|
Gulf Capital Partners Enters (or Reenters?) the SCO Bankruptcy |
|
Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:11 PM EDT
|
Gulf Capital Partners, LLC wants to be heard in the SCO bankruptcy, I gather. There is a pro hac vice Motion to Appear [PDF] filed by Gulf Capital Partners, LLC.
There's more than one entity with that or a similar name, but I suspect that this one may be the Stephen Norris Gulf Capital Partners. Incidentally, or maybe not so incidentally, listed as a senior advisor on the principals page is Robert Kasten,
who is
also a consultant for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, which you will recall attacked Linux -- here's the infamous "report" [PDF] -- albeit unsuccessfully. Not that AdTI ever admitted defeat, as you can see on this incredible AdTI page, where they call Open Source software "open sores software" and reference both Maureen O'Gara and Paul Murphy -- small world, isn't it?
The think tank report on Linux was reportedly funded at least indirectly, by Microsoft. Microsoft admits funding AdTI, but not specific projects. And it called the report unhelpful. Of course, there are coincidences in life of the three degrees variety. So, just saying.
This should prove interesting. If it was money on the barrel head this exact minute, though, I don't think they'd need to send a lawyer to speak. So, what then? My best guess is that they may tell the court that money will really and truly appear if SCO wins the appeal. Hmm. That assumes facts not in evidence, as they say.
Here's the entry in the docket:
06/11/2009 - 800 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service of Kimberly A.
Beck Regarding Novell's Reply to the Debtors' Opposition to Its Motion
for Conversion (related document(s) 796 ) Filed by Novell, Inc..
(Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
06/12/2009 - 801 - Motion to
Appear pro hac vice of Leslie Allen Bayles, Esquire. Receipt Number
156221, Filed by Gulf Capital Partners, LLC. (Conlan, Kelly) (Entered:
06/12/2009)
Ms. Bayles is an associate with the very reputable firm, Bryan Cave. She seems to specialize in bankruptcy: Leslie Bayles has experience representing a large range of clients,
including secured lenders, unsecured creditors and debtors. She has
represented clients in bankruptcy-related litigation, including bankruptcy
claim disputes and defense against large avoidance actions. Her experience
also includes representing financial institutions in debtor-in-possession
financing, as well as repossessions and foreclosures involving large
equipment and aircraft across the country. Maybe she can foreclose on the SCO blimp. Nah. Other side, I'm afraid. The firm is also sending a partner, Alan S. Pearce, according to another filing we see on the docket but haven't uploaded yet -- [ Update: we have it now.]:802 - 6/12/2009 - Motion to Appear pro hac vice of Alan S. Pearce, Esquire.
Receipt Number 158018, Filed by Gulf Capital Partners, LLC. (Conlan, Kelly)
Here's what he specializes in:Alan Pearce focuses his practice on mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures,
securities, financings, real estate investment trusts and general corporate
matters. He represents public and privately held companies and executives in
a wide variety of businesses including, real estate, finance, magazines,
manufacturing and e-commerce. He has represented clients in various
financing transactions, including public and private equity and debt
offerings, securitizations and various institutional credit and loan
transactions. Sending a partner means someone cares enough about this to send the very best, as they say.
Or someone hates Linux enough.
|
|
Authored by: bezz on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
If any. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
Strange things are emerging around the wounded predator! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Leslie Bayles - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Alan S. Pearce - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: bezz on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
Be sure to cite the title in your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bezz on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
There's always something else interesting going on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Behind Microsoft's IE-free, Windows-for-Europe ploy - Authored by: Gringo on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- It IS a small world - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 03:45 AM EDT
- Microsoft to give away anti-virus - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 06:00 AM EDT
- Takeover fraud 'on the increase' - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 06:38 AM EDT
- Finally found a suitable punishment for M$ - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 08:56 AM EDT
- Questions about bankruptcy trustees, and possible violation of Groklaw copyright - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 09:26 AM EDT
- Something more positive - kernel 2.6.30 - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 10:14 AM EDT
- US Attorneys Fishing For Tons Of Info On Anonymous Commenters - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 10:49 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
Below is "Local" Rule 9010-1 from pages 91 / 92 of
the LOCAL RULES FOR THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE (Effective February 1, 2008)
http://www.deb.uscourts.gov/LocalRules/Local_Rules_2008.pdf
Rule 9010-1 Bar Admission.
(a) The Bar of this Court. The Bar of this Court shall consist of
those persons heretofore admitted to practice in the District
Court and those who may hereafter be admitted in accordance with
these Rules.
(b) Admission Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys admitted, practicing, and
in good standing in another jurisdiction, who are not admitted
to practice by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and
the District Court, may be admitted pro hac vice in the
discretion of the Court, such admission to be at the pleasure
of the Court. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, or
authorized by the Constitution of the United States or acts of
Congress, an applicant is not eligible for permission to
practice pro hac vice if the applicant:
(i) Resides in Delaware; or
(ii) Is regularly employed in Delaware; or
(iii) Is regularly engaged in business, professional, or
other similar activities in Delaware.
Any Judge of the Court may revoke, upon hearing after notice
and for good cause, a pro hac vice admission in a case or
proceeding before a judge. The form for admission pro hac vice,
which may be amended by the Court, is Local Form 105 and is
located on the Court's website.
(c) Association with Delaware Counsel Required. Unless otherwise
ordered, an attorney not admitted to practice by the District
Court and the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware may not
be admitted pro hac vice unless associated with an attorney who
is a member of the Bar of the District Court and who maintains
an office in the District of Delaware for the regular
transaction of business ("Delaware counsel"). Consistent with
CM/ECF Procedures, Delaware counsel shall be the registered
users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. Unless
otherwise ordered, Delaware counsel shall attend proceedings
before the Court.
(d) Time to Obtain Delaware Counsel. A party not appearing pro se
shall obtain representation by a member of the Bar of the
District Court or have its counsel associate with a member of
the Bar of the District Court in accordance with (paragraph (c)
above) within thirty (30) days after:
91
(i) The filing of the first paper filed on its behalf; or
(ii) The filing of a case transferred or removed to this
Court.
Failure to timely obtain such representation shall subject the
defaulting party to appropriate sanctions.
(e) Association with Delaware Counsel not Required.
(i) Government Attorneys. An attorney not admitted in the
District Court but admitted in another United States
District Court may appear representing the United
States of America (or any officer or agency thereof) or
any State (or officer or agency thereof) so long as a
certification is filed, signed by that attorney,
stating (a) the courts in which the attorney is
admitted, (b) that the attorney is in good standing in
all jurisdictions in which he or she has been admitted
and (c) that the attorney will be bound by these Local
Rules and that the attorney submits to the jurisdiction
of this Court for disciplinary purposes.
(ii) Delaware Attorney with Out of State Office. Attorneys
who are admitted to the Bar of the District Court and
in good standing, but who do not maintain an office in
the District of Delaware, may appear on behalf of
parties upon approval by the Court.
(iii) Claim Litigation. Parties may file or prosecute a proof
of claim or a response to their claim. The Court may,
however, direct the claimant to consult with Delaware
counsel if the claim litigation will involve extensive
discovery or trial time.
92
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:41 PM EDT |
There do seem to be a few of them and there seems to be more then one with
regards investment purposes.
This one, for example, appears to foucus on:
- Mergers and
Acquisitions
- Corporate Financing
- Corporate and Financial
Restructuring
Perhaps SCOG realized they don't stand a chance and need
to get someone "in to make a real attempt to restructure"..... or perhaps this
is just another in a long string of appearances.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
It's ironic how PJ considers Paul Murphy so anti-Linux and the posters in the
comments section of his blog often accuse him of being a Linux-fan-boi.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
My best guess is that they may tell the court that money will
really and truly appear if SCO wins the appeal.
My own best
guess is that the lawyers will say the their client will "seriously consider"
making a "significant investment" if SCO makes "sufficient progress" in their
case. I don't expect them to get any more specific than that.
If the
judge asks for more details, well that's a very good question. They'll have to
get back to their client about that. Can the court postpone its decision for a
bit while their client puts a detailed plan together? It will take a few trips
to the Middle East to sort this out. There's the summer holidays to consider,
and then Ramadan coming up after that, and before you know it, it's Christmas.
How's next spring sound?
If this is Steve Norris again, then I don't
think there is any money. In fact, I would suspect that SCO has promised to pay
Steve Norris to have someone show up and do a song and dance. If I was the
judge, I would be saying "show me the money".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
This is no different than SCO's external witnesses in Novell. Truly irrelevant,
but an appealable issue.
Only this time, there are three appellate levels (District Court, Circuit Court,
Supreme Court) instead of just the latter two, as in Novell.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bezz on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
Novell's counsel, Mr. Lewis, is probably going to be a very busy lawyer on
Monday. I expect SCO to present a bunch of hearsay and irrelevant speculation.
They did it at the hearing for the
third motion to extend exclusivity, and things have continued to decay.
Here are some examples from last September:
MR. LEWIS: Your
Honor, I have to raise an objection. That sounds an awful lot like it might
be hearsay in that the witness has not testified who he's testifying about.
Is he testifying about what he was told by York, in which case it's hearsay.
And if he's -- if he's only testifying about what he believed, that's another
matter and I, frankly, am not sure what the relevance of it
is.
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, my -- I already told
Mr. Lewis [sic], I'll stipulate. That's even worse hearsay than the other
one!
THE COURT: Yes!
MR. LEWIS: Your --
Your Honor, it's hearsay again. What the investors were concerned about, only
the investors can testify to. Mr. McBride can testify to what he told them.
What they told him, but that's hearsay. He can testify that after this
article came out, somebody backed out. That would not be hearsay.
But he can't testify about the reasons that -- that somebody
gave.
MR. LEWIS: It's hearsay.
THE COURT:
I -- I -- I think it is hearsay. If we can stick to facts as to the trial,
that there were negotiations. The negotiations ceased, you know, along those
lines, that would be acceptable.
Have fun reading more objections
to hearsay Mr. McBride tried to use as testimony if you care. There is no
documentation on file stating the money is in the bank for SCO to continue
forward. Even if Steven Norris himself were to appear and testify he was
willing to invest, that is not a definitive agreement.
Expect some fur to
fly at the hearing. SCO is going to try every trick it can to avoid conversion,
but Mr. Lewis has demonstrated he understands the case fully and is way ahead of
the game anticipating SCO's antics. With the US Trustee now fully in agreement,
SCO doesn't have much of a chance. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
There is no fire. GCP is not in this. There is no plan. GCP has not
put up any money. They will not put up any money.
Without a binding
commitment with money or guarantees the Court should not hear them. There
should be objections to wasting the court's time. Money talks and Bolshevik
.....
They want GCP to come to court to blow more smoke at Gross.
They want to convince him that there appears to be a deal to make a deal if they
win exactly what they want from the Court of Appeals. This is also why they
puff up the prospects of their appeal and want to retry the case before Gross.
They want more time from Gross and so present GCP to help the Judge make
his decision based on this lawyer-personified speculation.
They've done
this enough that Gross risks looking ....foolish. He is probably rooting for
the Court of Appeals to hurry up and make his job easier.
Who knows what the
Appeals court will say. They could send it back for a further testimonial
hearing on the evidence.
Even GCP doesn't want to do any work until
they see that there is something to be won. Such drama. Maybe Gross will
finally say "Cut the fluff. Put up or shut up! No money plan, no talk. Pay
the creditors or sit down."
Clearly SCO plans to throw in the towel if
the Decision is affirmed on Appeal or at least GCP won't jump in with this
little contingency.
If they win a replay in Utah, GCP can pay off the
creditors and plan to their hearts' content.
Even the schemers don't
want to invest in this litigation now without winning some leverage from the
appeal. The PIPE Fairy Backstop is no fool. They will only buy more litigation
and FUD if it is available. SCO needs that Appeal.
They
have so little confidence that any bankruptcy trustee would crave billions and
see the litigation as they do. The schemers FUD Campaign has hit a snag with
its litigation.
---------webster
Tyrants live
their delusions.
Beware. Deal with the PIPE
Fairy and you will sell your soul.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
You refer to AdTI several times in the present tense (and I note Kasten's bio
that you link to does too) but the AdTI web pages appear to be abandoned. I
can't find any evidence that they've done anything since 2005. It would appear
that AdTI is no longer operating.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 10:53 PM EDT |
Are these the people SCO felt morally obligated to pay? Are they afraid that if
it goes to ch 7 SCO will never be permitted to pay up?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:05 AM EDT |
Referring to AdTI as a think tank is an insult to thought.
They would be far more appropriately characterized as creative writers! Not good
ones either.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
Can't groklaw send a lawyer pro-hac-vice ? Last minute is always the best! Looks
like there would be quite a story to tell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
For an outfit which presumably wants to be viewed in a serious light, some of
AdTI's web pages are surprisingly
juvenile.
Groklaw has exposed inaccuracies and bias in the writing of a number of
journalists (no need to name them again), but at least they have all written
like adults. Malicious adults, in one case. But adults.
Parts of the AdTI
web site look as though they were written by 13-year-olds. Perhaps they
were.
Their home page offers a link to a version in French. Wow! How
impressive! What a cosmopolitan, cultured set of people the AdTI must have!
Unfortunately, it's just a translation done by Babelfish, so any of you who read
French will get a few laughs out of clicking on their link. The name "Mike
Gravel", for example, comes out as "gravier de Mike".
Clue for the AdTI:
Babelfish is for quick-and-rough translations to help people find out whether a
foreign-language web site is interesting. If you want a professional-looking
translation that won't make you look silly, hire a professional translator.
Their fees are pretty low - a good professional translation of the AdTI home
page would cost under $100. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AMackenzie on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
Maybe what's narking SCO is the nature of the liquidation motions.
It looks from here like the Trustee and the Court treat such procedings as
slightly distasteful routine business, not worth raising too much of a fuss
over. SCO's delusions of suing multinational companies for billions of dollars
have finally been shattered, and they're having to come to terms with reality:
that they're nothing special, just yet one more bankrupt firm like any other,
and that their desires, plans, cleverness and scheming are no longer of any
consequence.
Bringing in an ostensible financial backer is a desperate attempt to ward off
that reality.
Maybe.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
I recall McBride back in May
saying (when he found out about the U.S. Trustee's Chapter 7
motion):
“We are reviewing the motion that was filed in Delaware
today with counsel and will have a detailed response for the court in due
course,” McBride said in an e-mailed statement. “We plan to oppose the motion
and present our own suggested course of action to the court.”
I'm
guessing that this is a hastily-assembled portion of that picture. I'm assuming
that negotiations with Gulf Partners were not ongoing when TSG filed their
Opposition to the Chapter 7 motions last week, else they would likely have
mentioned such in their opposition.
--- "When I say something, I put
my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Baud on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
I would be SCO, I'd try to impressionate the judge by at least filing MORs when
they are due! April's MOR is already 23 days late.
Just my 2 cents, Darl. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- And the MORs ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:50 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
Darl McBride: I have an idea!
Ralph Yarro: [shouting] What? What is it?
Darl McBride: Lomax told whoever he was talking to not to kill us while
he's
around.
Ralph Yarro: Yes, but Bernie's dead. He's not around anymore.
Darl McBride: Yeah. I know that. You know that. Nobody else knows that.
//
That was back in episode 1, and we've been subjected to
endless hijinks since
then, as new characters come in and try to convince the
court and the public
that ol' Bernie is alive and kicking. I'm hopeful that
this is the last weekend at
Bernie's, and the judge will finally declare that,
yes, Bernie is in fact dead as a
doornail.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
PJ wrote:
My best guess is that they may tell the court that
money will really and truly appear if SCO wins the appeal. Hmm. That assumes
facts not in evidence, as they say.
I reckon PJ probably got
this right, about what they may tell the court. I hope they may tell the court
also why the filing of the appeal was not, after all, good enough to bring forth
the money, in light of what SCOundrels claimed last year?
I wondered why
Norris (et al?) sent lawyers. I wondered if perhaps this might be because, as we
have often observed, lawyers seem to be better placed to be creative with the
truth in the court room, compared to, say, witnesses?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
I saw the docket items on the epic Systems page for SCO before the Groklaw
article. There have also been a couple of related threads on Investor Village,
where among other things someone checked a State of California web site to determine if an entity is currently
registered with the Secretary of State and could find no listing for a Gulf
Capital Partners either as a corporation or an LP/LLC.
The web site that PJ
referenced that includes a listing for Stephen Norris shows an address and
street number for an office location in the infamous 90210 area code in addition
to a claim of offices in New York and Dubai:
Gulf Capital
Partners
9440 Little Santa Monica, 401
Beverly Hills, CA
90210
(310) 402.5910
After a bit of floundering around doing
some checking into the economic viability of a possible investment from Dubai, I
got to wondering if the whole thing, Stephen Norris and Gulf Partner Capital
weren't just a bit too convenient in suiting SCO's purposes, the potential
shining knight savior showing up in a Dudley Dooright fashion in the nick of
time.
Being a bit graphically oriented I turned to Google maps and looked at
all businesses at 9440 Little
Santa Monica Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. The first clue to something
interesting is in the phone numbers. Note there are several businesses in the
building that have the same exchange extensions, usually an indication of a
business relation, wherein the numbers are obtained as a block. Note the Suite
400 as well. Searching through SEC filings and googling I found around half a
dozen companies listed as having either Suite 400 or Suite 401 at that address,
and some companies using both. There was one company riding the pink sheets, as
well as a company
with Stephen Norris associated as
Vice Chairman that had ridden their stock down from a yearly high of
$1.90 to an all too familiar $0.12 a share.
Now it would be hard to
say something dodgy is going on here, but were I asked to invest in some of
these businesses it would give me pause based on these relationships in addition
to their financials. It might possibly give pause to the accepting of GCP's
credentials as a potential savior investor in SCO, indicating the need
potentially for due diligence in accepting claims of intentions, and not blindly
accepting bonifides. There's a Chris Norris associated with Hollywood Studios
International who is also apparently a Managing Director of Gulf
Partner Capital, and we could note HSI uses a different address. There are also
indications several of the companies associated with the office suites are quite
successful. These usually show distinct premises and contact details in
addition to the original addresses and phone numbers, perhaps of a historical
origin.
Sharing office facilities and a PABX with other businesses might for
instance raise doubts of the ability to conduct business privately. Likewise it
might raise the question of financial resources, either availability or
capability to commit them. It could also innocuously reflect on personality
quirks of principals - I seem to recall people saying Bill Gates never picked up
a check for a meal. It could potentially lead to more interesting questions,
too.
I can provide some of numerous links I found supporting these
businesses relationships if requested. It was only a matter of a few hours to
trace through and there is enough information in this comment to replicate the
effort.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
Given that the Chapt. 7 trustee is supposed to maximize the value of the estate,
can anyone who so desires make a bid for SCOG's corporate records? Specifically,
can a group of interested individuals who met each other at a certain internet
site organize themselves to submit such a bid? This group would purchase the
copyrights to the records, since those copyrights are an asset of the estate. Of
course, this may motivate certain other parties to submit a bid for these
assets...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
It is possible, I think, that the Judge may not sign off on
the pro hac vice motion until after the hearing.
I am thinking, the GCP lawyer can do two things.
One: lay cash on the barrellhead to buy out SCO and pull
them out of Chapter 11. In that case, GCP gets control of
the litigation. I really doubt this will happen.
Two: He will give a speech about how the plan, loans, future
moneys, rosy pictures etc will happen down the line. That is not really
relevant at Monday's hearing. All that, can
be done under Chapter 7 or dismissal.
Presenting plans orally is a non starter, so what are the
chances of GCP having anything to say in its own behalf
that would be useful to the BK court?
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 15 2009 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
Looking at epiq
SCOGBK#803
Objection of
International Business Machines Corporation to Debtors Motion to File Appendix
Under Seal and Request to Strike Any Argument Based on Such Documents (related
document(s)[784]) Filed by IBM Corp. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A# (2)
Certificate of Service) (Silverstein, Laurie)
Seems IBM was
never sent a copy of the
appendix.
SCOGBK#804
Objection to Motion to Convert
Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 Case Filed by XAC, LLC fka Amici LLC (TAS)
Here's Amici as a creditor objecting to conversion, citing
the compromise SCOGBK#794 ... fully support SCO's continued viability as an
operating company and have recently agreed to reduce our claim to $150,000,
in an effort to support that
viability.
SCOGBK#805
Objection to Motion to
Convert Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 Case Filed by Leap Tide Capital Management, Inc.
(TAS)
Here's another shareholder, claiming to own ... 8%
of the shares outstanding as of the latest Form 10-Q filing ... objecting to
conversion, with vague statements about possibly maybe in some unspecified
future circumstances being ... interested in providing additional capital to
SCO to pursue its claims against IBM and Novell .... But then get this near
the end, for added value ...
We strongly oppose the efforts to
convert SCO's Chapter 11 filing to Chapter 7 filing or other liquidation plan
prior to the proper conclusion of significant outstanding litigation that could
provide the greatest return for all SCO stakeholders and
creditors.
... did I read that right,? They're saying they'd
like SCO to be able to complete all of the litigation under protection of
Chapter 11?
SCOGBK#806
Amended Notice of Agenda of
Matters Scheduled for Hearing (related document(s)[799]) Filed by The SCO Group,
Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 6/15/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824
Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1)
Certificate of Service and Service Lists) (Makowski,
Kathleen)
Includes the above objections into the previous
version of the agenda SCOGBK#799.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|