Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Stock In Danger of Delisting, Again

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the pennies dept.

hweimer writes "In 2005, SCO got into delisting trouble because they failed to file their annual 10-K report in a timely manner. SCO seems to be headed the same way again for a different reason: the stock price is too low to meet Nasdaq's requirements. Quoting: '[W]hat can a company do to boost its share price? Besides stopping to burn money and come up with a working business model, I mean.'"

8 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. boosting share price by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many companies buy back their own shares, both to boost share price and to give stockholders a return not based on dividends. I don't know if SCO has the cash to do it any more, but...

    1. Re:boosting share price by badasscat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Almost all anti-delisting reverse splits I have seen back then ended up as suicides... and even today, they still translate into extended near-death experiences often followed by bankruptcy.

      I think you're confusing the issue a little bit.

      The reason reverse splits rarely work is that they don't solve the underlying problem that's causing the dropping stock price to begin with. They treat the symptoms, not the disease. Which means there's nothing "suicidal" about the reverse split, it's just that they don't really accomplish anything other than keeping the company on the market for a bit longer.

      It's kind of like taking an aspirin for the pain being caused by a brain tumor. You'll eventually die anyway, but it's not because of the aspirin, it's because of the brain tumor. Taking aspirin isn't "suicidal" and in fact has no bearing whatsoever on your health, it just doesn't solve the real problem.

      Lots of people think about stock prices as if they're somehow disconnected from company performance. That's a real dot-com era way of thinking, but we should all be back to reality by now. A reverse split *can* work, but only if it's combined with measures to make the company profitable again. But certainly, if I were a company shareholder, I would want any company that I thought had a good plan for a real turnaround to do a reverse split to keep themselves on the market until their plan started to bear fruit.

      Of course, this *is* SCO we're talking about, so I can't imagine a reverse split would do anything but delay the inevitable.

  2. No longer matters by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The reason why it did not delist before is that MS still needed them. Vista is now out and MS has more patents. At this time, I doubt that MS cares. It will delist shortly.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  3. If SCO goes out of buisness. by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    [in Gest]Then who will be the sole owner of Unix and all things Unix, looks like Unix has an X in its name, used by a guy who knows what Unix is...?[/in Gest]

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. What can IBM do? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If SCO folds can IBM sue anyone to get its legal fees back? The assets of SCO might be slim pickings but it still has a huge liability outstanding. If the judge rules dismisses the suit with prejudice (hope that is the right term, IANAL) and SCO folds, where can IBM go to get its legal costs repaid?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  5. Re:potential source of income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't write off SCO so quick - I'm something of a UNIX insider, and I can tell you that SCO is on to something with its ownership of cfront

    Yeah, they've got another obsolete piece of software that nobody uses anymore. Because, you know, it's impossible to write an independent implementation of a language with merely a several hundred page ISO standard to work from.

    "But someone from SCO claimed that they own C++"; is that not so? It's complete rubbish. -- Bjarne Stroustrup's FAQ

  6. Re:You're on the Titanic by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Methinks their contract could be held invalid for their illegal activities and failure to keep the company's best interests in mind. At the very least, it will be a small court case for the next 5 years, in which time the company will be able to recover without paying the Darl-ethon a single red cent. ;-)

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  7. why should they fear delisting? by jjohn_h · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why should SCOX fears delisting at this stage?

    If they want to stop it, they only need to buy
    their own shares for $10000-$20000 once a month
    since the trading volume is totally insignificant.

    The shareholders still left are the original
    extortionists with Ralph Yarro (34%) at the helm.
    Or investors groups that were willing to support
    the scheme. They are not trading, and there are
    no new investors.

    Delisting would do away with the embarrassing
    quarterly reports.