|
Status Conference in SCO v. Novell - Nov. 23rd at 10 AM - Updated 2Xs |
|
Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 12:07 PM EST
|
Isn't it amazing how fast courts can move when SCO isn't dragging its feet?
11/02/2009 - 598 - NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Chambers/slm) Status Conference set for 11/23/2009 10:00 AM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (slm) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
At this pace, the IBM case would have been over in 2004. I do hope there are some of you out there who will be able to attend. Even though it's a status hearing, there likely will be discussion of Novell's plans going forward, and I'd hate to miss that. Wouldn't you? It will also be our first opportunity to see The Honorable Ted Stewart in action.
Update: The date has been changed to December 1 at 1:30 PM:
11/03/2009 - 599 - AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Chambers/slm) Status Conference RESET for 12/1/2009 01:30 PM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (slm) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
I've been looking at some of the decisions he's made in various court cases over the years, and I found something that I think will interest you, although not in a good way. It might explain, though, in part why Utah is the scam magnet that it is. In the case of Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and Private Fuel Storage, LLC v. Dianne R. Nielson et al, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a decision by Judge Stewart, but in the ruling, I found this nugget of information:
Under Utah law, stockholders are generally not personally liable for the debts of a corporation. See Norman v. Murray First Thrift & Loan Co., 596 P.2d 1028, 1030 (Utah 1979) ("[I]n order to disregard the corporate entity, there must be a concurrence of two circumstances: (1) there must be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist, viz., the corporation is, in fact, the alter ego of one or a few individuals; and (2) the observance of the corporate form would sanction a fraud, promote injustice, or an inequitable result would follow."). The Supreme Court has noted that "[l]imited liability [of stockholders] is the rule not the exception; and on that assumption large undertakings are rested, vast enterprises are launched, and huge sums of capital attracted." Anderson v. Abbott, 321 U.S. 349, 362 (1944). That's a very high bar, if you think about it. It's much easier to pierce the corporate veil in New York; if a corporation fails to pay sales tax, that alone will do it. Making shareholders sue-proof surely doesn't help. On Utah being called the scam state, just go to Google and search for 'Utah scam' and you'll see what I mean. Lots of hearings coming up, actually. Erwan has updated our
Timelines summary page, specifically the upcoming motions schedule.
There are five or six hearings scheduled in four litigations until Christmas:
12-Nov-2009 Apple vs Psystar (same day both in California)
20-Nov-2009 SCO Bankruptcy
23-Nov-2009 SCO vs Novell
07-Dec-2009 SCO vs Autozone
22-Dec-2009 SCO Bankruptcy
And Wayne Gray is baaaack at it, asking for the bankruptcy stay to be lifted:
11/02/2009 - 942 - Motion for Relief from Stay to Permit the Debtor, The SCO Group, Inc., to Participate in Florida Federal Court Action and Pending Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Proceeding. Fee Amount $150. Filed by Wayne R. Gray. Hearing scheduled for 11/20/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 11/13/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Attachments 1-6) (Duhig, Peter) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
Update 2: Here's his lawyer, I presume:
11/04/2009 - 946 - Motion to Appear pro hac vice Thomas T. Steele. Receipt Number DEX001363, Filed by Wayne R. Gray. (Duhig, Peter) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 12:31 PM EST |
If any are needed, to assist PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 12:33 PM EST |
Please remember those clickies, and pay attention to PJ's posting policy. If
you post something in this thread which does relate to the main article, expect
to be mercilessly flamed.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tribune Co. newspapers to go a week without AP - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 12:59 PM EST
- Off topic here please - I'm a Microsoft Basher. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:29 PM EST
- Windows 7 needs an overhaul? - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 06:14 PM EST
- AT&T sues Verizon over TV ads - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 08:20 PM EST
- Court Rules That Using Domain Registration Privacy Services Represents 'Material Falsification' - Authored by: papafox on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 01:50 AM EST
- Feds Charge Cable Modem Modder With ‘Aiding Computer Intrusion’ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 04:05 AM EST
- USA secretly forcing DMCA on everyone else - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 04:58 AM EST
- 60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 05:09 AM EST
- the ACTA Internet chapter - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 08:57 AM EST
- Shhhh it's a sekret. Film at eleven! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 09:08 AM EST
- Joseph Stiglitz on what TRIPS really means - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 09:13 AM EST
- Nerd Merit Badge: "Full Stack Web Developer" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 10:45 AM EST
- Open source = Terrorism? - Authored by: turambar386 on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 12:47 PM EST
- guess who got banned from OOXML editing? hAl. - Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 02:16 PM EST
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 12:35 PM EST |
Please quote the title of the Groklaw newspick you are commenting on in the
title of your post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nola on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 12:36 PM EST |
What is the status of this case with regard to the automatic stay under
bankruptcy law?
Is this proceeding because the stay was lifted for the "damages"
issue? Or is this
still stayed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- status of BK stay? - Authored by: s65_sean on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:40 PM EST
- status of BK stay? - Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:48 PM EST
- Good question - Authored by: kh on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:56 PM EST
- IBM? - Authored by: kh on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:02 PM EST
- IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 04:23 PM EST
- IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 04:03 AM EST
- IBM? - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 06:48 AM EST
- IBM? - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 07:47 AM EST
- IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 08:19 PM EST
- IBM? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 10:20 PM EST
- IBM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 10:10 PM EST
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 12:36 PM EST |
Since SCO is Delaware corporation could shareholders be sued there and is it
easier?
Doesn't the Bankruptcy Court have some role in all of this?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SHareholders - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:03 PM EST
- You are confused. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:22 PM EST
- SHareholders - Authored by: alansz on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:05 PM EST
- Shareholders - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:12 PM EST
- SHareholders - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 08:31 PM EST
- SHareholders - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 09:30 PM EST
- SHareholders - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 10:15 PM EST
- SHareholders - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 10:19 PM EST
- SHareholders - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 07:46 PM EST
- But the case is being tried according to the laws of California - Authored by: s65_sean on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:43 PM EST
- If SCO is incorporated under the laws of Delaware - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 04:58 PM EST
|
Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:10 PM EST |
I understand that there may be an exception if a corp is a false front, but in
the more general case, how would this work?
If I buy, say, 100 shares of NanoSoft, a company capitalized by a billion shares
of stock, and NanoSoft gets sued big-time, how could I be liable? Would I be on
the hook for ten millionths of the judgement, just because they're in my
portfolio?
What about holders of, say, an index fund?
This is making my brain spin.
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Suing the shareholders? - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:19 PM EST
- Directors & Officers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:39 PM EST
- Getting closer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:13 PM EST
- Getting closer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:14 PM EST
- Directors & Officers - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:33 PM EST
- Suing the shareholders? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:30 PM EST
- Suing the shareholders? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:36 PM EST
- Wording of limitation of liability under NZ law... - Authored by: Zarkov on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:48 PM EST
- NO - Authored by: TomWiles on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 04:39 PM EST
- Suing the shareholders? Not Likely - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 11:18 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:15 PM EST |
P.J. (and others),
Wouldn't the Sarbanes–Oxley Act possibly also come into play in this case?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:53 PM EST |
Think about it. SCO is a very innovative company. They came
up with the
novel idea that instead of serving their
customers, they would sue them.
Perhaps they could continue
this line of innovation and sue their shareholders
- or maybe
declare a reverse dividend or something? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mattflaschen on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:33 PM EST |
SCO aside, I don't think it's fair to label an entire state as "the scam
state." Yes, ["Utah scam"] gives 2,360 results. But, for the
equivalent query, my home state of Pennsylvania has 4,400, and my
adopted home, Georgia, has 3,440. Do I think
any of these places is inherently scammy? No. Pennsylvania and Georgia both
have larger populations.
Yes, you could argue about proportionality.
But I think that's missing the real point: Scams are run by individual people
making bad decisions, and it's unfair to defame others just because they live in
the same region. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Scam state - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:43 PM EST
- Scam state - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 06:06 PM EST
- Quick answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 10:14 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 04:24 PM EST |
I have devoted considerable attention to Utah-based scams. A typology of these
shows most are quite different from the SCO-Yarro model.
The two most common
financial scams in Utah are "affinity fraud" and a pyramid scheme.
Most
recent affinty fraud cases have involved real estate loans. SCO's Utah attorney
Brent Hatch got burned (several 100 thousand dollars BK claim in Hatch's name
and that of his attorney partners) in a real estate hard money loan company
called "Waterford Loan". This loaned to real estate developers secured with
land titles. The dealmaker played fast and loose with the money stream, and
went bust when the properties stopped selling.
The affinity portion of this
fraud was the pious religious/political nature of the dealmaker-- he roped in
numerous other pious church leaders-- and that veneer helped sell the legitimacy
of the operation.
Another recent Utah real-estate deal that went spectacularly
bad is the "Rick Koerber" federal bust. Koerber ran a real-estate equity
consultancy. He got little people to take home equity loans and invest these in
his larger loan shops. His current defense is that he created multiple layers
of companies, and he personally only was involved in the top layer. So his
operation resembles a pyramid scheme-- intermediate players developed
"downlines" of investors and pocketed a cut of the interest for the recruitment.
Koerber has a rabidly-right-wing radio show and a political base. One of
skyline cowboy's pet peeve is that Utah AG Shurtleff and Senate candidate gave
Koerber a pass when Utah consumer protection department sought an indictment. A
favorite of Koerber is Cleon Skousen (uncle to the SCO Fred Skousen) who was a
SLC chief of police and latter an extreme right wing ideologue. The skyline
cowboy anger is likely due to the cozy relationship Shurtleff had with the
betes-noir of the cowboy: Mark Robbins and Marc S. Jensen. Hatch served as
Jensen's attorney.
There have been a number of other investment pyramids
that have collapse in Utah: the Val Southwick scam was one of the largest. The
Yarro/McBride co-investor Ty Mattingly got burned in one that was based in
Arizona real estate.
In 2006-7, Utah experienced a wave of "click-farming"
and "foreign exchange [forex]" training scams. These are targeted at
poor/student/marginal folks and offer a "work-at-home" training course in
exchange for money. Many have a pyramid component-- you get a cut of
recruitment downline. For unexplained reasons Yarro's Think Atomic servers
briefly and covertly hosted some forex sites. I think this may have been
strictly a commercial deal, as I don't see Yarro actively believing the forex
pyramid training scam.
Utah has been the residence of a couple of major
pump-and-dump stock players. The players came from out-of-town (NYC/London
mostly) and set up in SLC. They sold worldwide, FBI has busted these. SLC
likely attracted because of its reverse-merger industry. There are several
specialists in buying bankrupt, but publicly listed shells and reselling the
stock listing. There is value (about 300K) in a registered stock.
Utah has
garden variety insider land deals. Geneva Steel went bankrupt, it had a big
landholding near Lindon. A number of well placed entrepeneurs benefited from
the asset sales. That sort of clubby dishonesty seems broadly distributed.
The SCO scam involves securing investment money to launch a legal
harrassment campaign. The "evidence" supporting the legal case was made up of
the declarations accumulated from friends and supporters of Yarro and McBride.
The unspoken allegation is that these declarations are not entirely truthful and
a conspiracy exists to present an inaccurate account of the Novell/Santa Cruz
negotiation.
Some of the Utah financial scammers have been treated with
deference because of religious and political connections (viz. Waterford and
Koerber). It appears that in Utah political and ethical assessment often occurs
along a single metric: that is to say once businessmen reach a certain level of
influence in their community, no further vetting occurs.
The lack of
oversight would serve to explain why the SCO declarants believed they could
"rewrite" the documentary history of the Novell transfer unchallenged. I am
thinking Novell will mount an effective challenge to their credibility. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 10:29 PM EST |
It's on PACER now, the status conference mentioned in PJ's article has been
moved to December 1st, at 1:30 PM.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ailuromancy on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 11:47 PM EST |
If the courts are now moving suspiciously fast should
we be crediting SCO or
the trustee mysterious
influence?
While we are at it, SCO was found
guilty of conversion.
Now that the trustee is following SCO's tried, tested
(and found guilty) business plan does that make him
liable in any way? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 08:09 AM EST |
I understand that he is trying to prove that SCO own the UNIX trademark,
ostensibly as some part of his efforts to register some similar trademarks
himself. But I can't help but wonder whether he is actually working indirectly
for SCO, by trying to show that the trademark was worth $15M in 1993, and
likely more now. Right now SCO could use $15M of assets! He also seems to
be alleging misconduct by the trustee, insofar as he has ignored this particular
legal case in his evaluation of SCO. The legal complexities are well beyond
me, but I can't help but wonder what is really going on here, and if Mr. Gray is
a heavily obfuscated proxy for Yarro, or McBride, or perhaps someone else? He
may of course only be an irritant. We have seen another of those pop up in
court, usually via the telephone, probably just because he is entitled to, being
a very minor shareholder, so such irritants do exist. However this does want
watching, as PJ obviously is doing, as something interesting may emerge in due
course..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: golding on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 08:23 AM EST |
To think that not long ago you nearly "retired" from active duty as
the case seemed to be going nowhere, indeed SCO was all but dead in the water at
the time ... ha!
---
Regards, Robert
..... Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I have
never been able to make out the numbers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 05:37 PM EST |
Yes, it appears that Mr. Steele is Wayne Gray's lawyer. He is listed at the
top of the Motion to Lift the Stay that is listed in this article, and Mr.
Steele was also the attorney who filed Wayne Gray's Motion to file Amicus
Brief in the Novell Appeal proceedings. He is a Florida attorney, which is
why he has to file for permission to appear pro hac vice in a (Delaware)
bankruptcy court.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to
it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|