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.""

Comments

Good bye and...

[drspliff]

Remember to fit the grave with a bell "just in case" :)

hmm

[Loconut1389]

I got dibs on sco.com!

Re:hmm

[mudshark]

Interesting factoid: It's currently number 86 out of the 100 oldest .com domain names which remain in use today. Funny how the number 86 would prove portentous...from UNIX for x86 processors to being 86ed from the NASDAQ.

"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technology"

[tokki]

a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services,

So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?

This is really bad news for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is really bad news for me.

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I'm reminded of this quote:

<kylev> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
<kylev> hahahahaha
<kylev> some girl just came onto our floor
<kylev> and was yelling "sexual favors for anyone who does my sociology paper"
<kylev> i just asked her what the paper was about
<kylev> and she said the accomplishments and growth of feminism
<`Neo> bahahahaha

Re:This is really bad news for me.

[Dunbal]

Shorting is simply selling what you don't have. Stock certificates are just pieces of paper. And your broker probably has a huge inventory of stock in his portfolio. So when you "short" something you are basically telling your broker that you agree to sell a stock that you don't own. There's no problem with this, since there are rigid mechanisms in place (today) to avoid fraud.

If you sell stock you don't own you HAVE to buy it back OR make good the monetary difference at some point in the future.

So let's say you "short" 100 shares of SCO when it is at $10 a share (yeah right). Your broker deposits $1000 in your account and records your sale. He may or may not have to adjust his own share inventory at this point, but as far as you are concerned you just "made" $1000.

Now if the price goes up, say to $15 per share, it would cost you $1500 to buy those 100 shares back. If you have plenty of money in your investment account your broker will just let it slide. But if you run out of credit (ie you don't have more than $1500), your broker will oblige you to buy back the stock, since he no longer has any assurance that you will be able to pay if the stock keeps going up. This is how you get screwed with short sales.

On the other hand, if the stock goes DOWN, say to $5 a share, then you are laughing, because once you decide to "cash in" on your investment, you "buy back" the 100 shares you sold at the current price of $500 ($5 per share). That means you pay $500 out of your account. But remember that your broker has already put $1000 in your account from the short sale you made earlier. So you've earned the balance - $1000 you were given for "selling" the stock short, less $500 to "buy back" the stock and close your commitment with your broker leaves you a profit of $500.

This is a bit off-topic but I felt like writing. Hopefully you understand "short" selling now. Just remember that ALL stocks tend to RISE in value over time (unless there's something REALLY wrong with the company/sector/economy). It's not easy to make money by selling short, but when you spot a stock that is ridiculously overvalued, well, what goes up must also come down at some point. Judging when to buy and when to sell is what makes the difference between people who lose on Wall St. and people who win. And remember, if it was easy, everyone would be rich.

A good start, but...

[russotto]

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.

Re:A good start, but...

[DaveAtFraud]

The conversion from chapter 11 (re-organization) to chapter 7 (liquidation) happens automatically if the company can't show how they can remain a going concern. Assuming Novell gets justice, this is a done deal.

The judge in the SCO v. Novell case ruled that SCO retained money that legally belonged to Novell (the legal term is "conversion"). The amount has yet to be determined but chances are that it is greater than SCO's net worth ($30 million has been bandied about). Since this is money that SCO had no right to keep, Novell moves ahead of the creditor pack and SCO is toast. If you dig around on Groklaw, someone found the clause in the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA - the legal document that set up SCO as the bagman and overseer of Unix licenses) that states that money collected by SCO for Unix SVRX licenses belongs to Novell specifcally in case SCO declares bankruptcy.

SCO is in the same position as a bank robber who tries to declare bankruptcy to avoid giving the bank back it's money. The bank robber may have other creditors but they have no claim on the money stolen from the bank since it's still the bank's money. SCO didn't rob a bank but they illegally converted money that belongs to Novell into their own which amounts to the same thing.

I wonder if any of SCO's old trade show swag is at all interesting. Who knows, in fifty years it might be worth something on e-bay.

Cheers,
Dave

Good time for raises, too!

[Just Some Guy]

From their Form 8-K filing:

Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers. On September 13, 2007, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company"), approved an increase in the base salary of Ryan E. Tibbitts. Mr. Tibbitts' base salary will be increased from $160,000 per year to $210,000 per year, effective as of September 3, 2007. In recognition of the significant contributions Mr. Tibbitts has made to the Company, the Board also approved a discretionary bonus of $50,000, net of taxes, to be paid to Mr. Tibbitts.

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?

Re:Good time for raises, too!

[j. andrew rogers]

The "pay raise" is a bribe by the board for key executives to not jump ship. It is a common pattern when companies are in trouble to put golden handcuffs on key people to keep them around to see the trouble through to the end rather than leaving for better climes with fewer risks. If you think about it, it makes a certain amount of economic sense.

Snowed By SCO

[truckaxle]

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.

Re:"a leading provider of UNIX(R)software technolo

[Paradise Pete]

So, leading providers often file Chapter 11?

That's a typo. It's supposed to be "a leaving provider..."

Slashdot kept us aware of SCO & Groklaw's anal

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Unimpressed by his apology; he doesn't get it

[KWTm]

Not often you find a journalist reporting on their failure of foresight. Daniel gained a few points in my book.

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:

SCO is road kill. Its lawsuit long ago ceased to represent any threat to Linux. That operating system has become far too successful to be dislodged.

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.")

Yeah, but did he learn anything?

[Reality Master 201]

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.

Check this email!

[RWarrior(fobw)]

Big news expected.*This stock will implode!*
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: $ .20
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!