|
More Hints from More Bills in the SCO Bankruptcy |
|
Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 01:45 AM EDT
|
New and fascinating filings in the SCO bankruptcy. What are these folks up to?
Take a look at the Berger Singerman's bill and see if you don't notice some odd entries. I'll tell you what I notice, and then you can do the same. Mesirow has filed another bill. They never get tired of doing that. But they get shorter and shorter. This bill is for $125,930.70, which represents a voluntary reduction. Hahahaha. 274.90 hours of financial counseling. What better for a company in bankruptcy? The bulk of the time was under the header "Liquidation Analysis". What is that? How to run through all your cash so Novell can't get any? (Joke. We saw one version of it already, in their withdrawn proposed reorganization plan involving Stephen Norris [PDF], p. 15.) Both of them have been busy as bees working on SCO's alleged new reorganization plan. It seems to be humming along, even if SCO isn't.
Here are the filings:
473 - Filed & Entered: 05/13/2008
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service Sixth Monthly Fee Application Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Schnabel, Eric)
474 - Filed & Entered: 05/13/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Quarterly Application for Compensation (Second) and Reimbursement of Expenses as Financial Advisors to the Debtors for the Period from January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 Filed by Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC. Hearing scheduled for 6/17/2008 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 6/2/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Proposed Form of Order # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List - Fee Application # (4) Certificate of Service and Service List - Notice Only) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
475 - Filed & Entered: 05/16/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation (Eighth) for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors in Possession for the Period from April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2008 Filed by Berger Singerman, P.A.. Objections due by 6/5/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James)
If you look at Berger Singerman's Exhibit A, what do you suppose the "warrant idea" might be? And why would Stephen Norris and Darl McBride be involved in a teleconference with the attorney about the new deal, if McBride is allegedly being thrown overboard, if the deal goes through? Here are the entries I notice in the section on Case Administration and Business Operations, beginning on page 5:
4/1/2008 | AJS | Telephone Conference with D. Lampert Regarding Board Call and Call with D. McBride and S. Norris | 0.20 |
4/1/2008 | AJS | Telephone Conference with F. Caplan Regarding Warrant Idea and Call With S. Norris and D. McBride | 0.20 ... |
4/2/2008 | AJS | Teleconference with D. Lampert Re Warrant Idea | 0.30... |
4/12/2008 | AJS | Exchange Email, Communications with D. McBride and D. Lampert Re Getting Deal Documented | 0.20 ... |
4/29/2008 | DL | Conference with Investment Banker, Follow up with Client, Etc. | 0.40 |
Then on page 11, under the heading Claims Administration and Objection, we find something I wasn't expecting:
4/4/2008 | AJS | Telephone Call to H. Swaim, Esq., Counsel for Red Hat | 0.10 |
4/4/2008 | AJS | Telephone Call From and Telephone Call to J. Miller, Esq., Counsel for Red Hat | 0.10 |
4/7/2008 | AJS | Telephone Conference with H. Swaim, Esq., Counsel for Red Hat Regarding Proof of Claim and Post-Confirmation Trial Matters | 0.20 |
So Red Hat is in the room, y'all. And so is York:
4/7/2008 | AJS | Exchange E-Mail Communications with S. McNutt Regarding Claim of York | 0.10 |
*Claim of York*??! What claim? Are they asserting a claim? Three days later, we see emails between Berger Singerman's Arthur Spector and Ryan Tibbitts at SCO regarding getting York its expenses reimbursed. And on the 10th, there is an office conference regarding "Trial of Motion to Pay York". So they know this isn't going to fly without a fight. The next day, you see "communications" with the US Trustee about "objection to same". There follow days of activity about it, and a notation regarding objections to "motion to pay York Administrative Expense". Then on the 21st, we see a conference with Ryan Tibbitts "regarding proofs of claim and proofs of interest".
And then on page 13, under the category of Tax Issues we see something truly fascinating:
4/14/2008 | NJ | Review Tax Issues Regarding Proposed Changes to Restructuring; Review Revised MOU; Telephone Conference with Dan Lampert Regarding Option and Warrant Tax Issues; Various Conferences Regarding Same | 3.50 |
4/14/2008 | SSP | Review Revised MOU, Conferences with Nick Jovanovich and Dan Lampert Regarding Tax-Related Issues and Implications | 3.50 |
4/14/2008 | NJ | Review Email From Grace Robson; Review Prior Emails; Conference with Grace Regarding Status of Net Operating Loss and Tax Gain Analysis to be Prepared by Accountants 0.30 |
4/24/2008 | GR | Communications with K. Nielsen and N. Jovanovich Regarding Tax Implications of Plan | 0.30 |
That is on page 13. Weird. Do you suppose Stephen Norris is interested in SCO precisely because it is virtually certain to eternally have a net operating loss and hence a tax benefit? Or is it just a fringe benefit? I know it sounds crazy, but SCO... well... finish the sentence yourselves. That still isn't the most fascinating entry. Here's the most intriguing, on the last page of Exhibit A:
4/1/2008 | AJS | Review Correspondence from T. Landau Regarding SUSE Arbitration | 0.10 |
4/15/2008 | AJS | Telephone Conference with S. Singer Regarding MOU | 0.30 |
4/23/2008 | GR | Communications with R. Tibbitts Regarding Objections to Subpoena for Utah State Court Litigation0.20 |
See what I mean? First, we learn the SUSE arbitration is alive, even if stayed by the bankruptcy court for now. Second, why is Stuart Singer of Boies Schiller involved in the MOU for the Stephen Norris deal? I gather there is one, at least in draft form. And what in the world is the "Utah state court litigation"? If any of you in Utah could check the court clerk and see if you can find out what's going on, that'd be great. Just look for the "usual suspects", as Judge Dale Kimball humorously calls them, and see if you find anything.
Berger Singerman is now due more than a half million, by the way. This bill is for $45,247.47, and the previous balance was $480,575.57, for a total of $525,823.04. The bill says they haven't been paid anything yet. $3,302.50 of this bill is for "tax issues relating to the changes to the new proposed structure for purchase of the company". They charge $28,886 for researching and conducting multiple conferences regarding "merger and acquisition issues and structuring plan alternatives." The firm says it worked on the Memorandum of Understanding, came up with various revisions, and helped SCO develop a business plan. Hmm. And that plan would be what? We are all ears.
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2008 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 02:04 AM EDT |
See this NC state FAQ on the subject "what is a Tax
Warrant?" .
What is a Tax Warrant?
A tax
warrant is a request to levy on and sell any personal property owned by a
taxpayer who has failed to pay tax, penalty, interest and fees that have been
assessed by the NC Department of Revenue.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grouch on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 02:30 AM EDT |
Please place off-topic commentary here. Clickable links are
helpful.
Thanks!
--- -- grouch
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Privacy... "... Americans just don't care" - Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 06:28 AM EDT
- Fortune: "Survey: Programmers shunning Vista for Mac OS and Linux" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- OLPC's a con - former security director Ivan Krstic - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- CERN LHC killer quote Proprietary/FOSS by Professor Marjorie Shapiro - Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 10:43 AM EDT
- I'm sorry... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Off Topic http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080515060701633 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Torvalds/Bonwick Linux/ZFS teaser from 17 May - Authored by: retiarius on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- PJ's avatar: a smart housewive who blogs, access PACER - Authored by: _Arthur on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- OT: M$ and Yahoo! - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 06:27 PM EDT
- IBM's etc liability - Authored by: argee on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 09:08 PM EDT
- Intel chastises AMD for 'scorched earth' anti-trust attack - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 12:47 AM EDT
- Single-Era Conjecture - Authored by: stomfi on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 01:57 AM EDT
- Ars Technica acquired by Condé Nast: the low-down - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- bbc.co.uk/click - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 04:16 PM EDT
- Making your legal arguments at the proper time - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- Former AOL Executives Sued in Ad-Revenue Case - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 06:30 PM EDT
- Comcast doing an Embrace, Extend, Extinguish on P2P? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 06:49 PM EDT
- Ballmer Escapes Egging - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 06:50 PM EDT
- Microsoft blames FCC for abusing Broadcast Flag - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- Novell Slapped with Suit for New Mini-OS - Authored by: artp on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- TheReg: Mozilla phancies doing a Phorm - Authored by: macrorodent on Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 03:44 AM EDT
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 02:33 AM EDT |
Dicussions about items on the RHS of the Groklaw home page.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Re: Novell produces lead pony for Silverlight - Maltese Pony - Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 06:37 AM EDT
- Longest estate litigation? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- News picks - Wilson Charter School and OLPC in Broadmoor, New Orleans - Authored by: webster on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- re: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9289367 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 10:04 PM EDT
- French Judge Orders Refund For Pre-Installed XP - Authored by: Darkside on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 04:25 AM EDT
- Copyright Royalty Board may be Unconstitutional - Authored by: kh on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 08:54 AM EDT
- Yahoo! Seeking Open Alliance With Google - Authored by: sunny on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 10:22 AM EDT
- UAC - Strawman/Red Herring? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 03:02 PM EDT
- Microsoft Windows Sales Plunge 24% Amid Rising Competition - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- Microsoft: Don't Misunderstand UAC, Other Vista Features - Authored by: Tweeker on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Can Microsoft 'do' Open Source? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 08:57 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 03:03 AM EDT |
The bulk of the time was under the header "Liquidation Analysis".
What is that? How to run through all your cash so Novell can't get any?
Where I live, "liquidation" is paying off the bills with whatever
money is left and winding the company up for good. At this point, any serious
re-organisation plan for SCO has to put that at the top of the list of options.
That's just being realistic. If they don't present a liquidation plan to the
court, I imagine the court will appoint someone who will. There are a lot of
details that have to be taken care of in order to liquidate, so I would expect a
lot of hours were accounted for by that.
If you look at Berger
Singerman's Exhibit A, what do you suppose the "warrant idea" might be?
A warrant is a type of bond which is often linked to share
options. It's probably something to do with the details for how the SNCP plan
would be structured. (Although I don't think that plan will ever actually
happen). SNCP could get bonds (warrants) which would carry a high interest, plus
a right to convert them to shares at an agreed price at a later date.
Telephone Call to H. Swaim, Esq., Counsel for Red Hat
(...)
Review Correspondence from T. Landau Regarding SUSE
Arbitration
I imagine the lawyers were sounding out Red Hat and
Suse about settlement terms. A settlement with all parties (including Red Hat
and Suse) is probably necessary to allow liquidation to be finalised. All Red
Hat really wanted was a declaration that they don't infringe on any of SCO's
rights. Since the judge has ruled that any Unix copyrights that matter belong to
Novell, that shouldn't be too hard to work out or very expensive either. Suse
might be happy to take a declaration as well, considering that there isn't going
to be any money to go around anyway. (The Suse issue is separate from Novell's
monetary claims with SCO).
Exchange E-Mail Communications with
S. McNutt Regarding Claim of York 0.10 (...)
*Claim of York*??! What claim?
Are they asserting a claim?
SCO did say they "promised" to pay
York. Someone at York wants their money. It is possible that someone at SCO made
a personal promise "on his word of honour" to see that York got paid. If they
did, that was a bad idea, because nobody at SCO was authorised to make any such
promises without the bankruptcy court's permission.
This issue sounds
interesting, because in the past it would have been more SCO's style to just say
"so long, suckers" with that sort of problem. However, perhaps someone at SCO is
thinking of their post-SCO career where they can't afford to have an influential
money-man unhappy with him. Fleecing the public is OK, just don't try to
short-change people who have lots of money. SCO has to at least go through the
motions of trying to pay York. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
But I don't know what. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bezz on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 06:34 AM EDT |
Liquidation and warrants appear to be stock-related issues in SNCP's offer to
take SCO private. Under the February MOU, we know there was a proposal for SCO
to issue preferred stock that SNCP would buy for $5 million. On page
2:
US$5 millon for the purchase of a new class of Preferred
Stock (the "Series
A Preferred") to be issued by SCO which shall have the
liquidation, voting
and distribution preferences described hereafter. At its
option, the holder of
the Series A Preferred wil be able to convert the Series A
Preferred
into between 51 % and 85% of the then-outstanding shares of common
stock
of SCO, as described in the next bullet. [...]
Here is an
example of how a liquidatio
n preference is used in a preferred stock context.
Preferred stock can
get certain benefits in the event it is ever liquidated, and that term includes
selling at a profit; liquidation is not exclusively a winding down (e.g. Chapter
7) event and appears, in this case, to be in a preferred stock context.
A warrant offers an
guaranteed right to purchase additional stock in the future at a predetermined
price. This looks like SCO attempting to sweeten the deal by offering an option
to purchase more stock in the future at a price likely above what it is now.
For this to be of value to SNCP, the price of the stock would have to rise above
the warrant value.
The liquidation preference is standard for any investment
in a risky company (one in Chapter 11 facing huge legal liabilities is a
high-risk investment). SCO discussing a warrant, however, could mean SNCP
didn't offer enough cash up front, and SCO had to offer additional future stock
options on the premise the reorganized, private company's stock will rise.
Take note of a line item on Berger Singerman's bill for 4/14/2008
Dl PREPARE FOR,
PARTICIPATE IN CONFERENCE CALL
TO NEGOTIATE MOU; FOllOW UP CALL
WITH CLIENT
AND REORG TEAM; DRAFT RIDERS AND REVISIONS
TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING INCLUDING
NOVELL EXCEPTION; FINALIZE
MOU AND SEND WITH
COVER NOTE
[4.30 hours]
The
"Novell Exception" was also discussed on 4/1/2008. This is an interesting
tidbit. We know the previous York deal sought to sell Novell assets. The first
SNCP deal was so poorly and incompletely presented that the possibility it also
sought to sell Novell's assets also existed. And then we have Mr. Spector's
ill-advised assertion that he believed it was OK to sell Novell's assets and let
Novell fight with the buyer, at a later date and different venue, to get them
back. That raised objections from Novell and the Trustee.
SCO needs to
present the bankruptcy court with a plan that states specifically what assets it
is selling, and they can not be anything owned by Novell. I doubt an APA in the
form "we propose to sell A, B and C, except for those assets owned by Novell"
will fly if they do not state what is excluded. The burden is now on SCO to
identify specifically which assets are being sold. Novell has the Utah
Preliminary Summary Judgments upon which to rely in any objection. And I doubt
the Trustee will be receptive to any APA that requires Novell to work out the
details of what it owns with the buyer at a later date.
SCO is treading on
thin ice. We'll have to look at the MOU when it is submitted. It looks like
they are paying attention to the issue of selling Novell assets now, but we will
see if they are doing so with specificity or not, resulting in more objections
and delay. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 06:45 AM EDT |
"usual suspects", as Judge Dale Kimball refers to the final
scene in Casablanca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_(film)
where Rick Blaine (Bogart) kills Major Strasser and
Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), of the French Vichy
police saves Rick's life by telling his subnormals
to "round up the usual suspects."
The meaning of "usual suspects" is much more than a the
word as defined in a dictionary would indicate by implying
that not only is Kimball aware of all of SCO doings, that
he is opposed to them, opposes them, and that he has
informed SCO of this with out saying any improper word or
shown any bias.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Or... - Authored by: sproggit on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 05:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: edfair on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 07:16 AM EDT |
Sure, there is a value there. A company paying, for example, 20% in taxes, could
afford to pay somewhat under 20 million for 100 million of accumulated tax loss
and be at a break even point. For every dollar less in purchase price they save
20 cents in taxes.
How much have they lost? And where did it come from? I can remember the string
of losing quarters stretching back to almost the "big bang" but there
had to be something there to lose, you can't lose money out of current sales.
I would suspect that IBM could use the the tax writeoff. They have enough taxes
to justify something like that. But I would also expect that they would let the
assets and business dribble to nothing so they pick up no other liabilities,
such as employees.
For lack of a better conspiracy theory I'll try this one. It might explain their
seeming indifference to the asset drain.
---
Ed Fair -- the "Over-the-hill" one[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Cassandra on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
And why would Stephen Norris and Darl McBride be involved in a
teleconference with the attorney about the new deal, if McBride is allegedly
being thrown overboard, if the deal goes through?
Maybe Darl is
begging not to be thrown overboard, if the deal goes through? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
It does look strange, but without having training in business financing it's
impossible to be sure. Does anyone here have this sort of knowledge, or know
anyone who does?
---
Wayne
http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
Second, why is Stuart Singer of Boies Schiller involved in
the MOU for the Stephen Norris deal?
Good question
indeed. In the Bankruptcy Court's December 6, 2007 Order
granting BS&F permission to represent TSG, the Court
wrote
ORDERED that pursuant to section 327(c) of the Bankruptcy
Code, the Debtors are authorized to employ and retain BSF as special counsel,
effective nunc pro tunc to the Petition Date, on the terms set forth in
the Appplicaton and the
Declaration,
provided, however, that BSF shall not be permitted to represent the Debtors
in conducting their bankruptcy cases;
(emphasis
added)
So why indeed is a BS&F lawyer involved in any part of the
bankruptcy proceedings? What am I not understanding?
--- "When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
Free drinks at the bar ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
As long as the current management is still in charge and has any money they can
spend, this is not over. They are trying to pull a fast one. I don't know what
but I expect anything, including things that I cannot think of. Expect a
surprise before the results of the Novell vs SCO decision is finished.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
"In finance, a warrant is a security that entitles the holder to buy stock
of the company that issued it at a specified price, which is usually higher than
the stock price at time of issue.
Warrants are frequently attached to bonds or preferred stock as a sweetener,
allowing the issuer to pay lower interest rates or dividends. They can be used
to enhance the yield of the bond, and make them more attractive to potential
buyers. Warrants can also be used in private equity deals. For instance, it was
a common practice during the height of the dot-com bubble for a landlord of
sought-after commercial real-estate to demand warrants from high-tech startups
as part of the lease agreement. Frequently, these warrants are detachable, and
can be sold independently of the bond or stock.
Corporations issue warrants to enhance the future value of their stock to the
people holding it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(finance)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 07:03 AM EDT |
I'm just guessing here, but this item is dated before the 4 day SCO v. Novell
trial. I'm betting that they mistakenly said Utah state court when they meant
Federal District Court for the District of Utah.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 09:18 AM EDT |
One likely source for subpoenas to SCO would be the Marc Jenson / MadTrax Group
/ Mark Robbins civil and criminal fraud trials now warming up. A prosecutor and
the plantiffs might be seeking to examine financial bona fides Mark Robbins
provided SCO, because both Jenson and the [allegedly] defrauded investors are
both seeking recovery from Robbins. The state criminal fraud trial of Jenson is
scheduled for the end of May, and the federal civil case, Hanson v. Jenson, et
al. is in motion practice. The SL Trib reporting implies there are multiple
civil cases, some of which may be state instead of federal actions.
Below
are excerpts from a very recent SL TRIB news item regarding Madtrax and the
fallout from the related investment frauds:
Judge rejects plea deal
for Jenson in bicycle fraud case
....
Third
District Judge Robin Reese said Thursday that prosecutors didn't work hard
enough to make restitution part of the deal.
.....
Jenson was
raising money for another businessman (ed. Mark Robbins) who had hoped to sell
bikes to the Mormon church for use by missionaries.
Prosecutors say Jenson
was still raising money, even after Brunswick sold Mongoose to Pacific Cycle
Inc. of Madison, Wis.
....
"I just don't feel comfortable with it,"
said Reese, who added that Jenson was "still able to live a lavish lifestyle."
.......
A trial is set for May 27. Jenson [sic in original] he
doesn't owe any money and "the victims aren't what they appear to be."
In
civil litigation tied to the bike deal, Jenson has said the business partner [
ed. Robbins?] owes the money.
"Our plea agreement with the state of Utah
basically left that issue to be resolved with the civil courts," said Rebecca
Hyde, one of Jenson's attorneys. "Judge Reese wasn't willing to allow us to
leave it up to the civil courts."
.......
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
Bills to SCO.
So when is Groklaw going to submit it's bill on behalf of all the researchers
that have been so busy keeping SCO honest these last five years.
Compared to the stuff listed for Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Groklaw and it's
contributors have done ten tons more work easily. No wonder they kept thinking
IBM was running Groklaw. They can't conceive of people volunteering this much
work. If they had to pay for this research, I shudder to think of what the bill
would be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: comms-warrior on Monday, May 19 2008 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
Will Novel ask for payment? If so, does it become a secured creditor to the
haggard remains of the SCO corpse?
Can it start criminal prosecutions agains the SCO board?
Soooo many questions and not enough time.. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|