|
SCO's Bankruptcy Hearing Tomorrow Changed to 8:30 AM - Updated |
|
Monday, September 17 2007 @ 02:48 PM EDT
|
The bankruptcy hearing tomorrow has been changed to 8:30 AM, according to the latest on PACER. There is a Notice setting forth what will and what won't be heard that day. Everything will be heard *except* the motions to retain Berger Singerman and Pachulski Stang as co-counsel and Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions and the motion to pay all the lawyers and other professionals monthly. That will be heard at another hearing to be announced. I may not be the only one wondering how many lawyers one needs to file for bankruptcy. Or it could be they thought there were just too many motions for a single hearing. They will hear the motion about hiring temps to cover for the finance department employees SCO fired or who quit that I told you about earlier today.
On the list of folks who got the notice one sees the top creditors we noted on SCO's list, like Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, as well as a Joe McMann, United States Trustee. So he must be the newly assigned trustee. Nobody notified Novell or IBM or Red Hat. However, I'm guessing Novell needs no invitation to follow along.
Update: SCO has filed a Notice of Late Filing with the SEC about the 10Q they haven't filed. "The Company was unable to complete the preparation of the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report on a timely basis due to additional and unusual administrative work loads as a result of the bankruptcy filing." Not to mention the unfortunate firing/quitting of approximately half of the finance department, one assumes.
And question 3 has an interesting answer on the SEC filing: (3) Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion thereof ? Yes No
If so, attach an explanation of the anticipated change, both narratively and quantitatively, and, if appropriate, state the reasons why a reasonable estimate of the results cannot be made.
Revenue for the three and nine months ended July 31, 2007 decreased by approximately 37% and 24%, respectively, from the three and nine months ended July 31, 2006. The decrease in revenue for the three and nine months ended July 31, 2007 was attributable to continued competitive pressures on the Company’s UNIX products and services as well as from continuing negative publicity related to our lawsuits with Novell and IBM which has adversely impacted our customers’ buying decisions.
The net loss for the three and nine months ended July 31, 2007 improved over the net loss for the three and nine months ended July 31, 2006 as a result of decreased operating costs and a decrease in cost of SCOsource licensing revenue, which were offset by a decrease in revenue as mentioned above.
Let me guess. It's everyone's fault but SCO's. They have a lot of nerve talking about negative publicity, after doing all in their power to create a PR storm of negativity toward Linux, IBM, Groklaw, Novell, and Red Hat. Plus, let me get this straight. A Linux company decides not to sell Linux any more. It sells only Unix by choice. When Linux is preferred by customers, instead of selling Linux again, it goes bankrupt. And blames Linux. Yes. That is so unfair to SCO. They should probably sue somebody.
Here's what is on PACER about the hearing: 15 -
Filed & Entered: 09/17/2007
Notice of Matters Scheduled for Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing on First Day Motions Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 9/18/2007 at 08:30 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
16
Filed & Entered: 09/17/2007
Notice of Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Amended Notice of Hearing on First Day Motions --Please note change in time to 8:30 a.m. (related document(s)[13] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 9/18/2007 at 08:30 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James)
17
Filed & Entered: 09/17/2007
Motion to Appear pro hac vice (B)
Docket Text: Motion to Appear pro hac vice of Arthur J. Spector. Receipt Number 146927, Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Jones, Laura Davis)
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
Please be specific.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
Please make it interesting.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
Item 16 is a 404
15 & 17 both work[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
Link not working [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
Look to the side for the News Picks
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
I wonder if Novell will put in an appearance?
I've seen Bankruptcy hearings go off in odd directions when someone just shows
up and makes a motion.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
How many law firms does it take to file for bankruptcy?
Answer: Six. One to
do the job and five to consume the remaining assets. --- (c) 2007 Typo,
Inc. All rights reversed.
I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers - see bio [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How many lawyers? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:14 PM EDT
|
Authored by: OmniGeek on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
I'm (thankfully) unfamiliar with this process; does Novell, as a creditor, have
the opportunity to file briefs at this hearing (arguing for things like allowing
the bench trial to proceed so the Delaware judge knows how deep the crater is),
or do they have to wait until after a bankruptcy trustee has been appointed to
register their objections to the course of the process?
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bstone on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
The agenda lists only Darl's declaration as evidence and makes no mention of
anyone other than SCO participating. Will other parties have a chance to
present anything at all before the decisions are made on any of these issues?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
Will there be an archive for the SCO BK filings?
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
"Nobody notified Novell or IBM or Red Hat."
Darl specifically cited the Novell case as the reason for filing Chapter 11.
Since the summary judgment, he knows SCO has to reimburse moneys from the
SCOSource contracts with Sun and M$ to Novell. Now, is it legal for him not to
officially notify Novell of the court date? Isn't this kind of, uh, criminal
neglect???
I don't expect Novell to miss the party, just guessing that Darl's behavior is
crossing the limits of what's legaly allowed for a CEO (again). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Is the date of this hearing extremely quick or just normal under the
circumstances? (After 5 years of this saga, I'm more accustomed to things
proceeding S L O W L Y...)
Bob
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DodgeRules on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
I hope that the Judge asks all of SCO's Board of Directors to surrender their
passports to ensure that they stick around for ALL the fun, including the
criminal hearings that are sure to follow.
(Can I be sued by Disney for
the obvious parody of their IP?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
IV is reporting that a Morrison and Foerster lawyer has filed a PHV motion -
more to follow presumably.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
Morning traffic is evil if you are coming from the south -- Maryland or
Virginia, or further south. My house is 65 miles from Wilmington and I leave
about three hours early (and usually arrive in about 2 hours and 15 minutes)
when I need to go to Wilmington.
If you are from south of Baltimore you will have a $2.00 toll at the I-95 Ft
McHenry Tunnel, I-895 Harbor tunnel, or the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Usually
I-95 is your safest bet.
There is a $5.00 toll at the Tydings bridge on I-95 about 25 miles north of
Baltimore, no way around it without a boat.
Listen to WBAL AM 1090, or 97.9 FM for traffic through Baltimore.
There is a $3.00 toll as you enter Delaware that causes backups into Maryland.
There is bad rush hour traffic and construction after the toll. You can get off
at the Northeast, MD exit and use US 40 to get around the Delaware toll and I-95
delays but there are 8 million red lights.
Hope this helps someone!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TJ on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
Based on the 10Q to July 31st 2006 where
revenues for that period were $7,421,000 that suggests this last quarter's
revenues were around $4,675,230 and last 9 months ~
$16,636,400B (2006 $21,890,000).
I doubt the cost of
revenues was reduced in proportion. If that is the case I can see why they're
hoping for chapter 11. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
It would very very amusing if the Bankruptcy Judge happened to be a regular
reader of Groklaw :)
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
..
The is a sign that the Judge has a clue that this will not be your normal BK.
The presumption is that he expanded the hearing. Besides the copies filed with
the Clerk, the Judge is probably getting the most expeditiously delivered
courtesy copies of filings, some maybe before they are filed, especially from
Novell. Maybe he should expand the hearing to 6:30.
Is he aware that every syllable he utters is going to be put on the internet and
analyzed? He will have to be on his best behavior. He should read the filings
if he can. If he has both sides, he will get a clue. He will give great
deference to Kimball's decision. He will almost be forced to act to preserve
current assets. If he lets SCO spend it and the assets are gone, it can't be
undone. SCO can't show much income compared to these license fees in question.
It will be all too clear to the Judge that the case is before him because SCO
dodged a court in Utah.
SCO incorporated in Delaware because of its reputation as a corporate
playground. SCO shall put this hospitality to the test.
---
webster
© 2007 Monopoly Corporation. ALL rights reserved. Yours included.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2007 @ 06:33 PM EDT |
Looks like SCO's lawyers can't even get the name of the trustee right. A web
search reveals Joseph McMahon with the Office of the United States Trustee in
Wilmington DE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2007 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
"continuing negative publicity related to our lawsuits with Novell and IBM
which has adversely impacted our customers’ buying
decisions."
Translation: "people have noticed what we are, so they
won't do business with us any longer."
Who says that American businesses
don't make ethical decisions? Of course they do. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Translation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2007 @ 03:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2007 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
Do you think SCO's lawyers knew that the case was not winnable. It seems to me
that BSF (Boise Schiller Flexner) are the big winners here, as long as they
assure Darl that they have a case, Darl pays them. In general, are lawyers
responsible before the law to not string along their clients. I suppose not
since there is no objective way to determine if a lawyer is stringing along the
client to get money or if they really believe in the case.
Mike Closson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Honest Lawyers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2007 @ 10:18 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2007 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
Most great lawyers are honest lawyers. When you get caught playing games with
the court - potentially embarrassing the judge -- I am sure they remember you as
a weasel and take what you say with a grain of salt (which is now what is
happening with BSF). If you are honest with the court, you tend to earn the
judges respect and he is more likely to respect what you are saying. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|