|
|
| Bankruptcy bills... and unpaid invoices |
 |
|
Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 03:10 PM EDT
|
More applications for compensation in the SCO bankruptcy, by both Dorsey & Whitney and by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones. It's going to be interesting to see who gets paid in this saga, in the end, particularly if SCO gets sent into Chapter 7. The bills are very different from the early bankruptcy salad days. For example, Dorsey & Whitney bills $1.92 for computer research expense for the period of March 1 to April 30, according to Exhibit B. I'm a paralegal and I can't imagine how they get to a figure like that. Well. I *could* imagine. They were in a deep sleep, woke up in a panic thinking they forgot to research something for SCO, ran to the computer and hit PACER, only to realize after a few seconds that needing to do research for SCO's bankruptcy now was just a bad dream. Kidding. If you look on page 15 of Exhibit D, it's a bill for "Pacer Service Center Electronic Court Searches." Hmm. My theory takes wings. Looking through Exhibit A, I see research for a few minutes on page 3 on the subject of updating critical dates memorandum "with respect to recently filed pleadings". But then on the costs, I see an entry on 3/11 for PACER charges of $4.32 and more on the 27th for .08, for a total PACER charge of $13.44. You know how I interpret this? No one cares about legal research now. One does what one must. And that's it. The money spigot is shutting down. And if you notice in Exhibit D, the paralegal is spending more time on the case than the sole partner and the sole associate, on pages 7 and 8. Ooh. Page 14. Unpaid invoices. "Telephone conference with E. Schnable regarding letter to SCO regarding unpaid invoices". what? what? what? I thought SCO just told the court at the last hearing that SCO was keeping up with bills. Well. That explains it all. This has a certain karmic ring, don't you think? These law firms all fought as a group to help SCO avoid paying Novell until the great bye and bye, at the earliest, if ever. And here they are, with unpaid invoices. Perfection.
The filings:
05/12/2009 - 755 - Monthly
Application for Compensation (Twelfth) for the Period March 1, 2009
through April 30, 2009 Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Objections due by
6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D # 5 Declaration
Certification # 6 Notice)
(Schnabel, Eric) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
05/14/2009 - 756 - Certificate of Service of Twelfth Monthly Fee Application Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Schnabel, Eric) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
05/14/2009 - 757 - Application for Compensation (Nineteenth) of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP for Compensation and for Reimbursement of Expenses for March 1, 2009 thorugh March 31, 2009 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 6/3/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service & Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MDT on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
Give an idea where they are, if any.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Put in clicky's if you have links, it's not hard...
<a href="http://www.example.com/">like this</a>
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Happy Birthday Groklaw - Authored by: Erwan on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- 2192 days of awesomenes - Thanks and congratulations all! (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 08:49 PM EDT
- European Council: moving to open source desktops will not result in savings - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 08:56 PM EDT
- BT pushing Internet Explorer 8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 03:50 AM EDT
- 32bit windows CAN use more than 3GB of RAM, M$ just doesn't want you too - Authored by: kh on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 06:43 AM EDT
- Read this article - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- Fairly common practice - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 09:25 AM EDT
- 32bit windows CAN use more than 3GB of RAM, M$ just doesn't want you too - Authored by: N_au on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- No Google cache - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- 32bit windows CAN use more than 3GB of RAM, M$ just doesn't want you too - Authored by: jwrl on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 11:06 AM EDT
- 509 Bandwidth limit exceeded n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- 32bit windows CAN use more than 3GB of RAM, M$ just doesn't want you too - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 04:32 AM EDT
- You only need 640k - Authored by: maroberts on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- much ado about nothing - Authored by: designerfx on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- This is the trick. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- I thought the memory limit was to do with hardware device mapping. - Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, May 20 2009 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- Anybody know what is happening with the Boycott Novell site? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- So..., who owns the copyrights on public government proceedings? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 09:30 PM EDT
- Windows 7 to cost more? - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- Some not impressed by new Della web site - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 11:00 PM EDT
- Need help with research about patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 03:47 AM EDT
- Sugar Wins! Nobody Buying Windows XO Laptops - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 06:57 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
Comment on news picks here.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Is there anyone in this sorry tale that hasn't been stiffed by
SCO?
---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard
Only For Themselves [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
Makes you wonder about SCO's cash situation.
I would bet Darl's salary will be paid before the legal bills, no matter how
much he considers SCO's only chances in the end to be a legal win.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cash situation - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 10:29 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Jamis on Saturday, May 16 2009 @ 08:00 PM EDT |
What I don't understand is the stock trading on this turkey. It has been around
$0.14/share for the last couple of weeks and upwards of 1,000 shares/day. You
would have thought the threat of Chapter 7 would have cratered the price.
Profit Margin (ttm): -55.52%
Operating Margin (ttm): -18.19%
Return on Assets (ttm): -14.45%
Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): -36.40%
EBITDA (ttm): -2.29M
Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): -7.66M
Diluted EPS (ttm): -0.36
Now that's what I like to see in an investment! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 03:35 AM EDT |
For waking up in the middle of the night in a panic and logging on to Pacer,
finding the server is down for maintenance, getting a glass of milk from the
fridge, drinking it and then going back to bed. . . . . . $1.98.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
These law firms all fought as a group to help SCO avoid paying
Novell until the great bye and bye, at the earliest, if ever. And here they are,
with unpaid invoices.
They must have known better than
anyone that SCO was not a going concern. ---
It's not the software
that's free; it's you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
My suggestion:
They billed for $xxx.xx for the period ending 28th February. Having stuck down
the envelope, they realised that they would have to lift it into the 'out' tray.
Normally this would be charged to the following month. When they realised that
there would be no following month, they billed for the work anyway.
Expect bills for $1.92 every two months from now on.
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 17 2009 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
These law firms all fought as a group to help SCO avoid paying Novell
until the great bye and bye, at the earliest, if ever. And here they are, with
unpaid invoices. Perfection.
You see, the US legal system can
deliver justice ... :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
So...- IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Autozone, etc. spent millions to fight a
frivolous case.
- Novell gets pennies on the dollar of the license fees SCO
owes them.
- Microsoft got to put a legal cloud over Linux for over half a
decade for only $86 million.
- SCO Execs were paid mostly in cash and were
well rewarded for burning their credibility.
- Enderle and O'Gara got to see
their name in print more often.
Justice would be:
- Novell gets all
the money they're owed for unix licenses.
- IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Autozone,
etc get all their legal bills paid.
- Any Linux company who lost a customer
due to the legal FUD over the past 6 years gets paid for the lost of their
customers.
- Whomever put SCO up to this gets fined for all those costs, and
investigated for fraud.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
This totally misunderstands the reason for this. Support for >4GB RAM in
32-bit Windows XP was removed by Service Pack 2 because Windows has lots of
dodgy closed-source device drivers. The hardware vendors didn't test them on
PCs with lots of memory, so these caused lots of blue-screen-of-death crashes
when used with >4GB RAM. (32-bit systems can only access 4GB of RAM easily;
there's some magic called "PAE" that lets 32-bit x86 chips access more memory.
A few years ago people didn't need it so the device manufacturers didn't test
with it).
Most people with more than 4GB of RAM can move to a 64-bit OS;
the only reason to stick with 32-bit Windows is if your dodgy closed-source
device drivers aren't available in a 64-bit version. And if that's the case
then your device manufacturer probably didn't test with >4GB RAM anyway.
There's not a lot that Microsoft can do about this - they don't have the driver
source code.
(Most of the Linux device drivers are open-source and part
of the kernel, so the Linux people can and have gone through and fixed them to
support >4GB RAM even in 32-bit mode).
See
this article. The relevant quote:
PAE mode can be enabled
on Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1 and later versions of Windows to
support hardware-enforced DEP. However, many device drivers designed for
these systems may not have been tested on system configurations with PAE
enabled. In order to limit the impact to device driver compatibility,
changes to the hardware abstraction layer (HAL) were made to Windows XP SP2 and
Windows Server 2003 SP1 Standard Edition to limit physical address space to 4
GB.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
