Slashdot Mirror
SCO Stock In Danger of Delisting, Again
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.'"
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...
When your business model depends upon litigation, and you have no one else to sue. What do you expect to happen?
K
Do a 2:1 or 3:1 reverse split to bring the price back over the listing requirement. It would keep them in the game but would probably accelerate the collapse of the company.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Urgent message to Uncle Bill and Uncle Steve, Please stop throwing chairs and throw some money for us. Yours SCO
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
Big deal. The way SCO is burning through money, it'll be in bankruptcy by the end of the year anyway. Earlier, if Novell gets its way and gets the Microsoft and Sun licence money put into trust.
and you only have a single bucket. How do you stop the ship from sinking?
The answer? You don't. It's useless to try to stop the inevitable.
"[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."
Well, how about a reverse stock split?
"Reverse stock split [...] a reduction in number of shares and an accompanying increase in the share price. The ratio is also reversed: 1-for-2, or 1-for-3."
Of course, the company wouldn't become worth any more money, but the share price would go up.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Back it up with proof, and quit hiding behind the anonymous coward.
Otherwise, you're just another SCO troll.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
I'm something of a UNIX insider, and I can tell you that SCO is on to something [...]
Hold him back, he's desperate.
[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.
warning: The above content may test positive for sarcasm and/or could be a failed attempt at humor and as such should be taken with a pound of salt.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
After 30 days of trading below $1., they'll get a warning notice from NASDAQ. Then they have to trade above $1 for ten straight days out of the next 90, or get a second notice, and a second chance to get their stock above $1 for ten straight days.
What is *more* troublesome for the SCOundrels is that if they're under $1 on May 15, they're likely to be dropped from the Russell Microcap index, which would likely trigger a selloff from funds referencing it.
As much as this stock is being shorted by people waiting for the death plunge, either case may be enough to finally tip it over. And with the case obviously headed for oblivion, the likelihood of a Black Knight stepping in with bags o' money again is pretty slim.
SCOX DELENDA EST!!
Technology experts Dan Lyons and Maureen O'Gara were also on hand to bolster SCO's claims. "We've seen all the SCO materials and while its far to secret to disclose, there is no doubt in our minds that NASDAQ is actually a front for Groklaw."
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
SCO's share price woes are the shareholder's problem. If they're happy with the way the CEO is running the company then bully for them. If not, they can always sell and/or fire the CEO.
Deleted
"According to our experts, Microsoft has stolen our code and put it into Windows. I have proof right here in my magical breifcase"
My blog
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
the SCO business model is simply the application of public relations and litigation to a large scale version of the business model employed by that crackhead cousin of yours that shows up at family functions from time to time looking for cash: getting paid to go away.
the sheer number of crackhead cousins in the united states is evidence that this is a viable business model.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
How soon till SCO stock is cheaper than toilet paper?
It already is. Have you priced a package of toilet paper lately?
The truth shall set you free!
"I'm something of a UNIX insider, and I can tell you that SCO is on to something [...]"
... SCO is on something ..."
He's only out by two letters. It should read: "
I suggest sending out 400 million anonymous emails: SCO has announced priority production of devices based on its proprietary technology. Analysts indicate that there is "almost limitless demand for this revolutionary technology". XYZI is rated an immediate and "STRONG BUY".
Life needs more saving throws.
He'd be violating the non-disclosure agreement, which says in part:
Agreement between SCO, Inc. and [redacted]:
The party of the second agrees not to disclose any of the lies he hears from the party of the first.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Groklaw has some legal eagles who can give you better answers than I can.
My guess is that unless they can "pierce the corporate veil" they'll be stuck in line with other unsecured creditors.
If they can pierce it then they can go after executives and maybe even the law firms or the individual lawyers. Even if they don't recover much, if the lawyers wind up holding the bag it will send a message to corporate land sharks everywhere: Don't participate in bogus lawsuits.
If you just want to punish the landsharks:
The judge can also sanction the lawyers directly, with the fines going to the court. Likewise, non-insider SCO shareholders who bought in before the suits were filed may have action against the lawyers for malpractice. Then there's the Utah bar association.....
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You manage a company and your friend is a lawyer. You claim that you have proof that Paris Hilton has stolen you 25 gazillion dollars in ideas and concepts and you sue her. Then Nicole Ritchie gives you some money because she hates Paris. Everybody believes you. You spend all your company's resources on an incredible stupid lawsuit. Your company goes bankruptcy. You split with your friend.
Delisting is the beginning. Then SCO goes down, and Darl... I think he has to go to jail.
Donde Ser Geek No Duele
There are still enough shares outstanding in the public float for a few more reverse splits. 2:1 reverse would take price to $1.88 leaving approximately 7.8 million public shares; 3:1 reverse to $2.82 and 5.6 million pubilc shares; 4:1 reverse to $3.76 and 3.9 million shares. For the requirements listed on page 14 of listing requirements (http://www.nasdaq.com/about/nasdaq_listing_req_fe es.pdf - PDF warning) the first is only being met with stockholder's equity (which is about $8 million). The second and third (publicly-held shares and market value of said shares) are in no danger of dropping below listing requirements. SCOX shouldn't be in danger of being delisted but their only option may be a reverse split since a buyback would not only drain cash reserves but also lower shareholder equity, which must be at a minimum of $2.5 million or else the stock gets a delisting notice yet again.
Two reasons not to use SCO stock for TP:
1. Paper cuts.
2. Already full of "stuff".
* Wait for someone to sue someone else /. and wait for the /.'ers to follow your link
* Wait for it to go badly
* Post to your blog about them needing a new business model
* Post to
* Profit!
Maybe Señor Blogger needs a new business model too.
warning: The above content may test positive for sarcasm and/or could be a failed attempt at humor and as such should be taken with a pound of salt.
People post stories to Slashdot hoping to draw readers to their site. Shocking!
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
The SCOundrels have three active cases that can sink them: the critical one for them to dodge right now is the Novell case, which would determine whether or not SCOX actually holds the UNIX copyrights they're trying to leverage against IBM. If they lose that, the IBM case effectively becomes moot, since they don't have the standing to bring the suit. Also the trust Novell is seeking against SCOX' current assets for unpaid SysV royalties would gut them at once.
Losing the Novell case would also make Red Hat's Lanham Act case (business interference) a slam-dunk since they would have had no standing to accuse Red Hat to start with. The collection of dubious accusations they've made since '03 is about to come around and bite them squarely in the gonads.
SCOX DELENDA EST!!
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.
Something that most people seem to be missing is that, according to Investopedia, the 30-days-below-one-dollar rule means 30 business days and it isn't just the closing price, if the stock trades above $1 in intraday trading, that's enough to satisfy the rule.
As of market closing today, they've traded below $1 for 21 consecutive business days. That means they have almost two full weeks before they could hit that 30-day trigger. The stock has been climbing slowly the last few days and there's at least some chance the interested parties will successfully paint it over $1 before it's too late.
If April 27th arrives and they haven't made it over a dollar, though, a reverse-split is probably their only hope (barring some magical court rulings in their favor) since the stigma of receiving that warning could shake what little confidence investors have left making it all but impossible to get over a buck for the ten consecutive days required.