|
|
| SCO Asks That Friday's Bankruptcy Hearing on York Payment Be Postponed - Updated |
 |
|
Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:12 PM EDT
|
Surprise, surprise. SCO has asked that Friday's hearing on the York payment motion be held over until the May 15th omnibus hearing. You can see that on the Notice of Agenda [PDF] just filed. So, don't show up without verifying what is happening. Also, if anyone is able to attend any of the SCO v. Novell trial starting on April 29, please let me know. It looks like neither Webster nor Chris can go this time, so email me if you've been thinking about this.
And there's another filing, another bill [PDF] from Berger Singerman. This bill is for $245,123.70 and that's just for the month of February, and if you look at the breakdown in Exhibit A [PDF], a lot of it ($101,452) is for "Asset Preservation/Distribution", which that month I assume to be the now-defunct deal with Stephen Norris. As a contrast, the bill for "Case Administration" is just $931. They are morphing the plan into something else, an asset purchase supposedly, and meanwhile SCO's attorney Arthur Spector acknowledged at the hearing that there were problems with the plan being filed "piecemeal". He even promised it would never happen again. So, why would they get paid in full for filing unfinished deals that never got airborne and that anyone would have to know would never get off the runway?
I'm wondering if that thought has crossed his mind too, from his statements at the hearing, where he seemed to be blaming SCO. But he's the lawyer, not SCO execs, so I think the buck stops there. But that's just me. The firm was paid by SCO prior to SCO filing for bankruptcy the sum of $425,000, and $275,000 of it, they say, was for a retainer for postpetition services, the rest for work they did before SCO filed. So far, so good, from their perspective. Mesirow has filed another bill too. To paraphrase the US Trustee's trial attorney, Joseph McMahon, I don't know if we can afford another SCO reorganization plan. Here are the filings: 444 - Filed & Entered: 04/15/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation (Sixth) for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors in Possession, for the Period from February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008 Filed by Berger Singerman, P.A.. Objections due by 5/5/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
445 - Filed & Entered: 04/16/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period from March 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 Filed by Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC. Objections due by 5/6/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Exhibit B # (4) Exhibit C# (5) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
446 - Filed & Entered: 04/16/2008
Hearing Cancelled. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing.
Docket Text: HEARING CANCELLED. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 4/18/2008 at 01:30 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
Update: The Berger Singerman bill for March is filed now too: 447 - Filed & Entered: 04/16/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation [Seventh] for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors in Possession for the Period from March 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 Filed by Berger Singerman, P.A.. Objections due by 5/6/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A# (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
| Please follow the instructions in red for prettier, clickier HTML. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Please test your links in PREVIEW - Authored by: Ted Powell on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- Questions swirl around Mac clone maker Psystar - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 06:37 PM EDT
- Must-see: Vista sales motivational vid - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 06:44 PM EDT
- Must-see: Vista sales motivational vid - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 07:09 PM EDT
- Someone paid money for that - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 08:55 PM EDT
- Must-see: Vista sales motivational vid -- ouch! - Authored by: pallmall on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 09:30 PM EDT
- Must-see: Vista sales motivational vid - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 12:01 AM EDT
- Is it a hoax? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 12:25 AM EDT
- Is it a hoax? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- Must-see: Vista sales motivational vid - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 08:31 AM EDT
- news.com: M$ says it's a spoof - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- Ummm... - Authored by: mtew on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 11:24 AM EDT
- Must-see: Vista sales motivational vid - Authored by: rsmith on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- Let me be the first to say... - Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- Bruce, Bruce, Bruce... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- Must-see: Vista sales motivational vid - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, April 18 2008 @ 07:18 AM EDT
- Fair use on campus: publishers sue school over class reading - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- lost, forever? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 12:44 AM EDT
- Oregon: publishing our laws online is a copyright violation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 03:36 AM EDT
- Sun to close-source portions of MySQL code base - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 06:06 AM EDT
- Received a reply to my letter to an MEP - Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 06:23 AM EDT
- An interesting copyright case - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 08:09 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
| If any. A descriptive title always helps. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
| Please indicate in your title which newspick you're picking on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
.
---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
"But he's the lawyer, not SCO execs, so I think the buck stops there. But
that's just me."
Although I see the point, I'm currently moving a datacenter for a major company.
This company is giving me schedules and deadlines, but not the access to the
people/equipment I need to meet those deadline.
I wonder if the same scenario is happening over at SCO. I doubt they have
enough folks to run the day to day business. Imagine having to fulfill the
lawyers request, when all the people that knew, or knew where to find the info
are no longer there. Even the folks that are there are carefully screening
anything they don't want to get out. At some point, you have to feel a little
pitty for thier legal team :).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
Is this a matter of judicial efficiency? Or does SCO have something to gain by
delaying a ruling?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
Seems we've seen this before.
I imagine that SCO will withdraw the request to pay York sometime before the
hearing, possibly during the trial so as to get as little publicity as possible.
Once the US Trustee weighed in it was pretty much dead.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
>I don't know if we can afford another SCO reorganization plan
I think that SCO tries to send Novell a simple message:
"Either have a compromise that will get SCO off the hook, or
we will spend all the assets and you will get *nothing*."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
(No, not the delay, I've been around this long enough to know the answer to
that one. :)
I note that this filing, filed by TSG's BK counsel, rather
than asking for a continuance, announces the continuance as a
fact, assuming (it seems) that the Court will approve it. I've noticed several
other instances where it struck me that the counsel in this BK case filed
documents that had an air of telling the Court what was going to happen
schedule-wise, rather than asking the Court to approve some scheduling issue or
other. Is this normal or typical in a BK case? (What I'm getting at is, if
BS&F or HJ&D filed something in Kimball's court that stated that
they had decided that a hearing was going to be continued, rather than
the Court, I suspect Kimball would have handed them their
heads.)
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
Any day now, tSCOg will ask that the world stop.
When did this attack on Linux begin ? 2002 ?
DSM[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 16 2008 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
.
... that anyone would have to know would never get off the runway?"
Given Spector's performance at the last hearing his firm would be hard-pressed
to defend this bill if it is objected to by anyone like the Trustee or Novell or
other creditors. After all, he is a lawyer and admits he would never approve
that plan. So why did they waste everyone's time?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
Ummm, don't these firms bill for time spent? If they're working on some deal,
and the deal falls through, they still get paid.
I don't know whether it's reasonable, and it does appear that they really hadn't
done a very good job, but the client can dispute the bill, and even change law
firms. Otherwise, the bill gets payed.
---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 17 2008 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
Once upon a time, I taught arithmetic and a little physics
(ie. algebra, calculus and systems to engineering students).
Spent a few years writing analytical software,
for signals processing in support of biomedical research.
Helped design a 68020-based computer system, back when 68000s were hot. Built it
from scratch (ie. discrete logic and support chips). Added a crude OS in ROM. It
was our prototype model for a potentially competitive product we never got
funded.
I'm not a complete dunce. Until I step out of my comfort zone.
I was reading the Berger, Singerman bills, looking for details that might
clarify the "confidential SCO business plan" that's being waved about
in court, the press and other documents.
Well, up jumped a couple entries in the PDF.
-- 3/5/2008 -- CONFERENCE AND EMAIL J. ACHESON REGARDING AMENDED SCHEDULE F
-- 0.10 Hr -- by GR
and
-- 3/7/2008 -- REVISE AND FINALIZE AMENDED SCHEDULE F; CONFERENCE AND
EMAILS WITH J. ACHESON, K. NIELSEN AND L. OBERHOLZER REGARDING SAME --
0.50 Hr -- by GR
Holy Cow! I know schedule F intimately these days, having retired to a
secluded, rural farm. Just me, my ailing spouse
and a few dozen cows, a mile from any other human.
The IRS 1040 -- Schedule F -- Profit or loss from farming
If you farm, you carry a notebook and a copy of Schedule F to make sure you mark
down every applicable dollar in-or-out. You spend more time with it than ...
well, it's a significant time drain near April 15th.
SO why would SCO and Jean Acheson be filling out a Schedule F and amending it?
Does Darl now have cattle to go with the big hat? Is the Hong Kong Corporation
raising beef and using Chinese masseuses to produce SCO beef?
Buy SCO beef, we're better than KOBE? After all, it was our idea first?
I just spent an hour researching any connection between agriculture and SCO.
Came up dry, except for Darl's early life.
Then another link popped up as I loosened the search criteria.
Under BK Law -- SCHEDULE F - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS.
Duh! Of course they would revise the creditor list.
Chapter 11 -- Schedule F ...
That's why I'd never make a good lawyer,
I make too many assumptions about what terms mean.
Of course, there CAN be more than one Schedule F
-- and since we all focus on our personal experience,
a BK lawyer means "SCHEDULE F - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY
CLAIMS,"
While a country boy knows
-- "Schedule F -- Profit or loss from farming".
And never the twain shall meet.
But it is also a lesson.
Never assume you know what someone is saying, until you really understand the
context.
Much like the Indiana law redefining PI, written because legislators did not
like infinitely long digits and wanted to simplify things. If you don't know,
don't touch.
SCO -- I don't know you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 18 2008 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
Nice short form for the title.
447 Exhibit A: Page 18
Grace Robson 3/10/2008
REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM R. TIBBITTS 0.10
REGARDING LOSS OF PERSONNEL AT ME, INC
---
I could have sworn Darl testified back in october that Me Inc was an empty
shell.
How has an empty shell managed to lose personnel.
Has SCO while in BK transferred assets to an admitted shell company?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
