Slashdot Mirror


Half of SCO's Accountants Quit

Groklaw Reader writes "Apparently, SCO's lawyers were working overtime last Sunday, because they wrote a quick plea to the bankruptcy court for permission to hire accounting temps. Why? Approximately half of SCO's finance department has resigned or been fired. Two who resigned had over ten years of experience each. One can only assume that they know what's about to happen to SCO."

6 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Almost done. by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    With no employees, it would be up to the officers of the corporation to execute any orders the judge issued to the corporation.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Novell sends in the big guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Novell is sending five lawyers to tomorrow's hearing. Their resumes are truly impressive. It's all part of the greater scheme to leave a smoking crater in Utah.

    They will probably be trying for two things:
    1. SCO's attempt at chapter 11 gets rejected on the grounds of bad faith. groklaw post
    2. Even if they don't get chapter 11 pitched, they want the trial in Utah un-stayed.
    Given SCO's record, it seems likely that Novell will succeed. Given a checklist for bad faith in bankruptcy, SCO meets most of the criteria.

    It seems to me that SCO's bankruptcy petition is a bit of a Hail Mary pass attempt. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do though. Their goose has been cooked for quite a while and they have been doing a masterful job of putting off the final resolution as long as possible.
    1. Re:Novell sends in the big guns by kilgortrout · · Score: 4, Informative
      Motions to dismiss for a bad faith filing are hardly ever granted even in egregious cases and are generally limited improperly filed Ch13 consumer cases. There is no such motion pending so don't expect that to be argued tomorrow. Motions to lift the automatic stay are usually only granted to secured creditors under very specific circumstances. Again, Novell hasn't filed a motion to lift the stay, so, no, that ain't happening tomorrow either. Even so, stay and bad faith litigation require the filing of briefs for and against and an evidentiary hearing, all of which have to be scheduled. None of this has happened.

      The main issues in the case will be whether, and to what extent, Novell can grab SCO assets out of the bankruptcy case on the theory that SCO was holding the MS and Sun payments in trust for Novell. You can predict that SCO will argue that the contract with Novell only creates a debtor creditor relationship with Novell and Novell can stand in line with the other creditors.

  3. Re:SCO's assets and ip by InvalidError · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to filings, SCO has a $7.5M outstanding debt and about $15M in cash or other assets.

    However, SCO is also illegally holding onto ~$36M of Novell's Unix licensing loyalties.

    The one who will get first dibs on SCO will be Novell since that ~$36M is Novell's capital (not a debt/credit) which SCO is trying to convert (fraud) into its own... a detail which SCO apparently conveniently failed to mention to the bankruptcy judge in the first hearing.

    Novell licensed its Unix to SCO and asked for a ~95% royalty on sales. SCO sold Unix licenses but never gave any of the money back to Novell. Novell is suing to get this capital back. SCO does not want to be curbed right away so it now attempts to stall by filing for bankruptcy. Tomorrow, Novell, IBM, RedHat and others will surely point out the many faults in Monday's SCO declarations and the judge will very likely order the Novell vs SCO counterclaims suit to proceed in order to establish how much capital SCO owes Novell since settling capital disputes preempts negotiating debts.

    By the time chapter 11 proceedings are completed - presumably after Novell is awarded about $20M - SCO will be ripe for chapter 7.

  4. Re:Almost done. by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Informative
    IIRC, the SCO claims were never going to be tested in court anyways, because from what I understood, the case they actually filed was entirely different from whatever nonsense Darl McBride was spouting.


    They may have claimed about millions of lines of codes being copied, but the actual case filed was only regards breach of contract. They claimed that IBM had donated its AIX code to the Linux kernel. Their second argument consisted of "Boohoo, Linux would have been nowhere if not for IBM. IBM created a competitor for us. We hate competition. Boohoo!".

    The only piece of code they ever showed as being part of the Linux kernel, turned out to have already been released under a BSD license by the original creators and had already been replaced by better alternatives in the Kernel, which made their whole claim seem to go up in smoke.

    All in all, it was just FUD sponsored by possibly an under-the-table deal between Microsoft and Darl McBride, with the aim of stemming the expansion of Linux in the server market, till Microsoft got its slightly-more-stable-than-xp vista OS out. It might be interesting to observe in future, whether any more information regards this possible deal comes out, and whether Microsoft can be sued under another anti-trust, unfair-practices case for its part in generating the controversy.

  5. Re:Almost done. by burnin1965 · · Score: 5, Informative

    they also prevented SCO's claims that "millions of lines of codes were copied from UNIX to Linux" being thoroughly tested (and debunked) in court

    Actually that is not true. The SCO Groups claims have been thoroughly tested in the court system and The SCO Group are where they are today because the facts discovered in the SCO Group vs IBM case revealed that not only were they lying about finding millions of lines of infringing code but they knew full well they were lying.

    Initially they claimed millions of lines of infringed code including line for line copying down to even the comments. When called on that bluff by IBM in the court they produced no evidence and the judge proclaimed an "astonishing lack of evidence" on the part of The SCO Group. Later it was revealed that internal SCO Group e-mails communicated the results of their own investigation of infringement in linux and found "aboslutely nothing" at which point their story changed and it was no longer literal copying but instead obfuscation of copied code. But still when they were compelled to produce the evidence which supported their claims they produce abosutlely nothing and instead changed their story again to claim that somehow they held ownership of "methods and concepts". Unfortunately The SCO Group holds no patents so they have no protected "methods and concepts" either.

    This entire debacle was a scam from the beginning and it didn't go to a jury trial because the judge realized that The SCO Group's intention was to baffle the jury with the same bullcrap in hopes of making them believe that some how they must own something in linux when in fact they don't own squat.

    Oh, this case has been tested, not just beyond a shadow of a doubt but beyond a frickin' eclipse of a doubt. Scumbags and grifters through and through.