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
A Report from the Bankruptcy Hearing Today - Updated 3Xs - 2nd Report
Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 03:09 PM EDT

Today was the bankruptcy hearing regarding SCO's bonuses to themselves and their reorganization plan, or whatever they plan to try next, and happily we had two eyewitnesses there. Our deep thanks to them both. Here's the scoop from our first reporter there:
Ryan Tibbits is here from SCO.

Agreement on bonus payments. SCO will refile with "much" more disclosure. It will be subject to objection.

Buyout--Deal is being renegotiated. SCO will not refile until it is complete. Sale of assets--not a loan. US Trustee objects to sale of IP assets SCO does not own. May seek to appoint "independent fiduciary."

He is concerned about the status of this case.

Adjourned at 2:20

I told you the worm had turned. If the US Trustee seeks to appoint an independent fiduciary, SCO's universe spins a different way. Right now, SCO is a Debtor in Possession. They get to row their own boat. I'm not sure what is meant by independent fiduciary, but I'll show you some possibilities. Oh, and I hear there was a reporter there from Bloomberg.

Update 2: An anonymous reader found this case where a fiduciary was appointed, and it gives us a clue.

Here is some information on what it might mean:

Appointment or Election of a Case Trustee

Although the appointment of a case trustee is a rarity in a chapter 11 case, a party in interest or the U.S. trustee can request the appointment of a case trustee or examiner at any time prior to confirmation in a chapter 11 case. The court, on motion by a party in interest or the U.S. trustee and after notice and hearing, shall order the appointment of a case trustee for cause, including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement, or if such an appointment is in the interest of creditors, any equity security holders, and other interests of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a). Moreover, the U.S. trustee is required to move for appointment of a trustee if there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the parties in control of the debtor "participated in actual fraud, dishonesty or criminal conduct in the management of the debtor or the debtor's financial reporting." 11 U.S.C. § 1104(e). The trustee is appointed by the U.S. trustee, after consultation with parties in interest and subject to the court's approval. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007.1. Alternatively, a trustee in a case may be elected if a party in interest requests the election of a trustee within 30 days after the court orders the appointment of a trustee. In that instance, the U.S. trustee convenes a meeting of creditors for the purpose of electing a person to serve as trustee in the case. 11 U.S.C. § 1104(b).

The case trustee is responsible for management of the property of the estate, operation of the debtor's business, and, if appropriate, the filing of a plan of reorganization. Section 1106 of the Bankruptcy Code requires the trustee to file a plan "as soon as practicable" or, alternatively, to file a report explaining why a plan will not be filed or to recommend that the case be converted to another chapter or dismissed. 11 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(5).

Upon the request of a party in interest or the U.S. trustee, the court may terminate the trustee's appointment and restore the debtor in possession to management of bankruptcy estate at any time before confirmation.11 U.S.C. § 1105.

The Role of an Examiner

The appointment of an examiner in a chapter 11 case is rare. The role of an examiner is generally more limited than that of a trustee. The examiner is authorized to perform the investigatory functions of the trustee and is required to file a statement of any investigation conducted. If ordered to do so by the court, however, an examiner may carry out any other duties of a trustee that the court orders the debtor in possession not to perform. 11 U.S.C. § 1106. Each court has the authority to determine the duties of an examiner in each particular case. In some cases, the examiner may file a plan of reorganization, negotiate or help the parties negotiate, or review the debtor's schedules to determine whether some of the claims are improperly categorized. Sometimes, the examiner may be directed to determine if objections to any proofs of claim should be filed or whether causes of action have sufficient merit so that further legal action should be taken. The examiner may not subsequently serve as a trustee in the case. 11 U.S.C. § 321.

I'll have a better idea when we get the transcript tomorrow or the next day, but at least what he means is that he is worried about SCO's reorganization schemes and may wish to take some or all control away from the folks rowing that rowboat. That same page of Bankruptcy Basics also explains what a reorganization plan should be like and ends like this:

Any party in interest may file an objection to confirmation of a plan. The Bankruptcy Code requires the court, after notice, to hold a hearing on confirmation of a plan. If no objection to confirmation has been timely filed, the Bankruptcy Code allows the court to determine whether the plan has been proposed in good faith and according to law. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3020(b)(2). Before confirmation can be granted, the court must be satisfied that there has been compliance with all the other requirements of confirmation set forth in section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code, even in the absence of any objections. In order to confirm the plan, the court must find, among other things, that: (1) the plan is feasible; (2) it is proposed in good faith; and (3) the plan and the proponent of the plan are in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. In order to satisfy the feasibility requirement, the court must find that confirmation of the plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation (unless the plan is a liquidating plan) or the need for further financial reorganization.

Update: We have a second report now, a bit longer, from Craig:

They started off listing the matters that were withdrawn which we already knew. Mr. McMahon then went over what information SCO was going to provide the US Trustee's office regarding the bonuses and incentives so that they can decide on what is fair to pay. He was reading off his list faster than I could write so this is by no means a complete list and I might paraphrase a bit. He basically wants all the background info on the bonuses, what were they historically, who makes the judgments on how they are awarded, he wants the date the metrics were set and whether they were later altered, he wants the individual amounts the officers got and the aggregate amounts for the others inside the company and he wants them to refrain from paying the second quarter 2008 bonuses until everything is sorted out and approved. Like I said, there was more than that but the gist of it was that he wants all the details surrounding these bonuses.

Mr. Spector then spoke for SCO and started off apologizing to the judge that they were not here to further the goal of realizing a restructuring plan, but just to give a status report. They didn't have any of the documents they promised to bring because as they were drawing them all up, the deal changed. They are drafting a new MOU with new terms and so everything has to be redone. He promises they'll really have it done by the next hearing. He says it's an entirely different deal in that the new deal will be an asset purchase and not a loan. He said he's learned from past mistakes and is writing it up so that it won't have to endure so many objections. He said he didn't dispute the validity of many of the objections to the first SNCP deal. If this new deal goes through, they will have plenty of cash to pay their creditors with interest and have cash or cash reserves for paying future debts. He's waiting until the deal is done before making full disclosures. He's not going to leave any loose ends this time. He mentions that SCO may need an extension to get everything prepared and do due diligence.

Mr. Levin from IBM then gets up and says he may have an issue if SCO needs an extension. He said that the due diligence report was due at this hearing already and that even though the deal is changing, it should not require more than the five weeks they have before the next hearing.

Mr. Lewis also says that he really hopes everything comes together before the next hearing so that it's not another "fire drill".

Mr. McMahon then gets up to say that the former York deal was basically a plan to sell IP that they didn't own and he wants to make sure that this new deal is clear about what is being sold (since it is an asset purchase). He also mentions SCO's history of financial losses and that he may be thinking of recommending to appoint an independant fiduciary for SCO.

I think the US Trustee's office is really starting to "get" SCO and their shenanigans. It will be interesting to see SCO's new MOU with SNCP and what SCO has that is so valuable that they'll soon have plenty of cash to make everyone happy.

It was all over in 20 minutes flat. It looks like the next hearing might be a bit more substantive if they really get this deal drawn up in time and it gets to be discussed (that's what I thought a month ago for *this* hearing), but we'll see....

Update 3: There is now a report in the Deseret Morning News from Steven Church, the Bloomberg reporter:

The U.S. Trustee monitoring SCO's case for the Justice Department may demand that the company be taken over by an independent fiduciary if the talks with Stephen Norris fail to deliver a reorganization plan. This is the company's third attempt to negotiate a way out of bankruptcy, Joseph McMahon Jr., an attorney with the U.S. Trustee's office, told Gross.

"I don't think this case can take a fourth chapter," McMahon said.

Agreed. But how about a 7th?


  


A Report from the Bankruptcy Hearing Today - Updated 3Xs - 2nd Report | 200 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 03:10 PM EDT
If any.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Discussions here.
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 03:13 PM EDT
Please, don't forget to quote the article.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, the Off topic thread
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 03:14 PM EDT
As usual.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another quickie huh?
Authored by: itsnotme on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 03:20 PM EDT
If the hearing really did end at 2:20 then that was only a 20 minute hearing? I
was under the impression that there was quite a bit on the agenda to go over.

I'm guessing that the Judge decided to let it be a status oversight
"meeting" and the next real hearing is on the 18th?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Selling IP they do not own???
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 03:22 PM EDT
>> US Trustee objects to sale of IP assets SCO does not own.

That just boggles the mind.

Does SCOG plan to sell it, and then say, "See it was ours all along. We
sold it, so it must have been ours! And by the way, we've already spent all
_that_ money, too, so we don't owe you nothin'."

I hope not. But I have a gut feeling that is what they are up to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

... the terms of which will be announced at the hearing.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 04:18 PM EDT
There were various motions withdrawn where the Status: in last Notice of Agenda indicated

... the terms of which will be announced at the hearing.

It will be of some interest to hear in more detail what was announced.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Gestank Fills the Courtroom
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 04:35 PM EDT
Truly, the trustee seems to get it and can see SCO for what they are. SCO went
too far and Novell pointed that out with suitable indignation. The trustee took
note, or had already arrived at the same conclusion.

If SCO's management don't get kicked out, at least their every move will be
subject to microscopic examination now.

This is very good news.

---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

How many fronts can Microsoft fight?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 04:49 PM EDT
How many fronts can Microsoft fight? It is worth considering the correlation
between the increasing rapid pace at which the SCO case is falling apart, the
dismantlement of the HD-DVD effort, and the recent action towards acceptance of
OOXML as a an ISO standard.

SCO has managed to keep their case alive much longer then seems possible.
Suddenly, it appears to be falling apart.

Success of HD-DVD and the xbox were critical to Micosoft's brand. Yet, they
recently let HD-DVD die.

Microsoft went to great effort and expense to push OOXML through ISO. Many Open
Standards supporters are looking at the current OOXML situation as a defeat.
All in all the OOXML situation is a solid victory because resources needed to be
redirected from other Microsoft efforts.

The last example of this is the nature of the press articles on OOXML. There
are no analysts or consultants lining up to sing the praises of OOXML.
Microsoft needs these 'evangelists' to control the channel.

In closing, congratulation to everyone working to prevent Microsoft from
'controlling the channel' on an issue as important as document freedom.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Independent fiduciary
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 05:01 PM EDT
I found this definition of fiduciary: A person legally appointed and authorized
to hold assets in trust for another person. The fiduciary manages the assets for
the benefit of the other person rather than for his or her own profit.

I assume that an independent fiduciary would be someone not related to SCO who
would handle their assets.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Report from the Bankruptcy Hearing Today - Updated - 2nd Report
Authored by: danielpf on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 05:05 PM EDT
"It is only because votes of the minnows like Cote D'Azure ..."

Did you mean "France" or "Côte d'Ivoire"?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Asking the Right Questions
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 05:07 PM EDT
...he wants the date the metrics were set and whether they were later altered...
Indeed. That's the SCO we know and love.

---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

independant fiduciary and bankruptcy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 05:13 PM EDT
I found an article about an independant fiduciary being appointed in regards to a bankruptcy case here.

This was a case of a company holding 401k assets of their employees, and then filing for chapter 7 without first dispursing the 401k assets to their owners. The independant fiduciary was appointed to oversee the management of the 401k funds separately from the debtors assets.

From the description in this article, it seems like an independant fiduciary is someone appointed to look after assets that were under the control of the party filing for bankruptcy, but not owned by them, sort of like SCO controlling money and IP that is actually owned by Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Rhythm Method
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 05:35 PM EDT
This is the second time SCO Group has withdrawn a kind of reorganization plan.
It is as if SCO Group is trying to do the Chapter 11 thing, but without being
reorganized.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My crystal ball was spot on
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 05:56 PM EDT
"He mentions that SCO may need an extension to get everything prepared and
do due diligence."

Of course, that was just part of it's start up script:
If (SCO)
{
prediction = delay(infinite)
}

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Report from the Bankruptcy Hearing Today - Updated - 2nd Report
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 07:18 PM EDT
>He says it's an entirely different deal in that the
>new deal will be an asset purchase and not a loan.

If we assume that the "buyer" is just a front for some third
party to pump money into SCO, the new deal makes more sense.
Taking SCO over means assets *and* liability. Pumping money
is fine, but the "buyer" does not want any liabilities.

If my assumption is not true, that begs two questions:
1)What assets does SCO have that worth (at least) $30,000,000?

2)If the assets are really that valuable then may be
somebody else would like to buy them. Why lock on this
deal instead of an open auction?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A New SCO Plan? Follow the money...
Authored by: bezz on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 07:45 PM EDT

I can't imagine what SCO can sell that would provide plenty of cash to satisfy its creditors. Unless, perchance, the illustrious Mr. Spector means the penny-ante creditors listed in the existing filing and not the potential liability it faces from Novell and IBM.

Let's take a look at the big picture as filed in its last 10-K. On page 27, total revenues declined by 50% since 2004. Ignore 2003 because that year is an aberration because SCO converted the MS and Sun license into reported revenue. The reported assets are also meaningless since they also include the converted funds. On page 35, we get the detail on annual revenues, margins and losses. OK, so the company as a whole loses money each and every year and the only time they ever showed a profit was when they reported converted funds as revenue, which they subsequently spent on lawyers and propping up a money-losing business.

Is there something of value in SCO? There may be individual profitable assets someone might want to buy, but I doubt any asset is profitable. On page 37, SCO lists three areas of revenue: Products, SCOSource and Services. We won't waste any time analyzing SCOSource because nobody will buy it. Products are 81% of Total Revenue and consist of a) OpenServer (62%), b) UnixWare (27%) and c) Other Products -- product maintenance and other UNIX-related products -- (11%). Services are 19% of Total Revenue and consist of annual and incident technical support fees, engineering services fees, professional services and consulting fees. And revenues are falling for each source.

Doesn't it look like ALL of SCO's revenue is related to assets covered under the APA? OpenServer was built upon licensed Novell patents and Novell clearly never gave them up. The UNIX part of the business loses money and Novell owns the IP. That's a hard asset sale to make and the US Trustee has made it clear they will be watching. Mr. Spector claiming SCO could sell Novell's assets and worry about it later was a huge mistake. It made the point that substantially all of the assets and revenue are Novell's.

How about the Mobile Products Spector claimed were so potentially lucrative at the First Day hearing? I don't see any break out of them in the 10-K or last 10-Q. Are they under Other Products Revenue (under $2 million per year and falling almost 20% per year) or Services Revenue ($4 million per year and falling almost 20% per year)? Even if it is profitable (which I doubt), it is such a small source of revenue it can't possibly be worth enough to satisfy Novell and IBM or the other listed creditors. But BK courts aren't there to keep other people from foolishly throwing money into assets, so SNCP can claim its worth millions.

So what does that leave us with? A litigation lottery ticket. When the Utah Summary Judgment is clear and the trial is only about assigning damages? Get serious.

SNCP already made it clear how seriously it took SCO when the offer was in the form of enough money to take the company private (no more of those pesky SEC filings) and unguaranteed loans at 20+% interest to fund operations and obligations. Thus, we got the spectacle of Mr. Spector apologizing for not filing the plan on time because, indeed, now they are modifying the plan into an asset purchase. Really, trust me, we'll have something great NEXT month.

The Trustee now sees SCO has no real hope of emerging, but has to give them another chance. SNCP is going to have to put up real money this time because Mr. Spector already told the court he would give it an Asset Purchase next month -- real cash paid to SCO for assets. How much will SNCP put on the table? That will be up to Novell and IBM to argue. Novell can state its claim is up to a potential $37 million; IBM really can't say. Let's see if this turns into another PIPE fairy deal, because it is going to be expensive to convince the Trustee to accept it.

Finally, the US Trustee really upped the ante today when he said he much ask for a fiduciary. Translation: SCO loses money and hasn't demonstrated any potential to emerge. Allowing them to operate as a DIP is just wasting money.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Report from the Bankruptcy Hearing Today - Updated - 2nd Report
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 07:59 PM EDT
This is from a FTC document it may shed some light:

"Third, it is well-established that bankruptcy trustees are fiduciaries and
thus owe a fiduciary's duty of loyalty to the bankruptcy estate and all
participants in the system.(16) These common law duties and principles remain
viable today.(17) It is difficult to reconcile the common law prohibition
against self-dealing with the commercial use of information that trustees obtain
in their fiduciary capacity. It is also difficult to reconcile the commercial
use of information obtained in a fiduciary capacity with the Department of
Justice's recent rulemaking prohibiting standing trustees from using estate
funds for their personal benefit.(18)"

from:
http://www.ftc.gov/be/v000013.shtm

[ Reply to This | # ]

This clears the way for Novell vs. SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 09:39 PM EDT

Remember what's coming up:

U.S. District Court - District of Utah
Court Calendar
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Room 220 Tuesday, 04/29/2008 08:30 am: SCO Grp v. Novell Inc Bench Trial

The next bankruptcy hearing is five weeks out, after the Novell trial. With the SNCP deal dead for now, that trial will take place with SCO still in bankruptcy. After the trial, SCO's debt to Novell's will have a dollar value on it and Novell will probably be lead creditor.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • But.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 10:34 PM EDT
    • But.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:31 AM EDT
      • But.. - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 03:23 PM EDT
        • not again - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 03:45 PM EDT
  • This clears the way for Novell vs. SCO - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 11:10 PM EDT
    • not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 08:39 AM EDT
A Report from the Bankruptcy Hearing Today - Updated - 2nd Report
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 02 2008 @ 11:08 PM EDT
Mr. Lewis also says that he really hopes everything comes together before the next hearing so that it's not another "fire drill".

Did Mr. Lewis say "fire drill" or "Chinese fire drill"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Buying Silence
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 12:28 AM EDT
I think that there is enough missing information in this story - the SNCP deal -
to make it very hard to speculate why SNCP would be interested in the purhcase.

But this question may be the most important one.

SCO are great at misdirection, but we've learned that while they are waving one
hand in front of a judge, the other hand is lifting cookies from the jar. So the
question for us becomes one of trying to figure out what their "other
hand" is doing.

SCO seem dradfully keen to sell themselves off to a third party. We've assumed
in the 2 examples so far that this was to allow that 3rd party to continue to
try and threaten Linux. But I'm wondering if that rings hollow, largely because
Judge Kimball has already gutted a huge part of any potential case with his
August 10th ruling.

So what other reasons could current SCO management have for getting their
business sold off?

I don't pretend to understand how this aspect of corporate law might work, so
perhaps someone can help fill in the blanks. Is there possibly a smoking gun
hidden in SCOs corporate records that links back to Microsoft? Could MS want or
need to buy them, just to get the evidence out of sight?

I'm not entirely convinced, myself, but is it an option. FWIW, I'm not convinced
because if that had been a goal of MS, they would have put up 3 or 4 stalking
horses to bit for SCO, in the thinking that it didn't matter who won, they
would be backing the winnder. And the illusion of choice of 3 or 4 bidders would
satisfy Judge Gross. So I still think this is more bumbling from the present SCO
management.

[ Reply to This | # ]

pitiful excuse...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 02:42 AM EDT
I'm waiting for them to say the "dog ate their homework" next...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mmmmmm, This Tastes Good!
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 05:38 AM EDT
He said he's learned from past mistakes and is writing it up so that it won't have to endure so many objections. He said he didn't dispute the validity of many of the objections to the first SNCP deal.
Hey, yer'onnor, y'know, I shouldn't speak with my mouth full, but this crow is actually rather good. Mmmmmm. Mmmmmm.

---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Ace?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:53 AM EDT
Doesn't Novell still have an ace up their sleeve in that under the terms of the
Agreement, they have to approve of any assignment?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 10:02 AM EDT
A cute comment
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 12:41 PM EDT
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695266913,00.html

The U.S. Trustee monitoring SCO's case for the Justice Department may demand
that the company be taken over by an independent fiduciary if the talks with
Stephen Norris fail to deliver a reorganization plan. This is the company's
third attempt to negotiate a way out of bankruptcy, Joseph McMahon Jr., an
attorney with the U.S. Trustee's office, told Gross.

"I don't think this case can take a fourth chapter," McMahon said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Delay, spend, more delays...
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 02:46 PM EDT
I wonder if "delay, spend all their money, delay more, spend more" is
part of SCO's mission statement. I also want to know if the SCO layer was
speaking with a straight face.

Your honor, we need time to get our ducks in a row because the deal changed for
SCNP. We could have never anticipated we needed to change this deal.

Your honor, we will correct the bonus information so you can approve the bonuses
to our brilliant staff.

Your honor, don't sweat the little details about where the money will come from.
SCNP will save the day.

What wasn't said:
The deal changed, as planned, so we need to delay and spend more money to fix
the paperwork so you can reject the plan, have SCNP back out of the deal or have
us fix that paperwork again because you already know it will be deficient when
we present it at the next hearing (have we ever been fully prepared?).

Also we need to get those bonuses approved ASAP. These poor people are hungry
and need the money. We will of course, fabricate this information and turn it
over to this court ASAP so we can get those poor, poor people paid.

Oh, by the way. As you know we are scheduled to go to court with Novell. Please
be advised, we need to spend as much as we can now before the court makes us pay
what we owe. Oh wait, that brings us to this court. Whew, I was worried a little
there. We have plenty of delay tactics under our sleeve.

[ 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 )