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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO: But waitaminnit, yer Honor ~pj | 206 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO: But waitaminnit, yer Honor ~pj
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 03:00 PM EDT
Maybe the judge can grant SCO's motion to re-open the case with the requirement
that SCO post some sort of bond that will make IBM whole in case SCO loses.

Obviously, if SCO has such a winning case, based on the record, then SCO should
be able to convince Yarro and friends, and other investors, to cough up many
more millions to back the litigation dream. C'mon guys, open your wallets, it's
a sure thing!


---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No new automatic stay on conversion
Authored by: Reven on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 03:14 PM EDT
The automatic stay is is in chapter 3, and is worded:
a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, operates as a stay...
The way I read that, and the way I read ยง1112 (the chapter 11 section about conversion) is that a conversion is not a new petition, so there would be no new automatic stay.

And really, the stay is to protect the debtor (SCO in this case), so even if there was another automatic stay, SCO could pretty easily have it lifted.

---
Ex Turbo Modestum

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That's an interesting question!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 11:43 PM EDT
Does anyone have any idea? I re-read the order converting the case from chapter 11 to 7:

http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf3/SCOGBK-1439.pdf

If you read the line right before signature you can see the the same court retains jurisdiction so it probably would be just a matter of asking, but is that necessary? If IBM wishes to raise objections, would a hearing be necessary? Any ideas?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )