to attach the stipulation to a "Request to Submit for
Decision" [IBM-1107]. Such "Requests" are covered by a local
Utah Rule [7-3], and this Rule seems to mirror a corresponding Rule available
under Utah State law. The intent of the rule seems to be that if you file a
Motion, and the Opposition fails to reply in a timely fashion, you can request
that the motion be decided nonetheless. Most decidedly, a Request to Submit is
NOT the place to attach new materials in support of your original motion.
It is possible that Judge Neffer never read SCO's "Request to Submit",
or if he did, he gave appropriate weight to the attached material, which is ...
NONE. Rather, SCO should have filed, say, one of those "Surreply" or
"Sur-surreply" Memoranda instead.
It's back to the drawing board for SCO. Meanwhile the clock is ticking and the
remaining funds continue to drain away. Will Blank Rome or Trustee Cahn
forward-fund SCO to carry it through another round of motion practice? One
would hope so. It would so much be the ... "SCO Way".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
