Slashdot Mirror
SCO Given NASDAQ Delisting Notice
SCO Delenda Est writes "The SEC has given SCO notice that they will be delisted from the NASDAQ if they cannot keep their share price above $1 sometime in the next 180 days. Although they may be able to avoid delisting for a while, their small market capitalization will hinder their efforts. Given their other financials, this just goes to show how desperate their current financial situation is."
Dear Darl,
We told you so.
Sincerely,
Internet full of geeks with a clue.
I am sure that even without the NASDAQ, SCO can sell stock other ways. We can perhaps expect to be getting this e-Mail many times very soon:
.50 cents. TARGET PRICE :$22.50!
Br3ak!ng NEWS! Great NEW STOCK P1CK! SCO corp is posed to go thru the roof when it wins LAWSUIT! CURR#NT PRICE:
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
The bad part of this plan is that part where we increase the stock price, thus giving Darl money.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
That simply isn't an option. Novelle and IBM both have lots of counterclaims that will have to be dealt with, even if Caldera does drop their baseless claims. And lawyers aren't allowed to just back out of a case. Plus BS&F have already been paid to take this thing to the conclusion...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Since there was no link in the story, I figured it'd be prudent to provide one sowing that SCO is indeed in peril of having their stock de-listed.
As usual, PJ provides the relevant and proper info.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Pump and dump: The "we're going to screw over IBM" hype lured in the vultures and pumped up SCO stocks. Those that then dumped stocks probably got 10x the true value for their stocks.
Milking the cow: Darl's brother Kevin is part of the SCO legal team. Keeping SCO and the conflict alive and spending big on lawyers fees got a lot of money into Darl's brother's pockets. Families help eachother out.
Unfortunately SCO was once a great software company that got trashed by poor management and greed.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Yeah but think about it : you would be owning Linux then !
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
It's because when a stocks value go that low it becomes very easy to manipulate in various ways (such as different pump-and-dump schemes etc) since even a very small swing in paid price means many percent in profit. Basically the stock price becomes much more unreliable as an indicator of the actual value of the company and that in turn would reflect badly on the stock exchange where it is trade.
t ock_Fraud
More about penny stock fraud at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_stocks#Penny_S
"Microsoft doesn't necessarily want SCO to *win*. They want SCO weak to prevent any good products coming from that particular UNIX vendor, and to continue the demonstrably false rumors that Linux developers steal from UNIX."
SCO was far too weak to be any threat to Microsoft long before this case started, and any FUD value it might once have had is now gone due to the fact that it's dragged on for so long, and has turned out to be so full of obvious crap from SCO and their lawyers that most geeks have lost interest in it, let alone everybody else. Microsoft's FUD-generation funds are thus now being spent on injecting money into commercial Linux vendors like Novell so they can make a noise about the possibility of Linux infringing on _their_ IP, which they have such vast quantities of that, unlike SCO's laughable (to geeks) claims, isn't easy for even the most diligent open source developers to discount because of the loose and wide-ranging nature of software patents.
From Microsoft's POV therefore, SCO has already served its purpose, and there's no reason for them to waste money propping up a case that even known shills like Laura Didio seem to have given up on, especially when that same money could be spent far more productively on their current "Linux probably infringes several of our patents" FUD campaign.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
A stock split it normally done when the share price is too high which makes it difficult to trade. This is done by issuing new shares to existing shareholders on a specifically designated date, such that if they previously held N shared, they now hold N*M shares where M is the stock split multiplier. It generally changes the stock price to about 1/M. It usually makes the stock a bit easier to trade, so price will go up a bit just because of the split all else being equal.
A reverse split can also be done with M simply being less than 1. It can be harder to carry out due to the fractional shares involved. However, I have seen cases where stock splits with M greater than 1 have had non-whole values for M, so apparently brokers understand how to handle this for fractional shares.
If SCO did a reverse split, it would raise the per-share price. But whether they have enough outstanding shares to even do this is a big question. And it won't change their total capitalization (aside from a very minor price increase from making the shares have an easier to trade price), which might be the real issue, anyway. People with 1 share might end up with 1/5 share (same value ... mostly worthless).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars