|
|
| SCO's Feb. 25th Bankruptcy Hearing Cancelled - Hearings in March Instead |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 10:45 AM EST
|
Just so you know, in case you were thinking of attending -- the hearing in the SCO bankruptcy scheduled for February 25th has been cancelled [PDF]. There will instead be two hearings, one on March 16 and another on March 30.
The hearing on the
16th will be for argument on the SCO motion for an order establishing sale and bid procedures, approving form of the asset purchase agreement, notice of sale, etc. There will then be a hearing on March 30th for the IBM and Novell objections to SCO's disclosure statement in connection with its reorganization plan and for Petrofsky's objection to extending the exclusivity deadline. The scheduling seems rather odd, since the sale and the reorganization plan would seem to be connected, but in SCO's mind, not so apparently, and the hearings follow. There are other filings too. Here they are:
02/23/2009 - 711 - Supplemental Objection of Petrofsky to Fourth Motion by Debtors Under Section 1121(d) for Extension of Exclusivity Deadlines (related document(s) 649 , 668 ) Filed by Alan P. Petrofsky (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Form of Order) (Petrofsky, Alan) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
02/23/2009 - 712 - HEARING CANCELLED. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 2/25/2009 at 11:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
02/23/2009 - 713 Affidavit/Declaration of Service of Kimberly Beck Regarding Novell's Objecton to the Debtors' Proposed Amended Disclosure Statement; Novell's Objection to The Debtors' Revised Motion for (I) Order Scheduling Confirmation Hearing (etc) for Amended Plan; Novell's Objection to Debtors' Motion for An Order Establishing Sale and Bid Procedures and Related Relief (related document(s) 704 , 705 , 706 ) Filed by Novell, Inc.. (Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 11:08 AM EST |
Unlikely in such a short post, but none the less
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 11:13 AM EST |
Commentary on the items in the news column on the right.
Please follow the important stuff guidelines and see the red text for html help
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 11:14 AM EST |
Anything of interest that does not pertain to this entry.
Please follow the important stuff guidelines and see the red text for html help.
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- [PR] “Frenemies” Novell and VMware out on the dance floor doing the tango - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 02:12 PM EST
- SONY v Tenenbaum delayed again: - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 04:31 PM EST
- Microsoft woos open source (again) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 06:11 AM EST
- RSS problem? - Authored by: attila_the_pun on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 08:39 AM EST
- Off Topic - Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 12:03 PM EST
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 08:46 PM EST
- Microsoft sues TomTom over Linux and other patent claims - Authored by: wjaguar on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 06:38 PM EST
- Business Insider - Microsoft Files Suit: Linux Violates Our Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 06:40 PM EST
- MS suing over linux kernel patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 07:27 PM EST
- Clickable Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 07:43 PM EST
- A 90-year-old Linux user and his webcam - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 12:46 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 12:05 PM EST |
How about: "the zombie lawsuit that wouldn't die"?
I must confess I'm waiting for a news item like
"SCO bankrupty case converted to chapter 7."
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 01:46 PM EST |
All Bankruptcy Court hearings in the future will also be canceled. SCO will
never emerge from bankruptcy, and no bankruptcy plan will ever be approved.
Is this the legal system we're supposed to respect?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: s65_sean on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 01:59 PM EST |
Here goes SCO again. Changing the schedule to suit themselves. It seems like
they are at least skirting the edge of what's allowed, if not abusing the rules
altogether, just to give themselves extra time to reply to the various
objections that have been filed. Normally a motion is filed and there is a
deadline for objections, and another deadline for replies to those objections.
In the case of these motions that were to be heard on February 25, SCO filed
their motions and the other parties filed their objections within the time limit
allowed, and now SCO has extended the date of the hearing which gives them more
time to prepare their replies to these objections than they would otherwise have
had. Don't the normal rules of civil procedure apply in bankruptcy court? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 03:57 PM EST |
I'm not a SCO supporter but I think you can't sharpen your knives on each scrap
of news.
Could be lots of normal reasons for this. Its administrivia not court drama.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 05:34 PM EST |
OK, here's a question.
Imagine that you are one of the surviving members of TSG's Board of Directors.
What was your plan?
The day that you knew that your company's future plans were based on a game of
bluff. You knew, or you should have known, that an expert that you employed to
scan the Linux codebase for infringement had come up blank. You knew, or you
should have known, that if IBM elected to fight and you lost that you would be
ground to dust. If you didn't know these things then you simply were never
competent to be board material, even for one such as The SCO Group.
So if you have that single atom or speck of common sense, what's your plan,
Stan? Whatcha gonna do, Drew?
Here are some potential scenarios that The SCO Group may have considered at the
outset:-
1. IBM see the sabre rattling, perform a due diligence check and decide that
they might have sufficient skeletons in the closet to be willing to settle. Darl
and the Gang retire with [ as PJ so eloquently puts it ] beeellions of dollars.
Probability: minimal.
2. The case gets as far as discovery; the SCO legal team find something juicy
and IBM settle. Darl & Gang retire etc etc. Probability: minimal.
3. IBM decide that they simply can't be bothered to swat this particular gadfly,
and buy them out. You get the rest. Probablity: well, difficult to call; I'd say
low to moderate. Maybe the clincher here form our perspective would be that IBM
are big enough and wise enough to see the big picture: they know that if they
roll over once on a lawsuit the door will be jammed open with lawyers trying to
deliver subpoenas and they decide the only way to go is a robust defense. So
probability cannot have been that good.
4. The SCO Group lose in court. You can almost visualise this one, can't you.
They're all sound round a good ol' Texan barbequeue late one summer evening.
Everyone's got a beer in their hand and they are all laughing and joking about
what each of them will spend their payout on. Then someone [ anyone remember
Sandy Gupta? ] might turn around and say, "Or we could lose!" There is
a round of laughter at this, but it seems a little forced, a little nervous.
Whether it was discussed privately or left to individual participants to decide,
they must have given it some thought. Especially by now.
But here we are in February 2009. 2009, anyone? Hello!
If there was a sugar daddy out there with genuine interest in the business, I
suspect we would have heard about them by now.
If SCO had a hope in heaven's chance of returning to profitability, I suspect
we'd have seen "green shoots of recovery" by now.
If the plan is to simply bleed the company dry and then watch it collapse under
it's own weight, surely an even incompetent management team could have done that
by now? So why could *early* Chapter 7 worry SCO???
This doesn't make sense to me. [ Not that much of this sordid tale ever did, you
understand! ] I've been giving this some thought over the last couple of weeks
and trying to come up with a practical sensible game plan that actually called
for a long and agonisingly slow demise. What does this bring them?
Do we have behind-the-scenes negotiations with the SEC?
Is this a ploy to hope that somehow PJ is going to forget, get bored, and take
on another case? [ I know, I'm sorry, that one really was just tooo far out! ]
Maybe the idea is that if we lose interest they will be able to sell the
precious "Unix Assets" to someone else?
Maybe they have realised that if they do go Chapter 7 there is something in that
clause that some of the IP reverts to Novell?
Or is it that they are just utterly incompetent and were totally blinded by the
greed of untold riches from an IBM payout... and now they have got this far and
simply don't have a clue???
I do appreciate that this is all just idle speculation - sorry for that - but
perhaps we have some readers who have experience of similar cases and/or with
any kind of motivation that would drive a company to this state?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What Would You Do? - Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 05:58 PM EST
- What Would You Do? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 06:09 PM EST
- What Would You Do? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 06:41 PM EST
- Don't look to SCO for your answer. Follow the money. - Authored by: webster on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 07:57 PM EST
- What Would You Do? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2009 @ 10:27 PM EST
- What Would You Do? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 05:42 AM EST
- Where are the buyers? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 05:45 AM EST
- What Would You Do? - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 10:18 AM EST
- What Would You Do? - Authored by: Steve Allen on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 10:26 AM EST
- What Would You Do? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 11:51 AM EST
- Greed and mismanagement are in control --Re: What Would You Do? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 01:21 PM EST |
We plan on selling everything and you'll get nothing from it.
Oh, did you have an objection? Bring it up next week.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 25 2009 @ 01:37 PM EST |
SCO expects a cash infusion from....
Darn, don't know if the lobbiest was able to get this into the bailout plan....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
