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 Asks to File Severance/Benefits Info Under Seal in Bankruptcy Case
Monday, October 15 2007 @ 05:48 PM EDT

There is another hearing scheduled in the SCO Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On October 25, there will be a hearing at 4 PM Eastern time. The hearing will be about the SCO motion to seal [PDF]. Yes, friends. They want a private moment in the bankruptcy.

This has to do with SCO's motion to pay [PDF] its employees the severance and benefits they expected if they are terminated post-bankruptcy. SCO says it wants to keep the severance terms and the names of terminated employees and severance amounts private. So far, all they have said publicly is that they terminated some employees in the finance department. And SCO lists Bert Young as the one insider affected by this motion. But there is an unnamed "management employee" affected too who is also terminated. The motion to seal says that SCO started with 123 employees, but they have "or will shortly" let go 16 employees. They anticipate there could be more.

They total the amount they propose to pay to nonmanagement, noninsiders as a group as $6,685.95. SCO says the severance pay for Young and the "management employee" is "less than ten times the severance pay to be given in the same calendar year to the nonmanagement terminated employees." I assume that's the $6,685.95 figure, but since we don't know when there could be more layoffs, I don't actually know. Anyway, SCO wants to pay them what they expected before SCO filed for bankruptcy protection:

6. Contemporaneously herewith, the Debtors filed the Severance motion. Pursuant to the Severance Motion, the Debtors seek approving the payment of severance and accrued benefits to non-insider terminated employees as well as to one insider, terminated employees pursuant to ordinary course programs established by the Debtors' prior to the Petition Date. The Severance Motion summarizes the Severance Policy, but does not disclose the identity or specific amount proposed to be paid to each Terminated Employee.

On its face, one might simply think it's not enough money to worry about, all things considered, the way SCO portrays it. But because it involves Bert Young, I'm thinking some might wish to object, if only because he's a defendant in another bankruptcy already, the one regarding MarchFIRST, where Young was briefly CFO. That doesn't mean he's guilty, of course, but it means it'd be natural to want to look a little more closely, particularly since the allegation there was waste of corporate assets. Last I looked, the matter has not yet been resolved. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he's not guilty at all in that case. He would naturally want the court in this next bankruptcy to put a stamp of approval on his severance package, if only to protect him from any future shareholders on a rampage. If I were him, I'd want that to happen, and you would too. Being put through litigation is something one never does twice, if there is a way to avoid it. I was even wondering if he quit precisely to avoid any possibility of a replay. You can almost hear the "Oh no, not again." That's what one can imagine if he's not guilty.

I totally get individuals wanting at least some privacy. The Bankruptcy Code does allow for sealing to protect an individual from identity theft or "other unlawful injury". The motion quotes the language for you. But then the motion goes on and on about protecting trade secrets and private commercial information. So maybe this is about protecting SCO more than the individuals terminated. It is very mysterious. "The Debtors are fearful that their current employees as well as the identified Terminated Employees may experience harassment from others in the Debtors' industry." Huh? And a footnote says there are numerous internet postings discussing the case already. Perhaps the court can figure out a nice balance where the individuals can be protected, while allowing information like severance terms to be made public. SCO's motion, rather implausibly, to me anyway, argues that if the information is made public, "poaching" of its remaining employees by competitors may happen. I consider that unlikely, since their problem is more likely to be extreme difficulty in getting hired by anyone in the industry ever again. Then SCO adds this:

Moreover, the Debtors have become aware of threats being made to individuals relating to anticipated letting go of employees by the Debtors. To disclose this confidential information to the public at this point in time may expose the identified and non-identified Terminated Employees to additional threats and harassment.

Does that make sense to you? I can't tell from the language who is threatening whom. Are employees threatening SCO to try to forestall being let go? That seems an unlikely employee job retention strategy. Any threats so far would have to be SCOfolk v. SCOfolk, I think, since no one knows the names of any of those terminated yet. Or is this referring to the folks already terminated in the Finance Group? There is an untold story there. Is the language implying that they are on the warpath? That they'd get upset, maybe, if friends go let go and the bigwigs float away with fabulous golden parachutes? I don't know, because the language is so unclear. I'd need to see some specifics on this, as it sounds unbelievable. SCO has made such wild statements in the past in what turned out to be, from all I've ever seen, a smear campaign to make Linux users seem dangerous. So I'm a little from Missouri on this one. On the other hand, I've received threats myself, not from Linux people, but the other side, so maybe that is who they mean. After all, why would anyone else but SCO folk be upset that they were laying off people?

In short, the story is getting ugly. I know that doesn't surprise you. The one argument that SCO makes that is rational sounding is that if employees know they will get severance, they'll be less likely to look around for a job right now, to avoid a payment gap. Any such mass exodus would be detrimental to SCO, which is claiming a desire to stay in business, after all. I notice SCO also asks that any terminated employee have to sign a release "of any and all claims they may have against the Debtors".

SCO offers to give the sealed information to the US Trustee and counsel of any "official committee of unsecured creditors", if appointed. That hardly seems a broad enough group, unless they plan to put Novell and IBM on the committee. And what if there is never a committee? This motion is talking about paying what could conceivably be a great deal of money, and Novell might just feel that it's money that should go to Novell instead. How are they to know, though, if they can't see the terms and details? You may recall the largesse in the old Canopy, when it was headed up by Ralph Yarro, so some oversight as to just what "ordinary course of business" means to SCO when it comes to severance and such might not seem too extreme, particularly when the motion to pay them includes this information:

WHile the Severance Policy outlines the general parameters of the severance that an employee is eligible for, the Debtors' Board of Directors ultimately approves the amount of severance to be paid to a terminated employee.

I put it in red, to symbolize a red flag. As I read this, it's saying that SCO Group could terminate, say Chris Sontag or Darl McBride, and award them zillions of dollars as a bonus, but sealed so no one knows but the Trustee, who is unlikely to be altogether familiar with this long, sad SCO story or even what is normal in the industry. The Severance Policy says that you can get severance up to a full year, if you are on the Executive VP level, for example. Darl gets paid rather a lot of money, from my standpoint. If the company was run into the ground, if he is terminated, should he get a year's salary and bonuses? If you are Novell or the other creditors, you might not say yes. That seems like a very large blank check to me, so much so that it might explain the over-the-top allegations about "threats" and "poaching". They have to justify it somehow. The deadline to object is October 22nd. This is a speeded up process requested by SCO and already ordered (also order to shorten time on sealing motion) by the judge. The other new matters are:

  • American Express wants all notices;
  • Epiq has filed a Supplemental Affidavit/Declaration of Service RE Notice of Commencement of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases, Meeting of Creditors and Fixing of Certain Dates - it forgot to type on the envelopes that legal documents were inside, so it redid all the notices

Here's the latest in the docket history:

116 - Filed & Entered: 10/12/2007
Motion to Authorize (B)
Docket Text: Motion to Authorize to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accured Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Form of Order) (O'Neill, James)

117 - Filed & Entered: 10/12/2007
Terminated: 10/15/2007
Motion to Shorten Time (B)
Docket Text: Motion to Shorten Time on Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition and to Fix a Hearing Date [Requested Hearing Date: 10/25/07 @ 4:00 p.m at USBC, 824 Market Street, 6th Fl., Courtroom #3][Requested Objection Deadline: 10/22/07 at 4:00 P.M.] (related document(s)[116] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Form of Order) (O'Neill, James)

118 - Filed & Entered: 10/12/2007
Motion to Seal
Docket Text: Motion to Seal (RE: related document(s)[116] Motion to Authorize (B), Motion to Authorize (B)). Documents and Data Subject to Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition [Hearing: 10/25/07 @ 4:00 P.M. at USBC, 824 Market Street, 6th Fl., Courtroom #3][Objection Deadline: 10/22/07 @ 4:00 P.M.] Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Form of Order) (O'Neill, James)

119 - Filed & Entered: 10/12/2007
Terminated: 10/15/2007
Motion to Shorten Time (B)
Docket Text: Motion to Shorten Time on Debtors' Motion to File Under Seal Documents and Data Subject to Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition and to Fix a Hearing Date (related document(s)[118] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 10/25/2007 at 04:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 10/22/2007. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Form of Order) (O'Neill, James)

120 - Filed & Entered: 10/15/2007
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service Regarding Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to all Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition (related document(s)[116] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James)

121 - Filed & Entered: 10/15/2007
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service re: Motion to Shorten Time on Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition and to Fix a Hearing Date (related document(s)[117] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James)

122 - Filed & Entered: 10/15/2007
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service re: Motion to Seal (RE: related document(s)[116] Motion to Authorize (B), Motion to Authorize (B)). Documents and Data Subject to Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition (related document(s)[118] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James)

123 - Filed & Entered: 10/15/2007
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service re: Motion to Shorten Time on Debtors' Motion to File Under Seal Documents and Data Subject to Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition and to Fix a Hearing Date (related document(s)[119] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (O'Neill, James)

124 - Filed & Entered: 10/15/2007
Affidavit/Declaration of Service
Docket Text: Supplemental Affidavit/Declaration of Service by Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC, Regarding Notice of Commencement of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases, Meeting of Creditors and Fixing of Certain Dates (related document(s)[64], [65] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A) (Werkheiser, Rachel)

125 - Filed & Entered: 10/15/2007
Order on Motion to Shorten Time
Docket Text: Order Fixing Hearing and Shortening Notice on Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition (Related Doc # [116], [117]) Order Signed on 10/15/2007. (LJS, )

126 - Filed & Entered: 10/15/2007
Order on Motion to Shorten Time
Docket Text: Order Fixing Hearing and Shortening Notice on Debtors' Motion to File Under Seal Documents and Data Subject to Debtors' Motion for Authorization to (I) Continue Prepetition Severance Policy Applicable to All Employees and (II) Pay Severance and Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated Postpetition(Related Doc # [118], [119]) Order Signed on 10/15/2007. (LJS, )

127 - Filed & Entered: 10/15/2007
Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: Notice of Appearance and Request for Service of Notices American Express Travel Related Svcs Co Inc Corp Card c/o Becket and Lee LLP POB 3001 Malvern PA 19355-0701 Filed by American Express Travel Related Svcs Co Inc Corp Card.. (Weisman, Gilbert)


  


SCO Asks to File Severance/Benefits Info Under Seal in Bankruptcy Case | 193 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: racergreg on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 05:52 PM EDT
Please put the correction in the title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Off-Topic Thread
Authored by: racergreg on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT
Clickies, please!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks discussions here...
Authored by: Erwan on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 05:59 PM EDT
As usual

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

severance is for going concerns, innit?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 06:18 PM EDT
I don't buy SCO's argument for a New York Minute--they are attempting to seal the 'golden parachute' details, nothing more, imo.

Is it common practice for Chapter 11 companies to hand out severance packages? That seems counterintuitive, to say the least.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mystery employee
Authored by: JamesK on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 06:32 PM EDT
'But there is an unnamed "management employee" affected too who is
also terminated.'

Any chance that employee has the initials "DM"? ;-)

Anyway, sealing this part smells like an attempt to scam the employees (again).




---
There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Sign a release when you get fired?
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 06:43 PM EDT
What chutzpah.


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmmm! Someone going somewhere?
Authored by: tyche on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 06:45 PM EDT
"Notice of Appearance and Request for Service of Notices American Express
Travel Related Svcs Co Inc Corp Card"

American Express Travel Related Services? Now WHY would I want to look into
whether this was past or future? I just don't understand why I'm so suspicious.
Heh heh heh

Craig
Tyche

---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett

[ Reply to This | # ]

Harassment of employees
Authored by: stend on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 07:09 PM EDT
Honestly, I think that the article presents an example of the type of harassment SCO's employees can expect to experience.
their problem is more likely to be extreme difficulty in getting hired by anyone in the industry ever again.
These sort of comments have been floating around Groklaw for years. This is a mostly (hopefuly) passive sort of harassment - "creating a hostile internet environment" - which exists for current SCO technical employees, and having their names appear in a bankruptcy filing would prevent them from keeping that fact between themselves and their prospective future employers. I'm not saying that it is unfair - I review resumes and participate in interviews to fill openings on my support team, and were I to see 1-2 years of work for the SCO Group on a resume I was reviewing, I'd probably be reviewing it with a more critical eye. There are questions that I would feel to be relevant to a position that I would want to clear with legal counsel myself before participating in an interview, because without some answers, I don't know that I could give a current or recent SCO Group employee a fair assessment in an employment interview. It's guilt by association, perhaps, but it's an association by choice.

---
Please see bio for disclaimer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

WHAT???? SCO Asks to File Severance/Benefits Info Under Seal in Bankruptcy Case
Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 07:12 PM EDT
I'm not a lawyer. I've had no legal training. I don't even play a lawyer on TV.

However, I've been with companies through three, count 'em, three different Chap
11 re-orgs. I've read a great deal of the filings involved and I've had to
generate reports for Creditor Committees as well.

I've never heard of anything like what SCOX is attempting here.

This is despite being involved in re-org associated head count reductions and
facility closings.

It's simply amazing what one sees happen in this case.

I am deeply suspicious of what is going on here. In addition to having been
through 3 different Chap 11 re-orgs and never seeing the like of this before,
I've also had first hand experience in observing courtroom shenanigans where
control of money was being decided. This filing reminds me very strongly of what
I've observed before.

If I were a creditor here, I'd be protesting this loud, long and hard.

---
"When listening to MS, always remember the tongue speaking is forked." -
gormanly

[ Reply to This | # ]

The plan?
Authored by: kozmcrae on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 07:15 PM EDT
SCO files all these motions but their demise seems to accelerate at an ever
increasing angle. Could it be that's the plan? After all, they've done as much
damage to Linux as they can. Their job is done. It's time to "jump
ship" with as much loot as possible. But Darl needs to make it look like
they're fighting tooth and nail to keep the ship afloat. Otherwise the
stockholders (the poor saps) will be looking for blood. After all this nonsense
is done I'm sure he's got a deal to hawk his 7 step program to business success
on late night infomercials all lined up.

Richard

---
Coming soon: Signature 2.0

[ Reply to This | # ]

I understand it is your job to be a ...
Authored by: dfarning on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 09:31 PM EDT
pessimist. But I think it is time for you to sit back and chuckle.

We like it when SCO makes outrageous requests. I think we all can agree that
they were not nearly half as clever as they though they were going to be in a
certain court in Utah.

Judge Kimball kept giving them rope and they kept tightening that rope securely
around their necks. Then, they lept off the cliff into bankruptcy court.

It seems that they have legal tourette's syndrome. They just can't keep
themselves from filing briefs.

Have faith, the judge is noticing that while SCO is spending a lot of time
talking about how they are an on going concern, their filings are all about
protecting the principles.

Also, SCO's current shenanigans are going to make the other players show more of
their cards. BSF is placing themselves into the postion of being questioned if
they are striving to protect SCO's interests or their own. Common sense says
they should drop this case and distance them selves as much as possible. Why
are they sticking so tight?

Over the past few months we have been wondering where Novell's interests lie.
How tightly have they linked their futures to Microsoft's? We will see how
strongly they fight or how quickly they settle.

Sun and MS seem to have financed this fools errand 16 quarters ago. Microsoft
is going to lie low. But Sun's position will be interesting, do they speak up
or sit quietly.

There has been mush gnashing of teeth about how this bankruptcy has been a
brilliant defensive move to avoid paying the piper. Instead I think that we
will find that it was a 'hail mary' pass into a very strong defense.

David

[ Reply to This | # ]

If SCO is denied chapter 11, will companies sell to them?
Authored by: Filias Cupio on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 09:33 PM EDT
Here's my understanding:

If SCO are under chapter 11 and (with court approval) order $10,000 of widgets,
and pay cash in advance for them, then WidgetCorp is guaranteed to be able to
keep that $10,000.

If SCO are not under chapter 11 and order $10,000 of widgets with payment
up-front, and shortly afterwards SCO goes into chapter 11, then some of that
$10,000 might be forcably extracted from WidgetCorp to pay other creditors - as
it is unfair for WidgetCorp to get paid 100% when other creditors who provided
goods/services at the same time do not.

Now consider if SCO is denied chapter 11 protection, as until the Novell case is
tried, they are solvant. Before the trial, they try to buy $10,000 of widgets,
which they need to stay in business, offering cash up-front. It would be
sensible for WidgetCorp to refuse to sell to them, fearing that in a few days
the Novell trial will plunge SCO into bankrupcy (for real, this time) and
they'll lose most or all of that $10,000, despite it being a cash sale.

So, if SCO are denied chapter 11, will they be able to find anyone to sell them
anything? If this is a well justified fear, can SCO use it to avoid being denied
chapter 11? (Could the judge tell them it is their own fault for delaying the
Novell trial?)

What about money spent now, while they are in the twilight zone, having filed
for chapter 11 but not yet having had it accepted? (Every bankrupcy goes through
such a phase, so this must be well established.) Say they buy $10,000 in widgets
today (approved by the bankrupcy court), they get denied chapter 11 a week from
now, and a month from now, as a result of the trial they file again (7 or 11)
and get accepted. Can any of that $10,000 be taken back from WidgetCorp?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Christopher Sontag is gone
Authored by: ak on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 10:21 PM EDT

Christopher Sontag was removed from this page a few weeks ago: (Warning: linked to sco.com)

SCO Executive and Board Profiles

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asks to File Severance/Benefits Info Under Seal in Bankruptcy Case
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 11:33 PM EDT
One could wonder how SCO could truly be concerned about their employees to this
degree and yet have absolutely no problem pursuing a meritless lawsuit.
SCO believes in their prowess at both aggressively presenting half-truths to get
their way in pursuing their own goals and presenting confusing or seeming
misunderstanding to hide from questioning. Onlookers of various types have put
SCO on notice that SCO has exhausted any goodwill extended to them.
At some point we will be fools enough to express suspicion of SCO's dead
carcasss but until then any suspicion is warranted.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Quick Points
Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 01:45 AM EDT
Firstly, with respect to SCO claiming to be aware of unspecified threats being
made against employees...

I think we can take this claim with a pinch of salt. The best way to think about
this is, to borrow an expression, "Problem-Reaction-Solution". It
works like this:

You want to file some material at bankruptcy that you know will produce howls of
protest, derision or laughter from the public gallery if it is seen. So you
decide that you want to file under seal. That's your solution. Working
backwards, you need to generate a reaction from the Court that is such that the
Court decides that sealing a motion is the right thing to do. That's the
reaction that you want. So working backwards from this, you try and generate a
"problem" of a kind that makes your desired "solution" the
most suitable reaction. It's kinda subtle, but it works all the time.

So these comments about non-specific threats against employees are merely a
smokescreen to give the Court some vague feeling that, hey, it's probably a good
idea to let SCO seal this filing.

It's probably close to being the oldest trick in the book, and is possibly the
deft work of SCO's volunteer bankruptcy counsel, BSF. It has all the right
hallmarks...




Secondly, with respect to SCO wanting to get their terminating employees to sign
waivers and documents.

This is actually very common, in my experience, particularly under circumstances
where the parting of the ways is not entirely amicable. SCO - or much more
accurately the Directors of the company - will be anxious to ensure that anyone
terminated signs a legal waiver to guarantee that the departing individual does
not later bring suit against SCO or the company's directors for any actions that
took place during said employees period of service.

This is done to prevent the employee from taking a severance package and then
turning around and suing. Typically companies offer it along with a financial
package that is slightly over-and-above the minimum they are obliged to give.
The deal is "Sign this document and take the extra cash; refuse to sign and
fight for every penny: your choice". It's not pretty, but it is by no means
unique to SCO. I've seen it several times myself with other companies.

I guess we have to remember that - and allow me to be purely hypothetical for a
moment ... ;o) - suppose that there was a scam of some kind behind SCO's
legal actions against IBM, Red Hat, et al. Ooh I don't know. Just suppose that
it was a shake-down deal or something. There's a chance that one or two of the
regular Joe employees might pick up some little item of fact about it. Say
Darl's PA, for example. If you were Darl, the last thing you would want would be
to make it easy for that employee to attack you after termination. Hence deals
of this kind.

Obviously, such deals would always be trumped by the law. For example, if the
SEC filed against SCO's directors, then a PA could be called as a witness.


Perhaps, as has been the situation with the SCOvIBM case, we will get an
understanding of the content of the motion, even if it is filed under seal.

This is nothing if not fascinating.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Delaware bankruptcy courts are the nation's most business friendly
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 03:14 AM EDT
Leave it to SCO to put that to the test. This is also a great test to find out
how liberal-minded the judge is in interpreting bankruptcy law. SCO's antics
are actually funny enough to make it hard to stay annoyed with them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

this is really amazing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 03:17 AM EDT
What these people hope? That some of them will avoid jail? As far as I see this,
there are millions stolen from Novell and paid out to present/former SCO
employees. Those employees are surely aware of the fact that this money is ill
gotten. So, there is nothing that could protect them from prison, except if
their names stay secret from Novell.
But i don't see how could that happen.
And those who throw money out of the window, how will they avoid the wrath of
SCO shareholders?
Though, i guess most of the current shareholders are people who bet on Linux's
demise, so good riddance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Filing in Busybox vs. Monsoon -- an extension of the timelimit for Monsoon to reply
Authored by: JesseW on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 03:33 AM EDT
I just checked the court ( ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov ; case number
1:07-cv-08205-JES ), and there's a new filing; an order extending the time limit
Monsoon has to respond to the summons. The extension was filed on October 10th,
and expires on October 22nd. So, someone should check the court around Oct
23rd, and see what's new. The text of the filing, in case anyone is interested,
is below.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. has until October
22, 2007 to answer the Complaint filed on Sept. 19, 2007 by Plaintiffs Erik
Andersen and Rob Landley.

---
(Contact me for comment licensing, e.g. GPL, CC, PD, etc.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Threats to terminated employees
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 03:54 AM EDT

Moreover, the Debtors have become aware of threats being made to individuals relating to anticipated letting go of employees by the Debtors. To disclose this confidential information to the public at this point in time may expose the identified and non-identified Terminated Employees to additional threats and harassment.

The only way I can make sense of this is if someone made a comment on some web forum along the lines of "If I ever find out who works for those SCO scumbags I'm gonna beat the tar out of them". On the one hand, the Open Source community is so huge that it's impossible for it not have some bad apples. On the other hand, if something like this had happened and SCO became aware of it, I'd think they'd be very noisy about it, rather than being coy as thy are in this motion.

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ex-SCO Employees are Tainted
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT
The problem here is that SCO themselves tainted their employees by saying that if you had ever seen their super secret UNIX code you were tainted for life.

Based on those legal pleadings I would be forced to decline ANY person applying for a job from SCO because, without serious legal counsel, I would be liable related to any project that person worked on.
I'm reposting this comment by Anonymous at the top level so more people see it.
This is the real issue with ex-SCO people, folks, and the reason why I too could never knowingly employ one. - giafly

[ Reply to This | # ]

Follow the Cash Flow ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 04:45 AM EDT
I haven't seen much discussion regarding the two parties whose "needs" are crucial to this whole process. These are parties who don't need to file motions to act. The financial statements filed with the court on a month-by-month basis will tell us how these two parties view the case.

The first is Berger Singerman, P.A., SCO's bankruptcy counsel. They got their *cough* "retainer" before the filing. That retainer typically includes some initial number of hours of work. They probably racked up a fair number of hours (especially associates and paralegals) over the weekend prior to the filing. Any work after that many hours of work is expended needs to be billed (through the court), and paid for. All of the motions (and we've just seen the start of the deluge) translate into paralegal hours and associate hours. Lots of 'em. And if anything needs to be responded to, partner hours. If there is insufficient cash in the Estate or being generated by the going business of the Debtor in Possession to pay the bill, then they'll stop playing. Bankruptcy counsel is somewhat notorious for leaving the client to twist slowly in the wind when their cash flow stops.

The other is the U.S. Trustee. The U.S. Trustee gets paid either by the Debtor in Possession or out of the Estate. If there is income being generated by the Debtor in Possession, then the U.S. Trustee has an interest in the bankruptcy continuing or its being resolved. If the U.S. Trustee can't see how they will get paid without dissolving the Estate, then they'll "suggest" refiling the case as Chapter 7, i.e., dissolution, and take their fee out of the Estate.

Neither the U.S. Trustee nor the Bankruptcy Counsel are in the business of betting on the future. If there's no cash, then there's no case.

So the Novell motion is critical. If Novell gets the undisputed SVRX royalties before the royalties can flow through SCO, it's game over. If the undisputed royalties first come in to SCO, then the U.S. Trustee and Berger Singerman, P.A., can divert the cash for their interests.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keys to the Kingdom
Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT
IANAL, and I haven't followed this saga as closely as others. However, what pieces of it I have seen strike me as having the potential of being done in "Bad Faith," or "Unclean Hands." In other words, they knew they didn't have a case and proceeded anyways- essentially misrepresenting themselves to the Court. While most SCO employees would not have any information to that end, there surely are some who do. And they are likely losing their job soon. So it wouldn't surprise me if SCO is really trying to minimize that threat by a) making sure the outside world doesn't know the full list of names and b) get some of their folks enough money that they stay quiet.

Of course it could also simply be that SCO has established a culture of secrecy, and are now hesitant to do anything that would warrant scrutiny. Thank PJ for that one!

---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky and Bullwink

[ Reply to This | # ]

Litigation To The Rescue
Authored by: BassSinger on Tuesday, October 16 2007 @ 05:06 PM EDT
Ooh. I get it. These concerns about threats are merely laying the groundwork
for the next escape plan.

The next step is for Daryl to threaten the company, then SCO fires him, then he
sues them for unlawful termination, they settle out of court for an amount that
just happens to be all of the remaining money in SCO's bank accounts. This way
Daryl gets away with the last of the cash before Novell gets any.

<dream scene>

Oh, wait, that won't work the money is tied up in bankruptcy. Hmm. Gotta come
up with some other plan to make me look like an innocent victum. Gee, that is
getting harder and harder to do. Let's see, "Just following orders."
won't work. "They misunderstood what I said." is out. "They
made me do it." has possibilities, but who could *they* be? Oh, yeah! No.
Oh, no! They tend to play rough. I don't want to use them. Now if I could
just find a way to blame it on that nasty Judge Dale K. ...

</dream scene>

Times must be getting desperate around the old corporate offices.

Tom

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we
created them."
-- Albert Einstein

[ 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 )