|
|
| SCO Asks Bankruptcy Court for More Time to File a Plan |
 |
|
Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 03:07 PM EST
|
SCO has just filed a rather clever motion [PDF], asking for more time to exclusively file a reorganization plan. Normally, they have a deadline to exclusively file their reorganization plan by January 12. After that, any creditor can file one. Like, for instance, Novell or IBM. SCO would like to extend their exclusivity until July. Here's why: they remind the court that Novell and SCO can't get to trial in Utah and finish up there until maybe February. Then the judge may take a few weeks to write up his decision, quantifying Novell's damages. So now you are in mid-March. So far, one can follow, and it makes sense. How do you hop to July, though? SCO apparently wants to appeal first and then reorganize: Accordingly, the Debtors estimate that it will not have a ruling on Novell's damages, nor an ability to appeal the August 10 summary judgment ruling, until mid-March 2008. The Debtors, therefore, request a period of 60 days after that anticipated event, corresponding with a date 120 days after the current exclusivity bar date, to maintain its exclusivity under section 1121. I know. Breath-taking. They want their creditors to wait and not get paid anything until July, so SCO can sue some more. Well, why not? They're living and suing on what most of us view as Novell's money already.
Here's what the "exclusivity" part means: Who Can File a Plan
The debtor (unless a "small business debtor") has a 120-day period during which it has an exclusive right to file a plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(b). This exclusivity period may be extended or reduced by the court. But, in no event, may the exclusivity period, including all extensions, be longer than 18 months. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(d). After the exclusivity period has expired, a creditor or the case trustee may file a competing plan. The U.S. trustee may not file a plan. 11 U.S.C. § 307.
A chapter 11 case may continue for many years unless the court, the U.S. trustee, the committee, or another party in interest acts to ensure the case's timely resolution. The creditors' right to file a competing plan provides incentive for the debtor to file a plan within the exclusivity period and acts as a check on excessive delay in the case.
I think Novell's reorganization plan for SCOwould be more likely a strong suggestion that SCO needs to go into Chapter 7, and SCO would rather not. Here are the filings:
289 -
Filed & Entered: 01/02/2008
Motion to Extend/Limit Exclusivity Period (B)
Docket Text: Motion to Extend Exclusivity Period for Filing a Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 2/5/2008 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 1/29/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Proposed Form of Order # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
290 -
Filed & Entered: 01/02/2008
Certificate of No Objection
Docket Text: Certificate of No Objection Regarding Debtors' Motion to (I) Amend Certain Amounts of Payments Authorized Pursuant to the Employee Wage Order and (II) Authorize the Payment of the Amended Amounts to Certain Employees (related document(s)[279] ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - Proposed Order# (2) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 03:45 PM EST |
A creditor should slip in and file a reorganization plan for SCO that is based
on abandoning the litigation angle and concentrating on the core business of
providing UNIX like OS support. With expansion to cover migration to and support
of Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 03:46 PM EST |
They want their creditors to wait and not get paid anything until July
of which year?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 03:49 PM EST |
Everything has been about delay, why should this be different? Heaven forbid
they do any preperatory work now.
I'm just curious where they get their next cash infusion from to keep this
going.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 03:51 PM EST |
| To assist PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 03:53 PM EST |
Interesting stuff that is not directly relevant to the article, but within the
scope of Groklaw should go here. Please try to make clickable links where
possible.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Maybe not OT - but isn't what Lessig's new "anti-corruption" thing -apply to newSCO's games too? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 04:00 PM EST
- SCOXQ.PK making the pink sheets look bad - Authored by: PSaltyDS on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 07:16 PM EST
- Argument = assertion + evidence [LANCOR v OLPC] - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 07:30 PM EST
- UK gov sets rules for hacker tool ban - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 07:41 PM EST
- How DARE you - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 11:03 PM EST
- good good - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 05:36 AM EST
- An interesting news item - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 11:44 PM EST
- Investors, "Beware" of Record Companies - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 12:34 PM EST
- OT: Microsoft patents Wish Lists - Authored by: Ted Powell on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 12:43 PM EST
- OT: Microsoft looking for developers with EMACS experience - Authored by: Ted Powell on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 12:56 PM EST
- SP3 for Office 2003 disables older formats - Authored by: Ribbit on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 01:58 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 03:54 PM EST |
They should file a plan which is conditional on the outcome of the trial:
"If we win the trial (yeah, right), we will do this...
If we lose the trial we will appeal, if we win the appeal, we will do this...,
if we lose the appeal, we will do this..."
There is also the matter of what they'll do between now and July - at the rate
they're going, will they have any assets left (whoever they belong to) in 6
month's time? There won't be much point filing a reorganisation plan in July if
there's nothing left to reorganise by then.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 03:55 PM EST |
Please indicate which Newspick topic in the title of your post, and if you can
make clickable links to any other material which you reference, that would be
really great, thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sears malware? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 02:37 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 04:00 PM EST |
| .... that people are so incensed by the latest outrageous behaviour by the
SCOundrels that they could neither contain their anger for long enough, nor wait
for someone else to create the three canonical threads. I can understand that,
it is really outrageous, even more so than most of their antics thus far. I
think my blood pressure rose by about 1000 psi too...... I think we are in for
some really strong comments. Please remember the requirement to avoid bad
language, even in the face of such provocation! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 04:12 PM EST |
This isn't a surprise, really. I honestly don't think even SCO understands what
it's doing anymore. Honestly. I think it's kind of like the Japanese soldiers
you used to hear about back in the 80's, the ones that had been on isolated
islands and were still fighting the war, never knew it had ended?
I think they've been fighting the FUDwar so long, they don't really understand
why they do it anymore. They just trudge through the motions, not even looking
at the future, just trying to keep the battle going a few more days, just
another quarter.
I can't see how any sane person could think they have a chance of winning at
this point, and the longer it goes on, the more likely someone will see some
jail time (SEC investigation?). Even the law firm is caught up in the gears,
moving forward, slowly getting ground up, no way to stop it without going to
jail for sure, and no way to win.
I bet it's like some lurid nightmare they can't escape, like being in a
Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. They know eventually the guy with sharp knives
is coming for them, but they just can't figure out how to change the channel.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 04:28 PM EST |
| More D E L A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 04:44 PM EST |
Since they do not have a reorganization plan and apparently have no intent of
producing one for at least six more months, doesn't this mean that there is no
need for the court to approve any external costs and expenses since they could
not possibly be part of such a reorganization and consequently are not in the
best interest of the estate?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 04:51 PM EST |
They've had 3 months, and have already spent $0.75M on lawyers and such for
motions that didn't have a chance and other non-revenue generating activities.
But nothing in those bills hints of suggestion they have been working on a reorg
plan.
At that burn rate, they don't have that much time left. Shouldn't the
creditors, Novel, Trustee, etc all chime in and deny this motion? After all,
SCO wanted protection by the court, but that protection comes at the cost of SCO
making an honest effort to try to recover from the hole you dug. And now they
say it will months more before they can even start?
I giggled using the word "honest" and "SCO" in the same
sentence...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elderlycynic on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 04:56 PM EST |
Well, one way would be to propose an alternative, such as that
SCO is given one calendar month from the date on which Kimball
issues his ruling to file a plan. And that's what I would
guess (though I probably have their alternative wrong).
If SCO wants time for the appeal to go through, too, it will
be in the delightful position of having to explain to one
judge why SCO knows better than another judge ....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 05:10 PM EST |
Were I a creditor, I'd object to the extension and point out that SCO
themselves created their situation. On the very eve of the trial that would
settle the issues they raise to justify the extension they filed for bankruptcy
and asked repeatedly for everything related to their other legal actions
to be stayed. They claim now that their actions will in fact prolong the
bankruptcy. This is not in the best interests of the creditors, and the
management responsible should be removed and replaced with one which will act in
the best interests of the estate and the creditors. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 05:12 PM EST |
Here's the logic:
First, posit that SCO is DESPERATELY trying to avoid the pending UTAH trial. SCO
does not want to be exposed to cross-examination regarding the license
agreements with Microsoft.
The only way they can avoid the trial is to (a) settle with Novell on damages,
or (b) bring another motion to stop the trial.
How do you accomplish either goal when you have no leverage to bargain with? You
try to bootstrap some leverage wherever you can.
What can SCO create, and then use as leverage to bargain with? DELAY.
Delay here further erodes the 'res' that may be the subject of the constructive
trust, moving the Utah trial into potential ground for a mootness argument.
"The Res is all gone." (not saying it would succeed, though).
Delay also further frustrates Novell, creating some leverage for settlement.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 05:20 PM EST |
Simply:
There is no reason a plan that assumes Novell will get some amount of money
should not have been created by now. That ruling was a long time ago. Any
company that wants to get out of Chapter 11, would/should have created such a
plan by now. Any sane company would assume the worst, and come up with a plan
that gets them out of Chapter 11 at some date in the future with a sound
business model.
But, what if they want to appeal? Since you've come up with a model that
includes paying Novell monies owed, any unsuccessful appeal would not matter,
and a successful appeal would enrich their coffers to the point that it would
move the date they get out of Chapter 11 to a point sooner in time (or actual
pay some other debtors what they are fully owed). Speaking as if there would be
any money left (ha,ha).
If I were the judge, the answer would be NO. You’ve asked for my protection and
these are the rules. If SCO wanted more time because they hadn’t fully fleshed
out their plan, say a week or two, I’d agree. This "We can’t think of what
to do next because we can appeal, and appeal the appeal, and we need more time
because things might go our way", sounds like new management is needed to
me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 05:22 PM EST |
... it is SO obvious, I wonder why nobody ever saw saw it
before.
SCO are attempting to bankrupt the USA legal system, not
IBM, Novell et al.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 05:35 PM EST |
Do we still not have a concrete date for the Utah trial?
MSS2
PS: When we get such a concrete date, I strongly suspect that we will see
another day-before motion from SCO to try to avoid the trial. They're scared to
death of that trial (at least, judging by their behavior so far).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vb on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 05:45 PM EST |
IBM is next on Kimball's schedule after the Novell trial wraps up.
I recall that the broad stay on litigation, such as IBM, will likely be lifted
after a reorganizatgion plan is filed.
This ensures that SCO won't get stomped by Novell in February and then
immediately swished by IBM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 06:07 PM EST |
One possible explanation about what may be happening in regard to SCO's ...
1) Attempts to 'palm off' its Unix assets
2) Delays, delays, delays
is that the end game is that Novell will prevail and the only way SCO can now
pay Novell what is likely to be due, will be to hand over all remaining assets
the company has - which is why they have tried so hard to pass the Unix baton.
That tactic appeared to be little more than a blatant way of keeping the 'Unix
assets' out of Novell's hands which in turn would allow the anti-Linux odium to
be continued in other ways.
The delays, as always, 'keep the ball in the air' while SCO burns up more cash
paying clever lawyers to conjure up ways they might achieve the above goals.
Thus far they have been thwarted but as we have seen, while they have a new ploy
they will employ it. They have nothing to lose (they have technically lost it
all already).
D Marker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gard on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 06:09 PM EST |
Hi,
I haven't read the filing, but going by the story lead, it looks like SCO is
arguing maintaining their exclusivity till July will not affect anybody else. I
don't see how other creditors who are not involved in the litigations or who
have stakes in the outcome of the Novell trial will buy that. HP, who IIRC is a
creditor, might want to see the SCO re-org plan and file an alternative one of
their own (if I am right, HP, here's your second chance to redeem yourself!).
Judge Gross will have to ignore their rights to a speedy resolution of SCO's
debt to them in order to consider this motion, isn't it?
gard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 06:46 PM EST |
Maybe SCO needs time to develop a new product:
Maybe "One Notebook Per Kid"..
Maybe running SCO Unix on Intel CPUs?????
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 06:54 PM EST |
For two reasons:
1) The current management burns a lot of money but does
not do its job, e.g. making a reorganization plan.
2) Trials cost money. A trustee will probably be able to sit
with Novell and negotiate the size of reward that Novell will
get and just let judge K. rubber stamp it. That will save the
estate some money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 07:33 PM EST |
Every trick they try, every "method and concept" of delay, every card
they play, we learn, as well as those that SCOX.PK has chosen to hassle with
their vacuous frivolous lawsuits.
I suppose one day it will make for a great board game.
Perhaps MoSCOpoly. Or my preferred option, SCOnopoly. Why?
"Where's all the money they owed us?"
"SCOn"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 07:35 PM EST |
They are SCO - That is more of a curse than any I can think of.
---
Software Patents give Hardware Patents a bad name.
If the Pharmaceutical industry does not want to be included in the backlash...
arrange for a separation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 07:55 PM EST |
If SCO is asking for more time, might the judge notifce that they will not have
any money to organise, and have a trust established to pay their current
obligations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 08:15 PM EST |
Is it not normal for the company to simply incorporate the 'unknowns' into its
reorg plan? I mean, that's what a plan is, right? In the event of A we will do
X, in the event of B we will do Y, etc. This is a 'known unknown' so SCO should
be able to plan for it to a large degree.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 08:30 PM EST |
| SCO's creditors should take this opportunity to present an argument to the court
that no realistic reorganisation plan is possible under the present management,
and move to either have the current management removed, or have SCO forced into
immediate liquidation. They could base this argument on SCO's present cash
reserves, expenses, and liabilities, and on the fact that current management has
not shown themselves capable of coming up with plans on a timely basis for
continuing the business.
Any realistic reorganisation plan which is
presented to the court will have to include extensive and detailed revenue and
cost estimates. We have seen how SCO outsources this sort of thing to very high
priced consultants (e.g. as with the proposed York deal). Coming up with a
reorganisation plan using the same methods would likely consume a substantial
proportion of SCO's remaining cash reserves. By the time a plan could be created
and accepted by all parties, there will be nothing left. SCO is no longer a
large business, and cannot afford to hire expensive consultants. If Darl and
Ralf are not capable of coming up with such a plan on their own, then they are
not suitable persons to be running a small business in these straightened
circumstances.
SCO's only post bankruptcy strategy so far has been to
continue the same course which has resulted in their entering bankruptcy in the
first place (aggressive litigation). With no sign or hint of alternate strategy,
neither the creditors nor the courts should have any reason to believe that a
successful plan can be presented by SCO in July, or at any other time.
There is no reason to believe that delay will clarify SCO's future. Given
that one of SCO's most serious re-organisation challenges will be that customers
are leaving the company due to the uncertainty, delaying a re-organisation plan
by a further six months operates against the entire purpose of a chapter 11
bankruptcy, which is to salvage an otherwise viable business. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 08:52 PM EST |
Is this list exhaustive, or is SCO (again) trying to 'game' the court?
Does
SCO have to meet each factor, or just a few?
a. The size and complexity of
the case;
b. The necessity of sufficient time to negotiate and prepare
adequate
information;
c. The existence of good faith progress toward
reorganization;
d. Whether the debtor is paying its debts as they come
due;
e. Whether the debtor has demonstrated reasonable prospects for
filng a
viable plan;
f. Whether the debtor has made progress in negotiating
with
creditors;
g. The length of time the case has been pending;
h.
Whether the debtor is seeking the extension to pressure creditors;
i.
Whether unresolved contingencies exist.
And this gem cannot go without
notice:
14. Filing a plan now in the face of the Court's doubts about
the efficacy of
doing so would be a waste of precious estate assets [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 09:29 PM EST |
| Why not take four years to work your way to the U.S. Supreme Court? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 10:35 PM EST |
Since the judge would have to approve any reorganization plan, I don't see
how not having the exclusive time period would prejudice the debtor in
possession. If someone else can come up with a better plan, why not use it? I
would guess that this is more for the judge than for the debtor, so the judge
won't be swamped be reorg plans unless the debtor is dawdling. ---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 10:39 PM EST |
I read the "Factors a court considers in determning cause", which
include
c. The existence of good faith progress toward
reorganization;
e. Whether the debtor has demonstrated reasonable prospects
for filng a viable plan;
with the implication that SCOG has met
these tests,
and then a little later I see
11. In addition, the
Debtors' intention to file a plan which would include
disposition of the Unix
business was challenged by Novell, Inc.
It seems we are to
understand that SCOG was diligently working on a reorganization plan, and that
the emergency sale was the first step in that work effort, to be followed
sometime later by an explanation. Those of you who believe the maxim that it
is better to ask for forgiveness than for permission will also appreciate the
wisdom of reorganize first and answer questions later.
It is just those
stodgy creditors and US Trustees who want the explanations up front. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 10:55 PM EST |
The bankruptcy judge should ask SCO what work has it done so far to
reorganize its business.
SCO has already a defined business in Unix. He can ask what has been done
so far since declaring bankruptcy to reorganize this business.
SCO's litigation business has no bearing on its core business of Unix. Thus
they should have been drawing up plans for the Unix business going forward
- e.g. what are they doing with their employees, their equipment, their rent,
etc.
If SCO has done little or no work - since it is paying most attention on the
litigation and how to hide its assets by selling it to friendly companies - then
the judge should be rightlfully angry at SCO for wasting his and the creditors'
time.
SCO, show me your work!!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mexaly on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 11:13 PM EST |
If SCO files an appeal, they have to put up a bond.
_That_ will require some planning.
No money, no bond, no appeal. Should shorten things up a bit.
---
My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2008 @ 11:52 PM EST |
It does get really old to see these scam artists at work.
But the fact is it is likely the judge will either approve their request or tell
them they only have half that long to present their plan rather than outright
denying it and slamming them for their trickery.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 01:30 AM EST |
It's hard to say if this is important or merely an oversight, but looking at the
events I thought it was interesting that it has taken SCO so long to ask Judge
Gross for this extension. Perhaps the Christmas Holiday period has had something
to do with this.
But when you think about it, quite some time has elapsed between Judge Kimball
asking SCO [and Novell] to come up with a proposed date for trial and for SCO to
go back to Judge Gross and ask for this extension to their period of exclusive
control over their reorganisation plan.
<sarcasm> You would think, with all the money that this company is
spending on lawyers, that someone would have told them that they needed to get
back to Judge Gross with this request, preferably as soon as it became apparent
it would be necessary.
As soon as? Is that really important? In the grand scheme of things, possibly
not. But if we consider the situation as if we were Judge Gross and SCO stood
before us asking for an extension such as this, then is it likely we would want
some kind of explanation for this delay? Bear in mind here that in the early
bankruptcy hearings, Judge Gross exhibited a tremendous desire to "get on
with things".
The bankruptcy court seems to recognise the importance of moving forward in a
timely manner. We can only hope that they take a much less favorable view of
delaying tactics...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 02:34 AM EST |
SCO has no plan for reorganization. Period.
They took all this time to waste everyone's time and spend millions of dollars
on lawyers - spending up to $700/hour or more on each lawyer - resulting in
no reorganization plan.
Their deadline is January 12. They have no plan. Period.
This should anger the Bankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy court has to also
look out for the rights of creditors. And SCO is clearly screwing with them.
I think SCO should be denied their motion. Plain as daylight.
I think the Bankruptcy judge should also give SCO a week to give him a plan
or SCO will be forced into Chapter 7. Enough is enough.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 07:42 AM EST |
PJ,
From what I read on the page that you linked to that explains the 1121(b) and
1121(d) rules, I think that they are only asking for an extension until May 11th
to file a plan.
The June 11th date is an extension request for the deadline for them to get
acceptance of the plan by "at least one class of non-insiders who hold
impaired claims (i.e., claims that are not going to be paid completely or in
which some legal, equitable, or contractual right is altered)."
If this motion is approved by Judge Gross, then no one else can file an
alternate plan until June 11th, but SCO has to file theirs by May 11th and get
it accepted by June 11th.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 08:48 AM EST
- I partially agree - Authored by: E-man on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 09:02 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 09:41 AM EST |
Well, we've seen how long a company like SCO can drag something out with their
resources.
How long do you think a company the size of Microsoft with it's resources could
drag something out? Decades? Lifetimes?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Well - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 10:18 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Marc Mengel on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 12:29 PM EST |
Shouldn't this be titled "SCO's lawyers file to finish the process of
transferring all of SCO's assets to said lawyers before any other debtors get
any money?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 12:38 PM EST |
I have not gone through the billing records, and frankly I have no plans to do
so. I really do not know what exactly to look for.
There aught to be some hard evidence on the amount of effort that has gone into
creating a reorganization plan on tSCOg's part. I think all the time spent
looking for a 'buyer' should NOT count as a direct effort to reorganize the
company into an on-going concern. (It MIGHT quallify as an indirect effort to
that end, but I suspect the result would have been only a small part of a real
reorganization plan.)
If there has already been a signifecant effort to produce such a plan, then SCO
might be able to get some extension. If there has been little or no effort,
then someone else should be given an immediate shot at doing so, and conversion
to Chapter 7 might become timely.
The excuses tSCOg has presented for the delay do not really hold water. Gross
(and I am not refering to the judge) estimates of the expenses and time needed
for each major contingency should be presented. (For example, there should be
ranges specified for the size of the appeal bond and prospective plans
associated with each.) [Yes, I know that this assumes that tSCOg executives are
competent, and that there is little supporting evidence for that assumption.]
Is it possible that these plans already exist and are 'confidential'? (Of
coures it is possible, but is it LIKELY? I suspect not. Please include the
basis for opinions, especially contrary opinions.) If they exist, what would
that imply?
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 12:40 PM EST |
In this case:
a) Yes, SCO, you get all the time you asked for; however:
b) Yes, Novell, when the amount of converted funds is fixed, that claim comes
ahead of any bankruptcy settlements -- immediately, in fact.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Personally, I'd like to see an absolute end to Daryl's, Ralph's and a few others
creers as high-level decision makers. I feel that they pay way to little
attention to their responsibilities or to the long term consequences of their
actions. I expect everyone to keep an eye out for 'Number 1', but these people
don't seem to know that there are many other 'people' out there; they act like
they are preditors and everyone else is 'prey'.
I am both an optomist (most people are dicent) and a pesimist (SCOunderals and
worse do exist and often get away with their misconduct). I would like to see
opinions on LIKELY outcomes and their consequences. For example:
Because of the many negative statements that Darl has made that he knew or
should have known to be factually lacking, I think he will face criminal charges
in relation to those statements.
-If he is aquitted, the system is very badly broken and the future will be very
black indeed (but Darl will not think so of course).
- He could get off fairly lightly, in which case, he will find another executive
job and the darkness will decend, just more slowly.
- If he gets very heavy fines (3 x his personal worth or more) or a some jail
time, his prospects for future executive employment will be greatly reduced and
the world will just keep on keeping on.
- If he AND the others get significant jail time, none of them are likely to be
able to continue at the executive level and the world will move ever-so-slightly
in the positive direction.
Other charges (add your own category...):
Fraud, theft by taking, embezelment, Fiduciary Neglagence...
Purgery...
Neglegence, Malfeasance...
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 01:48 PM EST |
A plan would involve SCO being able to pay some of its debts and stay in
business. SCO's own "partner" in the deal where they attempted to sell the UNIX
business said they were under a "death sentence" in Utah. SCO's only hope for
continuing business is winning an appeal on the August 10th ruling that Novell
retained the copyrights. They must have to wait until the case is over to
appeal, that is why they can't do it until March. Is hoping to win an appeal on
a judgment against you grounds to remain in chapter 11 bankruptcy and deny money
to your creditors? In the meantime, can you squander the money they would get
on a virtually hopeless legal maneuver? Bankruptcy laws are designed to protect
the debtor, but they aren't absolute...
SCO seems to me like some
people my family knew 20 years ago. They had a lot of debt, but they bought an
above-ground pool and a big TV, then declared bankruptcy. It was great going
over to their house, watching cable and playing in the pool, but what about the
companies that loaned them money expecting to get it paid back?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: turambar386 on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 03:20 PM EST |
You can tell this wasn't written by B&S. In all the last 5 years, this has
been just about the humblest sounding, nicest, and most downright friendly
motion that has ever come out of the SCO camp.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 05:07 PM EST |
| I just realized what tSCOg is trying to do.
As long as tSCOg is in BK court,
Judge Kimball can't touch them, financially at least.
So being bounced
back to Judge Kimball's court actually works to their advantage, it gives them
an excuse to request an extension to file their reorg plan. Theoretically, if
they can delay their trial(s) and appeal(s) in Judge Kimball's court, they could
keep filing for extensions indefinitely, or at least that could be their plan.
If this motion works, count on tSCOg requesting an extension to file
their reorg plan till after the IBM trial (and subsequent appeal). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 06:30 PM EST |
I wonder if a large part of the purpose of this motion is not the order, but the
hope that certain statements, or half statements, can be on the record and
uncontested for later reference?
Point 10. SCOG really have tried to make this Ch 11 work but have been
unfortunate victims of ...
Point 10. The "asset sale" motion - The York Horse - was part of the
reorganization plan that we and our professional helpers were all working hard
toward.
Point 11. The reorganization plan was scrapped in part becuase Novell challenged
the plan.
Point 12. We could have overcome Novell's challenge (see above) but the Court
seems to have disagreed (possible sub text - the court might have made a mistake
here).
Point 13. The Court unstayed the Novel trial in Utah so there's no point us
working on another reorganization plan for now. It's not our fault, we didn't
create this situation, so it's not our fault if we arent working on a
reorganization plan now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: E-man on Thursday, January 03 2008 @ 11:54 PM EST |
I went ahead and OCR'ed the motion. I will email to PJ, so we can see what
Novell will object to in text.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2008 @ 10:57 AM EST |
Maybe SCO could just give the Unixware assets back to Novell as payment for the
$30M. After all, SCO didn't pay $90M for nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2008 @ 12:56 PM EST |
Their business plan looks to be to go to trial in Utah, then appeal, all on
track to somehow win lots of dollars. So how about if this is taken to be SCO's
business plan, then others are permitted to suggest alternatives immediately.
After all, why wait? (Oh, yeah, this is SCO...)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
