Slashdot Mirror
Nasdaq to Delist SCO Sep 27
symbolset writes "The Nasdaq Staff has decided to delist SCO at open of business on September 27, 2007 under their discretionary authority and as a result of SCO filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. SCO can get a hearing but "There can be no assurance that the panel will grant the Company's request for continued listing.""
Remember to fit the grave with a bell "just in case" :)
I got dibs on sco.com!
So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?
I'm guessing that Slashdot contributed a lot in making the right thing happen concerning SCO. Slashdot got the message out to everyone, over and over again, helping deprive SCO of profit from confused executives.
SGI did, but they also pulled out of bankruptcy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I started investing my $20,000 student loan instead of using it to get my MBA. Well, I bought about $7000 worth SCOX stock back when it was worth a little more than a dollar. Well, now I am very worried about what is going to happen to my investment. It is bad enough that it has depreciated more than five times what I paid. And to those wondering... I didn't buy the SCOX stock because I thought The SCO Group would win against IBM. And I use Linux a lot. I bought the SCO stock because I thought their UnixWare and Open Server offerings were valuable enough that in time the market would weigh them instead of voting. I really hope Darl can turn this around pretty fast. Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.
Someone, maybe Novell, needs to ask the Bankruptcy Court to deny SCO's filing for Chapter 11 on the grounds that there's no way they can re-organize into a viable operation, and therefore they need to be liquidated. Then the creditors can auction off the honor of kicking Darl out on his ass.
You go to pinksheets.com, buy the amount of stock back you shorted for pennies on the dollar, then surrender it back to your broker.
From their Form 8-K filing:
Why yes, yes, this seems like a splendid time to start giving out raises.
I'm pretty ignorant of finance and law, but is there any reason whatsoever for the stockholders not to sue the board into destitution at this point?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
From this article
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons.html
Daniel Lyons has some choice quotes
"I reported what they said. Turns out I was getting played. They never produced a smoking gun."
and
"It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right."
Not often you find a journalist reporting on their failure of foresight. Daniel gained a few points in my book.
From SCO's press release: a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services
:-)
I have to laugh every time I see this line in their press releases. Even before their ill-advised journey in to the legal system, and back in their prime and heyday and earlier incarnations, SCO was never the leading provider of a damned thing.
What would make this story complete would be if SCO's remaining share holders were to file suit against its officers and directors.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get ready to listen to the Fat Lady sing
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
NASDAQ delisted dot-com darling Salon.com (SALN), but its corpse has managed to shuffle around long enough to make it into the glorious Web 2.0 era. The SCO may also rise again.
Somehow I doubt it. Salon.com didn't start suing people with bogus claims. I'm sure certain influential and VERY large corporations will see it as their duty that SCO won't rise again...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
...turn out the lights.
Oh, and grab me one of them Aeron chairs while you're at it.
Thanks!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
and being as it is so cheap, the risk is fairly minimal.
I beg to differ: this doesn't make sense. Because if you're only going to buy 100 shares for say $20 then I agree the "risk" is minimal. After all, the most you can lose is $20. Wow big deal. However you'll have a hard time paying your $14 ($7 each way) commission on that.
So if you're going to go in for a fair chunk of change - say $20k or so (around 100k shares), I wouldn't consider losing 50% ($10k) or even 5% ($1k) "minimal" risk. Yeah ok shorting the stuff makes sense, but if you get caught on the wrong side for some reason (like you said, it went up 50% somehow) it won't take very long for you to shit your pants.
If you play with a stock from a company with non-existent fundamentals like SCO, don't complain if you get burned. You will probably get better odds on the roulette table at your nearest casino.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That's a typo. It's supposed to be "a leaving provider..."
What happens if I maintain a short position in a stock that is delisted and declares bankruptcy? says you have pure profit, basically.
I'm guessing you know about covering dividends, one-time special payments, and the like to the long holder. Short selling is fraught with danger, but boy can't it be handy?
The judge already found that Novell is the rightful owner of Unix so that concern is a little late. On the other hand, Novell also now owns SuSE Linux and continues to distribute it under the GPL. That means that any overlap, whether intentional or unintentional, no longer matters. There are no longer *ANY* grounds for someone to claim that Linux infringes Unix copyrights. Any such "infringement" just means that Novell as the Unix copyright owner released the code under the GPL. Funny how that works.
I'd worry more about MicroSoft's new pattent FUD campaign. They're using the same strategy as SCO but claiming pattents instead of copyrights (claim there's infringement but not say where or even which patents). S-I-G-H. On the plus side, M$ keeps getting zinged by patent trolls so maybe they'll start working against software patents. Big, rich companies have a lot more to lose and very little to gain.
Cheers,
Dave
BTW, IANAL so the above may be wrong but I don't think so.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
The parent comment was moderated "Troll", and several people have made disparaging comments.
However, this is how I figure it, and I'm serious, not joking: Slashdot kept the SCO issues and Groklaw's analysis of them in front of the eyes of a lot of Slashdot readers who were executives or knew executives, and in the normal course of discussing computer issues, created a culture of understanding SCO as not trustworthy.
As poor as the editing of Slashdot is sometimes, I don't know any better way to get computer-related news. If you know of a better way, please mention it.
I'm not impressed. Anyone can say, "Oh. Er, oops." It's easy to couch it in terms that *sound* like you're really humble, like "I was really REALLY wrong." Big deal.
He makes it sound like it just so happened that the geeks were right and he was wrong. "Turns out those amateur sleuths were right." He refers to arguably one of the largest communities of people who do this for a living plus interested and competent hobbyists as though he were saying, "Oh, look! Those little kids turned out to be right after all."
He does not see *why* we saw that SCO had no leg to stand on. He does not realize how, next time, he can do better than the flip of a coin. He says, "... the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose," and doesn't realize the painstaking review and due diligence that went on there that would put wikipedia to shame.
He says:
Er, so SCO failed because Linux was too successful?
No, Mr. Lyons. SCO failed because SCO was wrong , and if they had won, they still would have been wrong except there would have been a miscarriage of justice. It's not because someone threw the dice wrong or that the "pack" known as Slashdot or Groklaw happened to have a good day. It's not because you've been getting too much email pointing out that you were misinformed, Mr. Lyons, or ignorant.
You don't fool me. Your basic thinking shows through in your words, even though those words sound nice on the surface. Kinda like the press releases of this other company I know that turned out to be wrong.
-----
(By the way, I expect Laura Didio and Enderle to write something like, "Well, darnit, looks like Novell owns the rights to Unix, not SCO. So we'll just wait for Novell to sue Linux for blatant copying of Unix source into Linux.")
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Clearly you dont know what it means to short a stock.
:)
If he's shorted the stock, he needs to find someone willing to sell him stock, not willing to buy his stock. If it goes to zero that's the best possible case, as he gets to keep his money without having to return the stock at all.
Shorting stock is essentially selling shares you don't have and so you owe them to someone else (e.g. your broker). You do this in the expectation that the price will go down, whereby you can cover your debt of shares by buying the shares at a lower price than you sold them for, profitting on the difference).
It *sort* of works likes this:
You have 0$
You make a deal to 'borrow' 1000 shares valued at $1, which you'll have to return at some point. You immediately sell those shares for $1000, putting $1000 in your pocket. The shares have now been 'shorted'. You have $1000, you owe your broker 1000 shares.
Two weeks later the price is 0.50 cents, you buy 1000 shares for $500.
Now you have 1000 shares and $500, and you owe your broker 1000 shares.
You return the 1000 shares.
You now have $500 in your pocket, that you didn't have before, and no debt.
Of course its more complex than this, there are transaction fees, interest charges, and if the stock goes up and your account crosses a particular threshold the broker can force you to buy the shares at the current higher market price to cover the shorted shores. (ie 'foreclose' on your loan).
Shorting is inherently riskier than going long (buying and holding and selling) because when long the worst that can happen is the stock can go to zero and you lose it all, and the best that can happen is that the stock will increase many times over.
With shorting you can lose your investment many times over as there is no limit to how high the stock goes, and at most can only gain 100% of the transaction value, should the stock become worthless.
In the example above, if the stock were to spike to $5 and your broker called you, you'd have to pay $5000 to return the shares you borrowed, putting you deep in the whole.
----
Anyhow the OP was wondering, where exectly he could buy those shares he owes, if it gets delisted. And via OTC pink slips is where the action will be.
Being delisted doesn't mean SCO shares can't be traded, merely that they can't be traded on the exchange. Getting delisted tends to push the price even further down, because shares traded OTC are less liquid, therefore less desirable, therefore worth less. Of course, that's just more good news for the OP.
Having your trading halted on the other hand, means just that. No trading.
Of course, the company behind Charmin has a viable business model.
They have the same basic business model as the traders who shorted SCO stock - they all rely on other people being full of shit.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
The problem was less that he was wrong, and more that he just reported what SCO said without being skeptical or attempting to suss out how full of shit they were. And from day one, there were plenty of indications that SCO had nothing.
A reporter's job isn't to be a stenographer for whatever anyone wants to say. We have press releases for that.
Reporters are supposed to get stories, sort out the various facts, and if someone's feeding them bullshit, point that out. The tendency for reporters today to be "balanced" in reporting on an issue really just means that people with nothing to back up what they say are put on even footing with people who have facts to back up their claims.
Let's hope Lyons learned that he actually has to do some, you know, reporting, as part of his job.
8 divided by 2 is 4, 6 divided by 3 is 2 means 86 and 23 are related to 42! I've unlocked the secret to life, the universe and everything!
Big news expected.*This stock will implode!*
.20
Do not wait until it is too late!!!
LOOK AND WATCH SCOX THIS MONDAY
New news expected next week.
Expected 7 day price -$1.10
Last time they put out major news the stock ran like shit down a toddler's leg!
(SYMBOL: SCOX)
Price: $
Short Term Target: 300-500% Loss
*******PRESS RELEASE******
**SCOX****SCOX****SCOX**** =
A $1,000 dollar investment could yield a $5,000 dollar trip around the toilet bowl in just one trade if you trade out before you hit the water trap. SCOX should be one of the most exciting stocks to trade for Sept, if you like roller coasters that only go down! In this range the stock has potential to move in the nether direction in big concrete shoes!!!! This means you should be able to buy at the lows and sell even lower, if you can get the fuck out of the way of this oncoming train fast enough! Did we tell you you've been tied to the track!!!!!!!!!!
If the company is able to effectuate it's business model, WATCH OUT!!! We could see a GREAT STORY IN THE MAKING. Uproariously funny and documented all over the web for everyone to see!!!!
GOOD LUCK AND TRADE OUT BEFORE YOU HIT THE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY!
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
Last minute payments to an insider just before filing bankruptcy? That's disastrous for SCO. This is waving a red flag in front of the bankruptcy judge. This screams "attempted asset stripping".
It won't work, either. The bankruptcy trustee can retroactively undo that payment. The trustee can go back into the past 90 days for any transaction and undo it, or back a full year for anything involving an insider. Special payments to insiders during a bankruptcy need explicit permission from the bankruptcy court. And saying "we did it before the bankruptcy" won't help. The law (11 U.S.C. 547) is that "the debtor is presumed to have been insolvent on and during the 90 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition."
The side effects of this will be severe. Remember, SCO management is currently only a "debtor in possession", and can do only whatever the bankruptcy trustee and the court specifically let them do. As soon as the judge gets word of this, SCO's management will have their chain yanked. SCO management will be much more closely supervised and have much less discretionary authority than they expected.
SCO management was apparently thinking they could go into chapter 11 quietly and cut Novell out of the loop. They didn't even list Novell as a creditor in their initial filing. That plan stopped flying when Novell sent five bankruptcy attorneys from Morrison and Foerster to Delaware for the first-day bankruptcy hearing.
Novell's request for a "constructive trust" for the unpaid royalty payments just got a huge boost. Now they'll probably get it. Which drains out most of SCO's cash.