|
|
| SCO Files its Initial Monthly Operating Report |
 |
|
Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:24 AM EDT
|
Well, this is some nice bedtime reading, SCO's Initial Monthly Operating Report. Here's the notation on PACER: 70 -
Filed & Entered: 10/01/2007
Operating Report
Docket Text: Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period Initial Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service) (Werkheiser, Rachel) It's signed by Bert Young, still CFO as of October 1. A quick scan shows page 2 is a 12-month cash flow projection, although the footnote indicates it's a work in progress. Progress might not be the perfect word, as the graph isn't pointing up, as I read it. They have gotten some insurance, I see, including some for errors and omissions liability (copyright infringement going back to June of 2005) and some coverage for executives. The date is September 20, which is 6 days after they filed for bankruptcy. Did they get permission to do that? And why do they owe Maureen O'Gara's G2 another $10,000 in November?
I see the Order they've attached here says they are authorized to continue their prepetition business practices, but did they ever have insurance like that before? Well, it's a prudent investment, no doubt about that. I'm guessing the insurance company doesn't read Groklaw. There are pages of foreign bank accounts, and then we find, on page 33, a list of retainers paid to various law firms and services: - Berger Silverman - 425,000;
- Dorsey & Whitney - 100,000;
-
EPIQ - 25,000;
- Mesirow Financial - 35,000; and
- Pachulsky Stang Ziehl and Jones - 75,000.
The lawyers always get their money, don't they? Novell on the other hand never sees a dime. And from Novell's point of view, SCO is using Novell's money to pay the lawyers. Of course, SCO sees visions of appeals and then buckets of moolah pouring down on it from heaven. It's all in your point of view.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:43 AM EDT |
Please place off topic posts in this thread.
---
"SCO’s failure to provide code for the methods and concepts it claims were
misappropriated is [...] a violation of this court’s orders." - Judge Brooke
Wells[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- My god woman, get some SLEEP! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:57 AM EDT
- There will be a class action? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:06 AM EDT
- Looking forward to the quarterly status report in Redhat - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:20 AM EDT
- [OT] The second lever - Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:26 AM EDT
- FFII awards Microsoft "Best Campaigner against OOXML" prize - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 07:01 AM EDT
- [OT] "Music download" trial starts today - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 07:47 AM EDT
- 1st rule of an insurance underwriter is... don't insure a burning building. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 08:13 AM EDT
- Today is the day motions are due? - Authored by: Gerry on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 08:49 AM EDT
- Attorneys sanctioned for delay - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- CNN: Google docs. v M$ Office Live - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:50 AM EDT
- Jews, Gentiles, and the Open Source Definition - Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 10:12 AM EDT
- LinuxJournal scores own goal - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 11:09 AM EDT
- Need a 12-step program -- I read LinuxGram again - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Linux Journal: The Mono Project: You Might Expect the Unexpected - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- RIAA filesharing trial underway - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- Two new from Wu: Free federal court opinions, free copyright info - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Who says you can't earn money on open source? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- First RIAA Trial gets underway - Authored by: skr95062 on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 07:02 PM EDT
- Microsoft Mum on Plans for EU Appeal - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 07:17 PM EDT
- Say what...? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 06:04 AM EDT
- Sandy Gupta Promtoted to President - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 07:37 PM EDT
- More from Duluth - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 10:12 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:45 AM EDT |
Please place comments related to the newspics (the right-hand column on the main
page) in this thread.
---
"SCO’s failure to provide code for the methods and concepts it claims were
misappropriated is [...] a violation of this court’s orders." - Judge Brooke
Wells[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
| On page 3 of this document, it states that SCOX(.pk) were due to pay G2 Computer
"Intelligence" the sum of $10416.67 in November this year. Their subscription page
(remove the paided) says that a subscription costs $595. What about the
other $9800? ---
"SCO’s failure to provide code for the methods and
concepts it claims were misappropriated is [...] a violation of this court’s
orders." - Judge Brooke Wells [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: olas on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
I never think of my bank as a humble business really appreciating my business. I
think many people tend to think the same...wonder why... ;-)
Anyway, apparently there are even banks that understand some things about doing
business.
Maybe Zions Bank could teach other banks something.Check out their tag line on
p12:
"We haven't forgotten who keeps us in business(r)"
Oh, it's a registered trademark...that *must* be why sco couldn't focus on
actual business and had to sue their customers...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBashar on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
This is just too funny! Plastered across the top of every page of the Zions
Bank (ZB) statements of accounts is ZB's registered trademark:
"WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN WHO KEEPS US IN BUSINESS. (R)"
Hah! ZB might not have forgotten, but clearly Darl and company sure did![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO remembered... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:22 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
There's nothing to declare bankruptcy for. SCO can run for months and months and
according to its best guesses there's no profit to be had, but no possibility of
running out of cash. Clearly the CFO has not factored in winning or losing a
court case or arbitration in a 12-month time-frame so the business plan must be
to stretch these cases out for at least 12 more months, right?
"We'd like to request a contiuance on the grounds that we have never really
expected to reach the end of these proceedings."
Noted weirdness in cash flow: Why is Payroll not a smooth function? It seems to
have a two-month drawdown to 50% every six months. This is weird.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mupi on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:18 AM EDT |
" What [we] told you is true, from a certain point of view"...
'nuff said?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mupi on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:20 AM EDT |
As if any should be needed.
Woo Hoo my first "useful" thread... ;)
Please put the correction in the title so that PJ can see it easily.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:55 AM EDT |
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sup_01_11.html
Section 101
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sec_11_00000101----000-.html
Rhode Island General Law 9-1-33
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE9/9-1/9-1-33.HTM
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 73 L.
Ed. 2d 598, 102 S. Ct. 2858 (1982).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol
=458&invol=50
I don't know how to find BR citations at Findlaw.com :(
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 04:30 AM EDT |
Why did SCO declare bankruptcy? It wasn't because they are insolvent. It
wasn't because they haven't enough money to pay their creditors. The cash flow
projections filed here show SCO's project remaining cash at the end of next
August to be $3,974,618. Not only that, but they are projecting positive
cash flow in August 2008. They project $1,727,140 in total receipts for
that month, and total outgoings of $1,410,543.
What the projections
show is that SCO does not have a viable business in the long run, but that's a
reason to close down the business, not to stiff the creditors. What does a
business have to prove to enable it to go into chapter 11? Can any company do
it, to avoid paying its debts? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
The paperwork does not reveal down which drain the cash is flowing.
It does reveal that SCO Operations Inc. have GBP and Euro accounts with the
Allied & Irish Bank so they have a potential way to pay the arbitration
lawyer. I had wondered if one of the subsidiaries (not in bankruptcy (yet))
might be paying (or not paying) the bills.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Genuine Advantage[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 06:50 AM EDT |
How much of their cash receivables belongs to Novell and will presumably be
passed through by the BK Court?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cash Receivables - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- Cash Receivables - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 10:43 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 08:18 AM EDT |
It doesn't look to me like they acquired insurance on Sept. 20, just that they
got a current certificate of insurance on that date for policies issued in
June.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
"The best-known professionals who need E&O insurance are doctors,
lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, etc. However, less thought about
individuals range from advertising agencies to commercial printers, Web hosting
companies to wedding planners. If you are in the business of providing a service
to your client for a fee," - InsuranceJournal.com
Pretty common practice if you have clients who might sue you and it is such a
common practice that I would be surprised if this were not an on going expense.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
I actually read the Computerworld interview with Darl. It's safe to say from
his quotes that Groklaw seriously gets under his skin. He no doubt believes
that all of his big plans and dreams of easy money were shot down by one little
website. "And he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for
those meddling kids."
I did find this quote
funny:
One bad ruling does not a full legal conclusion
make.
Which ruling would that be Darl? The Daimler
Chrysler ruling? The Judge Wells IBM dismissal of most of your "evidence?" The
Novell ruling over copyright ownership? The Novell ruling denying a jury trial?
The Novell ruling deciding SCOsource was a SVRX license? The Novell ruling
allowing Novell to waive claims?
You need to be more specific Darl. We
just don't have a clue what you are talking about...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
for their creditors' meeting? It would make smooth sailing if you have the
creditors in your pocket.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
PJ, maybe the insurance underwriters *DO* read Groklaw, and they see a
spectacular chance to collect a premium without paying out a dime, once the
copyright infringements, etc. are rulled willful or somehow otherwise triggering
the everpresent fine print... For example, it might be quite routine for the
insurance to exclude acts committed before the start of coverage.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: T O'B on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:39 AM EDT |
SCO Software in New Delhi, India uses Bank of America.
Could this be why the change of law suit targets long ago?
---
Tom O'B[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
"And why do they owe Maureen O'Gara's G2 another $10,000 in
November?"
She's probably got another "analysis", favourable to SCO, coming up
soon. ;-)
---
There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- So... - Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:54 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
Insurance? For pre-existing conditions?
I don't know of any insurance that covers pre-existing conditions, or in this
instance repercussions as a result of past transgressions. In this case I would
think that might be for when creditors come after SCO for all its false public
claims of copyright infringement etc.
It's always been my understanding that if you don't level with insurance
companies about pre-existing matters and they find out about it, they'll cut you
off in a nanosecond.
Could this be the case with SCO?
---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
From a first reading, it looks like SCOG plans to collect on some old licenses
for at least the next year, and not actually sell anything.
It also looks, to me, like they could be making a decent profit if they fired
top management and their lawyers.
---
The wise man is not embarrassed or angered by lies, only disappointed. (IANAL
and so forth and so on)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
The file only contains 1/5 of the SCO Germany bank account. Are the remaining 4
available somewhere?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ak on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
Note 2 on page 7 says:
The Debtors have redacted certain
names of employees and customers in order to protect their privacy as well as
from potential harassment that the Debtors have previously encountered by
parties in the industry.
SCO never was interested in defending
the "privacy" of people. SCO hides important information. I therefore ask all
creditors to oppose those redactions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
Why are there so many things redacted (or blacked out) on their payment sheets?
I thought that the bankruptcy put everything out into the light so that means we
should be able to see WHO is getting paid.
If they're going to black out everybody they're paying then that obviously means
they don't want people to see who they're paying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
| I see they have a couple Million stashed in the Cayman's wonder why... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bezz on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
Are there any filings available? Today was the deadline for the 5 October
hearing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
Actually, this really should be specified.
I do not remember any of O'Gara's articles having been written with the
disclaimer that she had been paid by SCO Group or had performed services for
them.
Is this a breach of journalistic integrity?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
