|
|
| SCO's Exhibits to unXis APA Motion |
 |
|
Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 11:58 AM EDT
|
Here are the exhibits, or some of them, attached to SCO's Motion regarding its proposed sale to unXis, with some of them not only sealed but not even listed or designated:
06/23/2009 - 818 - Certificate of Service Regarding Debtors' Motion for Authority to Sell Property Outside the Ordinary Course of Business Free and Clear of Interests and for Approval of Assumption and Assignment of Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in Conjunction With Sale (related document(s) 815 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Billion, Mark) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
06/23/2009 - 819 - Exhibit /Exhibits to Purchase and Sale Agreement Regarding Debtors' Motion for Authority to Sell Property Outside the Ordinary Course of Business Free and Clear of Interests and for Approval of Assumption and Assignment of Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in Conjunction with Sale (related document(s) 815 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: emacsuser on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
| How can a bankrupt company sell anything? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
| Please correct errors in the story here.
---
"Then you admit
confirming not denying you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
| Discuss Groklaw News Picks here.
---
"Then you admit confirming not
denying you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chris hill on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
Combine this with the way the papers for the SEC are filed, and what they want
gone from other sources, SCO will probably word their APA and 'Assorted
documents' so that it will seem as though the copyrights have transfered
properly, then the new company registers with the papers, then the copyrights
are transferred back, giving SCO a supposed legal right to the copyrights before
the appeal which they can present in court.
Another SCO endrun around the
system, I believe. I can't see anything else from this company.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
| Discuss off topically here. It's good to have the canonical threads at the
top, don't you agree?
---
"Then you admit confirming not denying you
ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 60 Free Online Linux Books - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- AP Issues Strict Facebook, Twitter Guidelines to Staff - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- [OT] Off Topic discussions - switching to Open Source - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- Bing rips off Kayak? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 09:42 PM EDT
- [OT] Chrysler pays $12.7mil for 1 month of bankruptcy legal bills - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 25 2009 @ 01:10 AM EDT
- Automated Migration From Cobol To Java On Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 25 2009 @ 01:46 AM EDT
- Nvidia says no to Linux on Tegra netbooks, chooses WinCE - Authored by: kh on Thursday, June 25 2009 @ 03:00 AM EDT
- Atari settle over ScummVM based Wii game GPL violations - Authored by: hawken on Thursday, June 25 2009 @ 03:37 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Lazarus on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
Which is not unusual, when dealing with / reading about SCO.
In an earlier article, Red Hat is objecting to things SCO is doing, because SCO
wants to try to slip in that the SCO vs Red Hat issues would be adjudicated in
front of the bankruptcy judge. Presumablly as part of the larger sale process
to UniXis(SCO) [treat that SCO as a fnord, and it all makes sense].
I understand RH's objection.
What I don't get is that if the sale goes through, won't SCO be out of
bankruptcy, and therefore the RH case wouldn't be properly heard in front of a
bankruptcy judge?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
disclaimer: someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but:
among the things listed (typed by hand)
- SCO Unixware (versions 2.1.0 to -> 7.1.4).
- Unix System V Release 3.0->4.2 (386/international/MP)
- all prior versions of System V.
Wasn't this the stuff determined that they never owned due to the whole original
APA?
Also a whole lot of stuff listed doesn't have an acquisition date on it. Is that
normal for accounting/normal at all?
Lastly, did they miss anything under schedule 5.17? I'm asking someone in the
know, as I am not.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
Sun paid 10 mil for licesenses, now could buy the whole
company for 2.5 mil
Dennis H[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I wonder - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM EDT
- I wonder - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 03:05 PM EDT
- I wonder - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- I wonder - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- Who's "we"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 25 2009 @ 05:29 AM EDT
- Who's "we"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 25 2009 @ 08:08 AM EDT
- I wonder - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- IBM... - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Sun paid 10 mil for licesenses, now could buy the whole company for 2.5 mil /nt - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- No, Sun paid $10m to damage Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 25 2009 @ 08:17 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
I wonder if there are any potential White Knights out the who might be willing
to buy SCO lock stock and litigation in order to put this to rest.
IBM and RedHat are pretty much ruled out, Sun has been purchased by Oracle and
I'm not sure where Oracle stands. Who else is there with the resources and
inclination?
The risk of course is that there will be a bidding war and Darl's compadre will
match any offer which will only serve to replenish the litigation fund.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
... which is supposed to control how Novell get its money:
2. The
escrow agent shall hold the escrow document and shall not deliver the escrow
document to any party other than... b)
pursuant to written instructions executed
and delivered to the escrow agent by seller and purchaser,
...
The way I read it is:
once we've closed the deal, we can
make up our mind about that Novell money and as long as we both agree on it, we
can do with it anything we like. How convenient for SCO.
/Andreas [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
| Courtesy of The SCO Group, no less.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000095012309016819/v528
34exv2w1.htm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks - Authored by: bezz on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 08:39 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 25 2009 @ 04:52 AM EDT |
But, I cannot express them without violating Groklaw policy. So, how about you
legally astute folk looking at The Real Questions in the (large) child post for
me?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
