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
HP: I'm In! Send All SCO's Bankruptcy Notices Please! - Gupta Prez of SCO Operations
Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:26 PM EDT

Now it's Hewlett-Packard that has answered the call from the bankruptcy court and filed a notice of its interest in SCO's bankruptcy, its Notice of Appearance and Request for Special Notice [PDF].

You'll see that the wording isn't exactly the same as IBM's [PDF] notice. That's because HP is on the the top 20 creditors' list [PDF] (technically, the hilariously named "HP NonStop Royalty Accounting"), so it wants all notices of creditors' meetings too and any plans filed. Plans means this in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and as you can see in this section on who can file a plan, it can be the debtor, or if the debtor fails to timely do so or if the debtor's plan isn't accepted, then it could be the trustee, any of the creditors, an equity security holder, any party in interest. Someone has to come up with a survival plan on how to reorganize so as not to send SCO down the drain while also not totally stiffing the creditors or unfairly paying one to the detriment of all others, etc.

So, with HP showing up, I'd say SCO's creditors' committee begins to appear. What a wonderful time to be named President of SCO Operations, Inc. How lucky can Sandy Gupta get?

In fact, he's "thrilled":

"After having worked at SCO for over a decade, I am thrilled to better serve our customers and partners in this new capacity," said Sandy Gupta, President of SCO Operations, Inc. "As our primary focus, we will strengthen and expand our UNIX product offerings to our partners and reinvigorate our channels in doing so. The SCO UNIX partner and customer ecosystem has also represented a great channel to launch SCO Mobile products and services complementary to the core UNIX products."

All executives quoted in press releases are invariably "thrilled", I've observed, no matter what it's about. We'll keep on the watch to see how thrilling this turns out to be. Indeed, the press release includes the "Forward Looking Statement" sentences, including these:

We wish to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to outcome and development of our Chapter 11 case, court rulings in our bankruptcy proceedings, the impact of the bankruptcy proceedings or other pending litigation, our cash balances and available cash, continued competitive pressure on the Company's operating system products, which could impact the Company's results of operations, adverse developments in and increased or unforeseen legal costs related to the Company's litigation, the inability to devote sufficient resources to the development and marketing of the Company's products, including the UNIX and mobile services and development platform, and the possibility that companies with whom the Company has formed partnerships will decide to terminate their relationship to the company, or reduce customers and resources devoted to, their partnership with the Company.

But back to HP. It's one of those companies SCO, in the IBM litigation alleged in its Second Amended Complaint was influenced by IBM to keep SCO from succeeding in its business after SCO dreamed up SCOsource. Remember that whole story [PDF] about the famous Ms. Smith of IBM who SCO claimed became furious at LinuxWorld in 2003 when she first learned about SCOsource and allegedly talked to a guy at HP and tried to talk HP out of doing any further business with SCO? HP denied it, saying it decided instead not to talk to Ms. Smith again, and indeed it continued to show up as sponsoring SCO Forums. Anyway, according to SCO, HP was another company SCO claimed was out to get them after IBM tortiously interfered. I do hope SCO is right about that. All right. Calm down. I'm kidding. Sort of.

Here are the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which the notice references. Rule 2002 lists all the types of notices that are sent, all of which HP wants, as well as the notices regarding disclosure statements and plans of reorganization, here at Rule 3017. HP wants those too. HP wants to be involved, I take it.

When I was reviewing the old HP allegations, I came across some interesting tidbits I hadn't noticed at the time of the March 7, 2007 hearing in SCO v IBM. Brent Hatch told the court at that hearing that SCO was "well-funded". That is in addition to Stuart Singer denying that bankruptcy was imminent at another hearing, the one on January 23, 2007. Two representations, then, of sufficient funds to not end up in bankruptcy. Hatch said something else about those of you who attend the hearings. Unless I misunderstand what he said, I gather he thinks IBM pays you to attend. The context is that IBM had complained about some of the things Darl McBride had said to the media:

MR. HATCH: Your Honor, the only thing that was raised was tab 11, and I just would indicate this is just more of the same. The part that was underlined in mine that she's saying was so horrible that Mr. McBride said, it says: There is no doubt that our enemy -- that would be IBM, if anybody is not sure of that -- is well-funded and has deep pockets.

Now, anybody would be really hardpressed to stand here before me and tell me that that is not true, especially given our wonderful audience in the courtroom.

THE COURT: Some of the audience is yours, isn't it?

MR. HATCH: Yes, indeed, Your Honor. And I'm happy to have them say in public that we are well-funded as well. The point is: These are not actionable. They know it. These are brought to sidetrack the litigation, and the motion should be granted....

Now, based on that opportunity, SCO put together a licensing program for its libraries and approached Hewlitt Packard and other large companies to confirm whether it would be a good idea and they would find support in the industry. Not surprisingly, the program was well received and would give an opportunity to protect SCO's intellectual property and give them a profitable business while enhancing Linux by making more UNIX applications available because, without applications, an operating system isn't really worth much. Everyone wins in such a situation. There was only one company that balked. IBM.

So one can't help but wonder if Judge Kimball was influenced by these representations as to SCO's solvency and so didn't hurry to fund the constructive trust Novell asked for. If so, SCO is now reaping the benefit, as it gave SCO the window of opportunity to run to bankruptcy court and stay almost everything else. I think that kind of has to bite SCO on the ankle at some point. SCO can't hide in bankruptcy court forever.

******************************

ANNE MARIE KENNELLY (State Bar No. 55666)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
[address, phone, fax]

Corporate Counsel for Hewlett-Packard Company

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re:

The SCO GROUP, INC., et al.,

Debtor(s).

Case No. 07-11337(KG)

(Jointly Administered)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL NOTICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 9010 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Anne Kennelly, Corporate Counsel for Hewlett-Packard Company, hereby gives notice of appearance in this case on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company ("Creditor").

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Rules 2002, 3017 and 9007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and such other rules or statutes as may be applicable, Creditor hereby requests that (1) all notices given or required to be given in this case to creditors, any creditors' committee, or any other parties in interest, whether sent by the Court, the Debtor, any trustee, or any other party in this case and (2) any disclosure statements or plans of reorganization filed in this case, and any notice of hearing on such disclosure statements or plans of reorganization, be served on Creditor at the following address:

Anne Marie Kennelly
Corporate Counsel
Hewlett-Packard Company
[address, telephone, fax, email]

Dated: September 25, 2007

By: ____[signature]_____
Anne Marie Kennelly

Hewlett-Packard Company
[address, phone, fax, email]


  


HP: I'm In! Send All SCO's Bankruptcy Notices Please! - Gupta Prez of SCO Operations | 275 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:32 PM EDT
Post corrections to Groklaw here, please.

Summarize your correction in the title line of your post for best results.

Thanks.

---
Free minds, Free software

[ Reply to This | # ]

[NP] Groklaw News Picks comments here
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:35 PM EDT
Comments about Groklaw News Picks can be consolidated here for easy reference.

---
Free minds, Free software

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT] Groklaw Off Topic Thread
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:37 PM EDT
Comments whose topic does not match the current article can be placed here.

Yippee!

---
Free minds, Free software

[ Reply to This | # ]

NonStop
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 09:54 PM EDT
FYI, NonStop is the name of the architecture for Tandem computers that HP
obtained via Compaq (via Tandem originally). I would assume that SCO owes them
royalties for some feature or another that was incorporated into SCO's UNIX.

"NonStop Royalites" does have a nice ring to it though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • NonStop - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 11:39 PM EDT
  • NonStop - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 11:01 AM EDT
HP: I'm In! Sorta.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 10:13 PM EDT

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but I don't think HP is that interested in the proceedings. They sent the notice via first class mail. The PDF, page 3, says that it was mailed on September 27 and it is just showing up now.

If it were me, I'd at least have sent it via Certified mail with a return receipt.

By the way, my real interest is in the objections that were due today. Either they weren't sent or the court clerk is a little slow in getting them into Pacer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The lies
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 10:23 PM EDT
Why do they lie so much? Because it gets them what they want and there are
hardly ever any negative consequences. The BSF crew know how to really push the
limits while keeping just this side of sanctions.

If BSF ever pulls this on the USPTO, that will be the complete end of the
"system of trust" that has prevailed over there.

You are right, they cannot hide in BK court forever, and their debts aren't
going to be forgiven (as happens in personal BK), which leads me to wonder what
they have planned next. I am sure they have something up their sleeve,
something right along the line of illegality, yet another trick. Their strategy
is to never lose by always staying one step ahead of the slow court system which
gives the benefit of the doubt.

But I wonder, what is their ultimate goal? Not losing is a far cry from winning
and I really don't see how they can win, in any significant way. Why are they
doing this now? Their business is collapsing, they have no FUD street cred
anymore. Is it just for a few bucks of salary? Are people there truly deluded?
I just don't see why they don't just fold, go Ch. 7, and move on to another
scheme. Just about *anything* else seems more likely to be a better use of
their "skills" than this carcass at this point.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO doesn't plan to come out of bankruptcy
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 11:15 PM EDT
The executives have to stick it out till the money is gone, then they can walk
away saying, "We did our best!" If they all left now it would look
like they were gaming system because, they are gaming the system. Or should I
say were, they lost the game long ago, now they're just trying to stay out of
jail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My theory on Sandy's promotion:
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 11:38 PM EDT
My theory on Sandy's promotion:

Sandeep Gupta's duties at SCO included convincing Judge Kimball that Linux
contains infringing code by using his technological credentials to flood the
court with technobabble. He was unable to rise to this task, probably because
he is still contaminated with a few clinging shreds of decency.

Consequently the inner circle at SCO has punished Sandy by making president of
the company. And he can't escape because leaving SCO would amount to a
significant demotion. No one else will hire him into a similar position so far
beyond that commeasurate with his level of wisdom and experience.

-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Operations Inc?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 11:59 PM EDT
First I've seen mention of this...a wholly owned subsidiary?

It's not the same as The SCO Group, Inc.

I suppose it's just listed as a SCOX asset?

Anybody know what they're doing besides SCOX' mobile stuff?

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tandem Computers
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 12:08 AM EDT
Tandem was formed by former HP execs. Link

But, this HP-NONSTOP Royalty Accounting does not make sense to me since it is allegedly based in Texas.

Tandem headquarters are in Cupertino.

Something smells fishy.

Perhaps that is why HP is really interested.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Big companies and bankrupcies
Authored by: Filias Cupio on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 12:08 AM EDT
Big companies like HP must be creditors in a lot of bankrupcy proceedings. How
do such companies deal with it? Is there some section of their legal department
where they have four people who do nothing but represent the company in such
cases? Do they outsource it? Can they sell their debt (deeply discounted) to a
third party who specializes in such proceedings, and who then tries to make a
profit by extracting more than they paid for the debt? Could someone
theoretically go around buying up (and so consolidating) SCOs debts so as to
become one of the top creditors, and hence get a seat in the creditor's
committee?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thrilled
Authored by: Dark on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 01:18 AM EDT
"All executives quoted in press releases are invariably "thrilled", I've observed, no matter what it's about."

Not always. Sometimes they are "excited". I often find that slightly creepy. The things I get "excited" about are usually not appropriate in a business setting, so I wonder what goes on in those board rooms.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perjury?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 01:34 AM EDT
MR. HATCH: Yes, indeed, Your Honor. And I'm happy to have them say in public that we are well-funded as well. (article above)

(Mr Singer) Novell likes to say that SCO is on the point of bankruptcy. It has no proof of that. Transcript from Jan. 23, 2007 Novell Hearing (transcript page 39)

I note that Mr Hatch's statement was not that they were well funded, merely that he was happy to have them say it. I also note that Mr Singer did not actually deny bankruptcy.

Is SCOX or their representatives at risk of having made a false statement under oath?

Are there any stronger/more recent statements denying imminent bankruptcy?

(I'm known on other sites as from-downunder)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gupta for President
Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 01:46 AM EDT
With my apologies in advance - because this isn't a very kind suggestion to make
- here's a theory behind Sandeep's recent promotion.

The Board of Directors of the Good Ship SCO have realised that it has more holes
below the waterline than hull, that it's now a virtual certainty that it will be
wiped out, either by bankruptcy switching to Chapter 7, or by the outstanding
claims from Novell for payment, or by the IBM Counterclaims, which, by virtue of
the August 10 ruling, are going to exact a heavy toll.

In recognition of this the remaining architects of this entire
(farce/scam/strategy) have decided to hoover up as much of the remaining cash
that exists at SCO by awarding eachother promotions and bonuses and taking pay
rises. I suspect that the role of President will result in Gupta receiving at
least a moderate increase in his base salary and bonus numbers.

Perhaps this is just part of the process of making it harder for Novell to show
the Court what happened to the $30 Million they are claiming. Perhaps it's just
"Grab what you can! We're going down!"

Either way this is just cynical, plain and simple.



I am starting to wonder if there is a half-way escape route here. I wonder if,
behind the scenes, Darl will concede to the Bankruptcy Court that his Unix
business is toast and that he'll let the creditors have that. If only, pretty
please, he can spin off the Me Inc business and keep that for himself...

After all, he must realise that noone in the industry would offer him a job
after this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"SCO can't hide in bankruptcy court forever." - why not?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 03:23 AM EDT
Really, why not? What's going to stop them?

Alternatively, what's to stop them coming out, waiting for the court motions to
pile up, then going straight back in (rinse, repeat)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

" Yes, indeed, Your Honor. And I'm happy to have them say in public that we are well-funded"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 04:22 AM EDT
Can this be used in the bankruptcy court as evidence determining SCO's position
(no financial judgments against it have been issued)? Or can this be used
against SCO or its' representatives for misleading the court and/or investors?

Clearly there was a purpose for making this statement and it had nothing to do
with forecasting the possibility of bankruptcy, which I believe had been planned
long , long ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it perjury yet?
Authored by: BobDowling on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 04:26 AM EDT
MR. HATCH: Yes, indeed, Your Honor. And I'm happy to have them say in public that we are well-funded as well.

Did he say this under oath? Is it perjury yet? Do lawyers even take an oath? Presumably lawyers in court are exempted from such petty restrictions as speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


"Justice delayed is justice denied." - William Gladstone (1809 - 1898)

Discuss with reference to the SCO group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP: I'm In! Send All SCO's Bankruptcy Notices Please! - Gupta Prez of SCO Operations
Authored by: AndyC on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 04:26 AM EDT
I had a thought about SCo and the bankruptcy court this morning while I was
thinking about getting up, has the court accepted SCOs application for Chapter
11? Would it be possible for the court to say "No. We can see from your
financials that you have enough money to remain in operation for a good long
time yet, so this case is dismissed."

The only reason why they would try Ch. 11 is to avoid the Constructive Trust,
but that hasn't (won't?) been applied yet. So, according to the balance sheet,
yes, they are losing money, but they have plenty left to reorganise without
bothering the court with Ch. 11. Can the court reject their application?

Andy

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is so unfair!
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 05:13 AM EDT
It was easy to have some fun with IBM, Novell and the creditors' non-committee,
but what are HP up to? I can't believe that HP want to make an example of SCOG
for not paying their bills. The money does not justify the legal costs already
incurred so it cannot be debt recovery. HP were not interested in SCOG's scam,
but were important to SCOG's Unix business. However, HP can let that slide and
provide their own Unix and Linux solutions. So, it's not HP's revenue or
reputation that needs protecting.

Let's try a conspiracy theory. Nope. If HP were involved in a SCOG conspiracy
they wouldn't draw attention to themselves by these requests. Perhaps Darl has
something on them from the pretexting days. I can't see how HP's action would be
helpful or harmful to anyone in SCOG.

So, I have the begging bowl held out to you. What possible reasons could there
be for the active HP interest?

---
Regards
Ian Al

Linux: Genuine Advantage

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Press Release
Authored by: MrCharon on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 05:30 AM EDT
"Customers simply needing updated core SCO UNIX technology will have greater capabilities as well as future mobile plug and play functionality."

I don't ever recall them saying core SCO UNIX technology before.

---
MrCharon
~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mega-mispelings - does Esker work for HP?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 07:34 AM EDT
The bottom right corner text on the first page of the original PDF reads:
"NOTICE OF APPERENCE AND REQUEST FOR SPEICAL NOITCE". Note the
incredible mispelings "APPERENCE", "SPEICAL" and
"NOITCE" - and it's all uppercase!

This made me wonder whether Esker works for HP. Or did he just leave his
mega-yacht once, break into the lawfirm office and introduce this as a funny
easter egg (esker egg?) for us? On all further pages, that text is spelled
correctly. Things that make you go hmm - or ROFLMAO. To teh tyop! :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ghosts of UNIX past
Authored by: rand on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 10:15 AM EDT
Anybody else find interesting the number of original USL partners on the
creditor list?

We always say "Novell bought USL from ATT", but Amdahl, Fujitsu, Sun,
Motorola, ICL, Olivetti, NEC, OKI Electric, III and Toshiba were all in on the
fun, too.

I don't believe the details of the Novell-ATT deal were ever fully revealed; is
it possible SCOG inherited those buy-outs or other royalties and is still paying
for them?



---
The wise man is not embarrassed or angered by lies, only disappointed. (IANAL
and so forth and so on)

[ Reply to This | # ]

We want in, too!
Authored by: The_Pirate on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT
PJ, couldn't you apply to the court to get all the docs sent? Like HP and IBM?

After all, here is a pretty sizeable gang, all with a outspoken interest in the
proceedings...

Besides, we'll get hold of all the stuff sooner or later anyway (Thanks to the
people that went to court!), so why not include us on the mailing list?

Or is that too far fetched?

[ Reply to This | # ]

There was only one company that balked. IBM.
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 11:08 AM EDT
That's SCO claim, and it is some *great* PR for IBM.

Just think how many of Linux supporters feel thankful to the
company that has put big $$$$ to defend *free* Linux. Such
support gives IBM one more reason not to settle with SCO
but fight till no SCO will remain.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )