Authored by: entre on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:08 PM EST

Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:11 PM EST

I hope it's real money, Novell and IBM might get paid in that case.



---

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.



"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:17 PM EST

The fine print says the financing is a 17% interest rate booked against future

wins in the lawsuits.



You can bet there is some big hand behind the curtain pulling the strings to

keep this going.



---

The $100M comprises: (a) $5M upfront, in exchange for a new series of preferred

stock. That should be sufficient to pay off all of SCO's creditors with

currently-liquidated claims. (b) a $95M line of credit from which SCO could pay

future judgments obtained by Novell/IBM/RedHat (and/or post bonds for appealing

those judgments).

---



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:17 PM EST

I, too, am very interested in seeing SCO's claims proceed to their (inevitable)

conclusion. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:18 PM EST

With an influx of "up to" 100 million dollars, IBM, Novell, Red Hat,

AutoZone, (have I missed anyone?) will be able to get some recompense from SCO

for SCO's harmful actions toward them. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Latesigner on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:18 PM EST



The "castle in Spain" aspect of this is so great that it suggest a

break with reality.



---

The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:19 PM EST

From a motion to dismiss in the GMG v. Robbins, Norris suit. That suit was a result of the Anderer blow-up in Realm Systems

Pacer should have lots more juicy info, unless the record has been sealed.

GMG CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK ROBBINS, an individual; ED DAVIES, an individual; STEPHEN NORRIS, an individual; and PENINSULA ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.



Civil No. 2:06 CV 876 TC





7. In late 2005 in New York, GMG and Norris formed Stephen Norris & Co. Capital Partners, L.P. (the Partnership). Since its inception, the Partnership has conducted limited or no business operations, including any co-investment transactions. Norris Aff. at ¶ 7.

8. All discussions and negotiations involving Norris and pertaining to the Partnership occurred in New York, and did not include any relationship with Utah. Moreover, all documents forming the Partnership were drafted by GMGs counsel either in New York or Pennsylvania. Norris Aff. at ¶ 8.

9. One of GMGs attempts to raise working capital included contacting Robbins and Davies. In early spring 2006, Joe Gfoeller from GMG introduced Norris to Robbins in New York. Norris met with Robbins on one other occasion in New York in spring of 2006. The only other meeting between Norris and Robbins relating to GMG occurred in Dubai in spring of 2006. The first time Norris met Davies occurred in Dubai at this same meeting. This was Norriss only meeting with Davies relating to GMG. Norris Aff. at ¶ 9.

10. In late spring 2006, Norris met with Robbins in Las Vegas, Nevada to discuss potential business opportunities. These discussions led to the formation of Peninsula Advisors,LLC (Peninsula), which was organized and later formed under Delaware law. Norris Aff. at ¶ 10.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:19 PM EST

No financing company would invest $100 million without some form of due diligence. Once they look into SCO's lawsuits, they would realize that SCO is being sued for more than the finance company is investing. As such, the finance company stands to lose everything. Finance people are notoriously risk adverse. They will either back out of the deal, or have a scheme to get rid of the lawsuits (limit liability), or both. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:20 PM EST

Why would anyone put up $100M, when they could buy the entire company for

(currently) $1.64M?





---

This space intentionally left blank.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:23 PM EST

OOOppppss, P.J. appears to have gotten too much information from the filings with the SEC ;) Looks like someone might be wanting to start pulling the research resources out. Ah well... I guess we can start expecting to see even more filings sealed. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:28 PM EST

In all the excitement about the news, the normal etiquette seems to have been

forgotten.



Anyway, you know the rules.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:39 PM EST

I trhink that these cases should be more than sufficient to divest the SCOundrels of their $100M in damages. IANAL, but I think that the Lanham Act damages that ought to be awarded in some of these cases will be much more than that. It is nice of someone to throw away their money (or their upstream investors money?), just to keep SCO going until justice is done, and seen to be done. Always assuming the BK judge allows this, of course. I don't know what legal constraints apply, but he must know by now that SCO as a business have no future. One profitable quarter in their entire existence.... Now who is going to be first to trace the money on offer here to its true source, and who will that source actually be? Could be very interesting! As always, enquiring minds need to know..... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:40 PM EST

All your York are belong to us.



---



You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Laomedon on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 01:48 PM EST

What to do when your back is against the wall (due in court), with a gun to your

head (chapter 7)? Well, you remember what the purpose of your mission is and

your friends improvise ...



Goal: keep FUD going as long as possible.

Task: revive SCO.



Brilliant move: Take SCO private with plenty of money coming from some

unexpected, but friendly corner.



Voila, SCO rising from the near dead and no more public SEC filings AND years of

more FUD (litigation).

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 02:02 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 02:05 PM EST

This is *not* good news.



There are people in this world to whom $100 million is chump change. Anyone

giving this kind of money for SCO is not interested in any kind of commercial

return SCO is capable of ever providing. SCO has nothing of value in the product

space.



The only thing going on is the anti-Linux FUD campaign and it is clear that this

is the objective. All these court cases will continue as will a stepped up

campaign of FUD.



That's my prediction. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 02:20 PM EST

"Mr. Norris co-founded The Carlyle Group"



The Carlyle group includes the Bin Laden family (and Bush family)



When the Carlyle group was created in 1995 they were mainly used to funnel money

to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. (to drive out the Russians)



I have heard Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal Al Saud was one of the credit card

holders who "unknowingly" financed the 9-11 hijacker's flight school.

I wonder if Mr. Norris was in charge of watching the prince's credit cards

during late 2000 and early 2001?



SCO keeps astounding me with the dubious quality of their associates.



---

"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

-D. Adams [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jamis on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 02:35 PM EST

Assuming that the organization had a soul to begin with. I predict that any

product development and support will be offshored. I predict that most company

employees left will be released. I predict that what is left of this company

after the law suits are done will be sold off piecemeal. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 03:06 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 03:52 PM EST

First I apologize for the off topic. I am a long time Groklaw reader. Really

need some help. I purchased domain tooldog.com in 01/2006 and created a website

tooldog.com in early 2006 selling tools on-line. The tooldog.com domain was

first created in 2002, I believe. On registration date of November 13, 2007

(Published for Opposition) August 28, 2007, someone registered a US trademark

(Reg # ) of a word mark of "TOOLDOGS.COM TUFF TOOLS FOR RUFF JOBS" and

a drawing mark. Today, this company sent me an email demanding that I shut down

my website of tooldog.com because his trademark contains the wording of

"TOOLDOGS.COM" and my website "tooldog.com" is too similar

to their trademark. The two website is very different and our website never has

anything close to the word mark in entirety or anything remotely close to their

mark drawing.



Any ideas whether their claim is valid? Why? I understand I am not seeking

legal consul here. Just want your two cents.



I don't want to give up my domain or website if possible. I am going to meet

with some trademark attorneys in next few days. But their rates is US$375/hour.

So, it is not cheap even if legally it is on my side. Plus, if anyone knows a

good trademark attorneys / firms in Atlanta, GA, USA area, would you please post

the firm name? Thanks for your help. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 03:54 PM EST

Would he allow more SCO litigation to be funded to go forward without first

requiring assumption of the liabilities up until that point? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 03:56 PM EST

This is the part that rang the least true:



"We saw a tremendous investment opportunity in SCO and its vast range of

products and services, including many new innovations ready or soon to be ready

to be released into the marketplace," said Stephen Norris.



Sure, like we believe that.



If SCO owned anything valuable the people who actually make or service real

products would have offered them something for it by now. I mean, they could

hardly be more distressed than they were recently, so the purchase price for any

of the pieces could hardly have gone any lower. However, even the bottom

feeders don't want SCO's products, services, or innovations.



This deal is not about turning SCO into a profitable business, it is just a

facade for something else.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Tremendous investment in what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 06:14 AM EST

Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 04:03 PM EST

what more is there to say...

except..



follow the *money*



I wonder..............



---

You don't need to use an Anti-Virus with Linux as thats mainly a windows thing

:)

But you can if you want to, its your choice. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: designerfx on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 04:15 PM EST

Just to make sure, has anyone checked ties to Microsoft via the "offering

company" either in the form of directly or through subsidiaries? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 04:35 PM EST

Is there any legal way for this group to make this investment and keep the

proceeds protected from Novell and IBM? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: The Simulator on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:13 PM EST

Steven Vaughan-Nichols is reporting that Darl may be leaving SCO. Any truth to that? ---

---

Simulation engineers do it with models virtually every day! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:26 PM EST

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a proposal to go private. tSCOg can't actually do it without Judge Gross's permission, and Judge Gross isn't going to approve it unless the US Trustee gives their thumbs-up. Moreover, Novell and IBM (and maybe others) are going to go over the proposal with a fine-tooth comb and I'm sure are going to object strenuously if there's any legal hanky-panky (both Novell and IBM (especially IBM) want the legal issues settled). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 05:47 PM EST

This is not an investment in the normal, financial, sense. It is not an

investment which is expected to make a profit in the normal, financial, sense.



There are gentlemen in the world for whom $100M is chump change. There are a few

of these gentlemen in the Middle East and there are a few of these gentlemen in

USA (as well as other places). It is possible for these gentlemen to exchange

favours, or offer gifts, from time to time.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 06:03 PM EST

So they hand off the five million in cash, get the preferred shares, kick

McBride out, wait a year or eighteen months, refile for bankruptcy, declare

little or no assets for the company, wipe out the common shareholders, let the

preferred shareholders keep a stake in whatever comes out after bankruptcy and

*poof* they've bought the company for five million. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: webster on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 06:16 PM EST

PIPE Fairy Dust is all over this pretense. It is all so unreasonable and improvident as an investment that we are assuredly looking at an exercise in FUD and retaliation for not settling. It also may be a bluff designed to extend the litigation and stir up a settlement. The PIPE Fairy has deep pockets. [I have no time. There is nothing I would rather do right now than expound on this dramatic development. But V-Day has its demands and I am off to the Chinese carryout.] Most disturbed of all about this prospect are poor lawyers at BSF who must continue to shuffle their dueces and pretend this is a case. Their fees are capped and now in bankruptcy their cut of this deal, if any, of the proposed $100 million infusion of cash is up to Judge Gross. They are back in the line of claimants and creditors on any change of control or investment deal. How dreadful, they are looking at the prospect of appeal. There will be exhibits by the truckload. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. SCO adds a by-the-way-caveat to this shimmering press release: We wish to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to developments with respect to the negotiation of definitive agreements with SNCP, confirmation of a plan of reorganization, the outcomes and developments in our Chapter 11 case, court rulings in the bankruptcy proceedings, the impact of the bankruptcy proceedings or other pending litigation, developments in our litigation, our cash balances and available cash, continued competitive pressure on the Company's operating system products, which could impact the Company's results of operations, adverse developments in and increased or unforeseen legal costs related to the Company's litigation, the inability to devote sufficient resources to the development and marketing of the Company's products, including the Me Inc. mobile services and development platform, and the possibility that customers and companies with whom the Company has formed partnerships will decide to terminate or reduce their relationships with the company. So there is an awful lot that has to happen before this plan takes place. Not much of it is up to SCO. They are in the hands of the judges. The Judges are going to take care of creditors before they are out of chapter 11. So between paying creditors and bonds for claims, not much of that money is going to be invested, or paid to shareholders. The PIPE Fairy may have to dig deeper with little prospect of return. The MOG article is bravado and propaganda. It is delivered with a tongue out If for one minute anyone thought this was a SCO project, it is now clear that the PIPE Fairy boosted this from the beginning, with guarantees. The true evaluation of the SCO situation is their market value. This also includes an assessment of their legal situation. The limitless Middle east oil money is either part of a bluff, or someone is in a death struggle. No expense is too much for survival. Now who exactly does Linux threaten?

~webster~ Tyrants live their delusions. Beware the PIPE Fairy. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 06:38 PM EST

A couple of days ago I got the spooky feeling SCO were going to pull something

really amazing out of the hat. Things were too quiet and looking too bad for

SCO. I had no idea it would be this though. Who'd have thought it? Never a

dull moment, eh?



These guys! If only they could put this much energy into something positive.

Darl's had plenty of practice at squandering millions, so it will be interesting

watching him waste it.



---

Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For

Themselves [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: chris hill on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 06:57 PM EST

I'm not sure, but isn't there a law about technology companies and the middle

east, especially with the anti-terrorism bureau?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 06:58 PM EST

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like another iteration of the York deal. That "up to" $100 million is the kicker. It sounds like this deal's structure so that SNCP get ownership in SCO and first crack at their assets, while at the same time avoiding paying anything up-front that could go to creditors. They get to make their "investment" over time, paying as bills come up to avoid SCO ever having a positive cash balance. If I were a creditor, I'd object on the grounds that, while this may be a good deal for SCO, it's not in the interests of the creditors at all. It leaves them exactly where they are now: unpaid. The creditors would be better served by liquidating SCO's assets now, rather than letting SCO exit bankruptcy with their debts unpaid and their assets intact. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 07:06 PM EST

Does this mean SCO will withdraw its bankruptcy filing, and things will be back

where they were before re: the various court cases?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 07:10 PM EST

My WAG...and rank speculations ;) ;) and parody.



It's Valentine's Day and Darl was feeling neglected by his friends in Redmond.

He's been playing out his hand, as dealt to him, but he couldn't stand that $44B

was set to go to Yahoo! and not so much as a bouquet of flowers for him.

Afterall, even Novell got "attention" and a separate payout.



Be sure of this, Darl has cards he's not showing, and he's been on the phone

today. I am betting that he only had to convince them that he is holding aces.

We may never see his cards, afterall, Linux left this game of

"hold-em" long ago. Fortunately for Darl there are other player's

which could still get drawn back in. Today's $100M "investment" says

Darl has at least got their attention.



WHG3: Sorry, baby. Here's some roses and a diamond ring. You know you're my only

flame, babe.



Why it may not be just a WAG...

These _particular_ "businessmen" are notoriously uncreative. They only

have so many tricks in their bag. If you can't milk a monopoly, then how can you

make money? To me, this bears a striking resemblance to the "100M lines of

Unix code embedded deep into Linux." Darl couldn't convince the Linux

community in 2002, but it looks like he had better success with his marks today,

and today's marks had deeper pockets. His marks were afraid that Darl might

have some item which was used as leverage. It certainly could be

"inconvenient" if some fact were to come out at the wrong time during

the $44B Yahoo! acquistion.



Darl in 2002: "Nice OS you got there. Shame if something were to happen to

it."



Darl in 2008: "Nice acquistion you got there. Shame if something were to

happen to it." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 07:40 PM EST

He might well have mentioned the case to someone.

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/exec/billg/speeches/2008/01-27GLFArabia.mspx



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 07:56 PM EST

Suppose this deal goes through.

Further suppose the court rules that SCOX owes Novell $50M. SCOX uses the

"advance" money to pay Novell and dies.

Does Novell get to keep the money? Or, since it was technically

"advance", do they have to pay it back? If the latter is the case,

then this is nothing more than yet another smoke-and-mirrors deal. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 08:22 PM EST

Even with more money, SCO still has that dagger lodged in

its heart. MOG must be on some serious drugs if she

thinks SCO can extort much money out of Linux without

owning the Unix copyrights.



I don't think anyone has much to worry about from SCO

unless they can somehow get themselves legally declared

the Unix copyright holders, which seems utterly

inconceivable at this point. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 08:35 PM EST

This saga is a bigger scam than "wind energy", and I didn't think that

possible. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bigbert on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:09 PM EST

We all know that the SCOG allegations are groundless. However, if you want to:



a) Spread more FUD ("There just HAS to be something in their claims! Why

else would these clever businessmen want to INVEST $100M?")



b) Pump up share prices BEFORE the deal goes through



then announce such a deal. The deal may even go ahead; $100M is nothing for a

company that is prepared to spend $44B on a website.....



---

--------------------------

Surfo, ergo sum. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 09:51 PM EST

That will just cover Suse's claim. Seems like SCO is going to have to come up

with some more moola to satisfy Novell and IBM. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:02 PM EST

100 million spent advertising Vista would be money down the drain because the

world is already aware that it is ME2. IF XP and Vista is all you have to sell,

better to spend the money dissuading customers from buying the competition. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 10:03 PM EST

We can't sure until we see the detailed plan in bankruptcy court.



However, I would bet that the deal is structured in such a way that SNCP pays

only about $1 million for controlling interest in SCO and then only has to pay

as much as necessary to keep the litigation going on as an needed basis. The

will probably get the rights to own larger portions of SCO as the put up the

litigation costs. However, they will not put up any money that does not get to

be spent by SCO.



In that way, they will make sure that there is no money left for Novell, IBM,

Red Hat, Autozone or anybody else to get any of their investment. In short, I

bet that SNCP is trying to get all of the upside with only a limited amount of

the down side. They are not going to still $100 million into SCO if Novell or

somebody is going to be able to get their hands on it in court. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: stats_for_all on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:58 PM EST

From the original complaint Utah federal case 2:06-cv-00876 These excerpts make it seem like Norris and Robbins were scamming the deep pockets of GMG. Getting GMG to pay their living expenses, while they were setting up a con. Is Norris actually solvent? Note that GMG were in cahoots with Anderer on Realm and IPIQ, so who the con and who the mark is remains murky. The case was eventually dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, since PLA Mock and DFT Robbins were both from Utah. 19. In June of 2005, GMG committed to raising the $2 million that Norris and GMG estimated was the necessary seed capital to make thier partnership a success. Raising such funds for a start-up investment was a substantial task, and GMG spent substantial time and money developing materials with which to market the fund and then marketing it to a number of its contacts. After much effort, in January of 2006, delivering on its commitment, GMG used its connections in the Salt Lake City business community to secure the needed financing from an investment group led by Mark Robbins and his father-in law Ed Davies. Davies is a high net worth individual and investor, while Robbins is an experienced private equity investor, who had solicited his father-in-law's support in raising the needed funds for Norris' fund. 20. Over the course of almost a year, GMG poured its efforts and substantial resources in pursuing the objectives of its partnership with Norris. These efforts even included GMG financing and participating in two extensive trips to the Middle East and Europe with Norris in November/December of 2005 (November 17th to December 2nd) and April of 2006. While GMG's principals labored in 2005 and the first half of 2006 on Norris' behalf, though, a shift was occuring behind the scenes: Norris, Davies and Robbins, in the winter of 2006, began to collude and concoct a scheme to cut GMG out of tlhe deal in order to take the partnership and merge it as a unit of another new investment vechicle, Peninsula. 21. By May of 2006, the scheme to usurp the partnership's creation was ultimately revealed and Norris, Davies and Robbins concluded it by communicating in writing their intent to exclude GMG from any further participation. 22 Defendants' machinations, however, were not limited to misappropriating the "co-investing" partnership fund. Beginning in November 2005, Robbins and Davies also induced GMG to create an entirely seperate investment-funding vehicle known as Realm Capital, LLC. 23. Relying on the representations of Robbins and Davies assuring their participation in the funding, ownership and management of Realm Capital, GMG and its professionals expended significant legal and business resources between November 2005 and May 2006 to develop and substantially complete the set up of Realm Capital, only to have the financing pulled on ita at the last minute (and, not coincidentalyy, at exactly the same time the "co-investing" partnership deal disintegrated -- early May of 2006) ......... 32. GMG also paid Norris directly or advanced on his behalf over $1.4 million to cover his lifestyle and expenses 33 These funds were used to pay, for example, rental payments for apartments in New York City and Florida, reimbursements for Norris' monthly American Express bills (typically $20,000 or more per month), and first-class travel expenses all over the world. These expenses were necessary so that Norris was perceived as a "player" in the high-stakes, status conscious Investment community of the large private equity and buyout funds and of Norris' wealthy contacts in the Middle East. .... 43. Following the meetings between Norris and Robbins in New York City, Robbins continued to indicate that he and Davies were prepared to fund the seed capital, but also continued to find reasons for delaying the closing. 44. During this same period of time, the early part of 2006, Norris was continuing his efforts to actively recruit prominent individuals to serve on the partnership investment committee, by traveling across the country, overseas, entertaining and accomodating himself lavishily at GMG's expense. 45. Robbins also began repeatedly to make it clear that Davies was actually the final decision maker with respect to funding the partnership and other related important matters.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 12:28 AM EST

Guess this was the day for a real sweetheart deal! Some ppl send flowers,

others send chocolate. I guess Bill just sends cash ;) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 12:30 AM EST

I think someone just flipped too many pages on their calendar. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: elronxenu on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 01:32 AM EST

This deal looks like York++. I wonder if it will survive scrutiny - York certainly folded the moment scrutiny was applied. I would hope that it ensures that Novell and SCO's creditors are all paid out. It is fundamentally prejudicial to creditors if SCO is allowed to continue to spend money attacking Linux without first paying its creditors full money. If, after that, the deal still goes ahead ... I'm looking forward to the new cashed-up SCO continuing to get creamed in court. Have IBM and Novell left open the door to claim their legal expenses from this "silliest lawsuit of all time"? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Peter Baker on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 01:32 AM EST

I came across one that made me laugh:



"Yes, the writers strike is over!"



Shame I can't seem to find where it was, I'd love to attribute it. Short and

very much to the point :-).



---

= P =

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 01:33 AM EST

No more SEC filings, when they go private, I guess...



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: drh on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:01 AM EST

Look on the bright side...



We all want a legacy we can pass down to our children, and our children's

children.



With this deal to keep the litigation going, we will all be able to pass down

Groklaw to those who come after us!





---

Just another day... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:13 AM EST

Is this what constitutes "re-structuring a business"?



a change in ownership driven by a $5M bet, with a $500k termination fee mixed

with stupidly-optmistic expectations of litigation success? this constitutes the

changing of business activities to return the company it to a positive liquid

state?



huh?



Is there any evidence of restructuring the business in that plan?



zilch, nothing, zip, nadda, ...



It's the same business activity with extra emphasis on litigation that's doomed

to failure.



Surely the Trustee will be asking the obvious question "what about this

change will restore the business to a satisfactory state of liquidity and

likelihood of being able to meet creditor demands?" which should return the

obvious answer "none at all".



Charles from Oz. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ak on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:16 AM EST

PJ wrote: For us, it's never been about McBride. SCO is not simply an abstract entity. People exist who are responsible for the activities of SCO. Darl McBride is one of them. I also doubt that Val Marie Kreidel would agree that it was fun to deal with Ralph Yarro. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:35 AM EST

Sorry, but they are simply too obvious. (OK, the RIAA one did show a little bit

of creativity, but how about some more where that came from?)



Could this be a setup by one of the other players?



Microsoft was not the only one to take out a SCOSource license (or whatever the

heck it was that they SCO paid for). Might the other licensees have had some

reason to get behind this?



And how about the other side? Mightn't this be some sort of strange

three-corner shot on the part of the Nazgul or one of the other parties to the

numerous SCO lawsuits?



C'mon, let's see some creativity out there!!! After all, what we fail to

foresee could hurt Linux and FLOSS. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:42 AM EST

You can't set up a $100m deal in five minutes, and the legal people will want to

have billed substantially for getting this 'wonderful' arrangement in place, so

why, why, why did tSCOg want 'extra time' to put forward a reorganisation plan?







---

Keep B-) ing [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bradley13 on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 03:07 AM EST

I recently read a very interesting article (sorry, no clue where) that pointed

out that Windows may indeed be doomed. But in the end it's not Linux, or Apple,

or indeed any other competitor that will have done it.



Instead, it's the paradigm shift that Microsoft missed: as more and more content

runs in the browser, the operating system becomes increasingly irrelevant. It is

entirely possible that Aunt Minnie's next computer could have an embedded

operating system with no software beyond the built-in browser. At that point,

the operating system can be literally anything, and no one is going to be making

much money on it.



Meanwhile, their other cash cow, Microsoft Office, hasn't much life left in it

either - equivalent or better tools are available free on the Internet. Even

business services are available for not much money. And after the redesign

disaster that Office-2007 represents, well...



Microsoft may indeed be focusing on Linux - if so, it just shows that they

continue to misunderstand, or perhaps they desperately need to pretend... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 03:08 AM EST

I don't know who got all the SCO shares, but there are shares. Of course most

people will sell the SCO hot potatoes if they get little more then nothing for

it. But in the end, haven't they have to buy all or nearly all the shares to go

private?



I don't think that any investor will fire Darl. He is involved in it way to

much. As he was part of the UNIX Deal with Novell. He is a witness. You wouldn't

fire him not before the fat lady has sung.



As al-Walid ibn Talal Al Saud has 5% of the Apple shares, what's the connection

between Apple, SCO, Linux and Microsoft? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 04:18 AM EST

"The Old Rich Boy's Club ... Game" of taking a company private. Who pays? The USA's middle class taxpayers. Private investment companies, organized as hedge funds or private equity firms, have recently grown into major economic forces in the U.S. economy. They mobilize capital, and often leverage it with borrowed funds, in order to accumulate a tremendous amount of assets under their management. These investments include leveraged buyouts; market-neutral investment strategies in publicly traded stocks and bonds, energy, and other commodities; various arbitrage strategies; as well as many lesser known and some entirely unreported transactions. Hedge funds are big players in the large corporate take-over activity that reached $3.6 trillion in 2006¸ and they are also responsible for a significant share of trading volume on the major stock exchanges and in some over-the-counter derivatives markets. These private pools of capital are unregulated, or exempt from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation, under both the Investment Advisors Act and the Investment Company Act. While these exemptions were once justified on the grounds that such investment firms were small, closely held, and did not raise their capital in public capital markets, the exemptions are no longer consistent with todays reality. Today these firms are huge, have a wide number and range of investors, and the Internet has blurred the distinction between public and private marketing. In addition to being unregulated, these financial institutions also reap substantial benefits from special tax provisions that, like the regulatory framework, are no longer appropriate. The professional fund managers of these hedge funds and private equity firms are allowed to treat a substantial portion of their compensation as capital gains, meaning they are most likely taxed at 15% rather than the 35% rate that applies to ordinary income such as wages and salary. Such an exemption, however, makes little sense: in economic terms, the fund managers (also known as investment advisors) perform a professional service, much like lawyers or doctors, and receive remuneration for their labor. $$$$$$$$< /a> [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 05:19 AM EST

Nobody bets $100M if the possibility exists that it will immediately have to be

paid to someone else for no gain: you put a one-way valve in place. There's no

chance I can see that this capital is going to be available to IBM and Novell.

The investors will structure an agreement, such that they control the purse

strings and can shut off any flow if it is diverted out of the company.



That means that the agreement isn't as unremittingly positive for SCO as the

press release paints it. And it also means that the judge may decide that it's

not in the interests of the SCO creditors.



JeffV



[ Reply to This | # ]



SEC - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 05:27 AM EST SEC - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 06:12 AM EST SEC - Authored by: John Hasler on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 01:32 PM EST

- Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 05:27 AM EST

Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 06:19 AM EST

I agree with all of you. Even if this is Bill Gate's parting gift to Microsoft

it makes no sense.



However, I wonder if the following is a possibility. If the reorganisation is

accepted before the Novell case is held then SCOG will leave Chapter 11 and all

the court cases will be unstayed. Most of the cases spell insolvancy for SCOG

and Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Notice that time is of the essence for the investors.



Here are the top five creditors (IBM and Novell are listed as being owed less

than $5k),



AMICI LLC Phone: (518) 434-6543 Trade Debt $500,650.73

80 State Street



BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, $287,256.39



The Canopy Group, $139,895.00



GRE MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS PROPERTY, $132,502.00



MICROSOFT LICENSING, INC., $125,575.00



SUN MICRO SYSTEMS INC., $50,000.00



Let's say that part of the $5M is spent paying off all the creditors. That, at

least, keeps the lawyers sweet. Judge Gross is assured that the potential

creditors are protected by the $100M loan facility. He sees no reason not to

agree the reorganisation since all of the creditor interests are now covered.

Now lets say that SCOG, as a privately held company, ceases trading and closes

down. They refund the balance on the remaining support and licence terms, again

out of the $5M.



All the law suits close as SCOG the plaintif/defendant no longer exists. The

only recourse of IBM and Novell for their counterclaims, Suse for the

arbitration and Red Hat as plaintif would be to sue the former officers of SCOG.



None of the FUD goes away. Microsoft still have their friend Novell owning the

copyright and SVRx contracts that are the basis of the FUD. As with the patent

deal, Novell protestations will still be matched by Microsoft

misrepresentation.



There is a good chance that a good proportion of the $5M would still be left for

the priority shareholder to take back. As a gesture of good faith they might

even hand a golden reward to the other loyal majority shareholders; what was his

name? Yarro? Oh, and a golden parachute for loyal senior managers that helped

put the deal together. Why not? Nobody would see. It's a private company.



So, the extortionist, scamster, proxy fuddies get a soft landing and bucks in

the bank from their sponsor, the FUD goes on and the final cost is a couple of

million dollars. Sounds like a sweet payoff to me.



---

Regards

Ian Al



When nothing else makes sense, use Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 06:57 AM EST

... is never take an SCO produced document or court filing as gospel. Moreover

don't even give a lot of credence to it - wish to say 'take it with a grain of

salt'



Have patience and allow truth to surface.



This is not to imply that there may not be some seeds or elements of truth in

what we read, but discrimination is in order.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sylvester on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 07:28 AM EST

From 346 exhibit A, the MOU: "The Debtor and SNCP acknowledge and agree that a purpose and intended effect of the Proposed Plan of Reorganization is to maximize the Debtor's litigation recovery under the Pending Litigation." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: emacsuser on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 08:00 AM EST

"SNCP has developed a business plan for SCO .. will also enable the company

to see SCO's legal claims through to their full conclusion"



PJ, help, I'm confused here, what I would like to know is:



01. What is the current state of play in the SCO litigation? I thought they

lost?



02. Aren't Novell and others making counterclaims against SCO and isn't SCO

declared bankrupt. If so don't these third parties have claims on these new

funds.



03. Is it legal to finance a bankrupt company to further more bogus litigation

claims. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ruurd on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 09:32 AM EST

Uhm, who thinks that LIBOR + 1700 points is a reasonable

interest? I mean, come on, at the current LIBOR, that is

21% interest? And they start out with 5 million dollars

meaning they will have to pay a cool million dollars a year

for interest only over this bit only.



I think that this is a long shot. Either the investor is

making a lot of money (in case SCO wins their lawsuits) or

he runs the company in the ground quite thoroughly.



---

ruurd [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 09:40 AM EST

Might I suggest the first court case the buyers appeal be the German one? You

remember, the one where they were supposed to detail exactly HOW Linux infringed

on their "precioussss" Intellectual Property? The one that resulted

in them being estopped from making such a claim again in the land of

lederhosen?



Good luck with that, witless ones. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 09:51 AM EST

I would have hoped that funding another party's lawsuit like this would be

illegal, and remembered such issues were discussed in the early days of

groklaw.



So a little bit of searching revealed that the term I was thinking of is

champerty. It used to be illegal under common law, but apparently it's legal

now. Pity.



Still, is there any legal recourse you can (effectively) take against someone

like this? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 10:36 AM EST

Authored by: dromasco on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 10:36 AM EST

It's refreshing to see Maureen's sense of humour is as insightful (or should I

say 'inciteful') as ever; her description of McBride as "hes too much of

lightening rod" is spot on (if you consider how well he's 'lightened' SCO's

coffers). Replenishing those funds at some 21% per annum is exactly the sort of

forward-looking management style that we have come to expect. I note that the

stock has skyrocketed to USD $.11 per share as I write this, an 83% rise in mere

days! Should they borrow more, I'm quite sure their value will increase

commensurately........ [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 11:43 AM EST

Maybe there is a God, after all. What's that sound I hear? It's wailing and

gnashing of teeth. Finally IBM faces an opponent with deep pockets that is able

to fight back.



Hey, somebody forgot to tell the Writers Guild of America that intellectual

property is supposed to be free. Guess they never read "The Cathedral and

the Bazaar".



Think about it: script writers get paid royalties by the biggest sharks in the

corporate tank, whereas Linux developers give it up for free. The Grocklaw

groupies regularly get put on the casting couch by IBM--used to generate free

publicity and to collect intelligence on SCO--don't even get cab fare out of it,

and are vain enough and to feel flattered by the attention.



No "Uncle Tom" ever felt as happy about being exploited as the

self-appointed leaders of the "Linux community". Everybody makes

money from Linux except the developers who do the work. But UNIX was developed

by paid professionals and was never free.



Let's face it: Linux is just imitation UNIX--a less mature, less capable copy,

and one that abandonded standards. The real creative genius belongs to Dennis

Ritchie, Ken Thompson, et. al. Linus Torvalds was just an incompetent imitator

who couldn't even be bothered to conform to the System V user interface

standard. The Linux Emperor has no clothes!



Linux destroyed established UNIX standards and allowed Microsoft to enter server

and government markets where they were previously excluded. It undercut the

price on UNIX system software and put most of those companies out of business.

SCO was the last UNIX-on-PC company left standing.



SCO were jerks, but they happen to be in the right. IBM welched on its deal

with SCO to develop a 64-bit UnixWare (SCO and its OEMs were told to resell AIX

5L instead!). That's a fact. IBM's NUMA-Q subsidiary took source code from

UnixWare and put it in its BSD-basedDynix OS; the next step was to move it to

Linux. They were in a big hurry and there was no IP cleanroom and it was

"just get the job done". IBM

figured it could do anything it wanted, and with some help from Novell's tame

judge, use it's captive media and legal clout to bully its way out. (When IBM

set up this site, they must have been delighted to discover so many patsies

willing run flack for them.)



Well, looks like they've finally come up against somebody who can fight back.

It's about time. Now justice might just get done. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 12:09 PM EST

The SCO Group (TSG) gets bought and the holding company decides that things are

just not working out. Can the holding company just write off it's

"investment" and TSG just stops existing? No more company, no more

lawsuits?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 12:24 PM EST

As of the time of the filing of the 13g, this part of the statment kind of stuck

out:



Common Stock, $.001 par value per share (the "Shares").



According to the SCOX.PK quote on Yahoo, it now shows between nine and eleven

cents. The par value is a tenth of that. Are we saying the stock is

over-priced by a factor of ten even now?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 12:53 PM EST

As tempting as it is to see this as someone wanting to prop SCO up for the

anti-Linux FUD value, I can't quite see that working. It's been a while since

I've seen anything that resembles effective FUD come out of SCO. That is to

say, SCO emits the FUD, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. It only gets

repeated in places like sys-con, which nobody pays any attention to. The

mainstream media, inattentive though they are, has been reporting that SCO is

getting thrashed in the court cases, with the implication that their claims have

no merit. So those who want anti-Linux FUD must see that SCO has no further

value in that department, indeed that reprts of SCO's failure generate more

confidence in Linux. They would probably if anything like to see SCO go quietly

into chapter 7 and disappear from the news, then go find some other avenue of

attack.



Unfortunately, I have no other theory to offer.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 01:20 PM EST

SCO's success in reorganizing may well lead to others

trying to follw in their footsteps.



I can just see the emails now..............



"Hello Sir, Or Madame,



My name Hector G Bootie, my home Lagos Nigeria, I am writing you today because

my company 419 IP Inc

is currently in bankruptcy, but my company sue Big American Company many

dollars, all I need is small investment

from person of vision to reorganiz and continue sue BAC, if give me money now,

we all make BIG money later.



Sincerley

Hector Gotalatta Bootie

President 419 IP Inc"

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 01:42 PM EST

So what is the game plan? I can see two possibilities:



1) Somebody believes that this turkey will lay golden eggs.

Two reasons why I don't believe it:

a) Novell has a solid case. And without the copyrights for

UNIX you can't blackmail Linux.

b) Why take SCO out of Chapter 11? Changing status costs money

and makes the appeal process more expensive. No reduced bond.



2) Somebody needs to hide something, desperately.

The reason I believe this one is that publicly traded

companies need to follow many SEC rules. "Creative"

accounting can send the management team to jail.

In addition, a bankruptcy court acts, de facto, as the board.

Whatever is said in court is public knowledge, and lying to

the court can send you to jail for perjury.



Taking SCO private, and out of bankruptcy, gives management

the ability to destroy evidence in the books without

facing criminal charges. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:23 PM EST

If SCO comes out of bankruptcy, there is nothing to prevent Judge Kimball from imposing a constructive Trust, right? With the constructive trust in place, SCO either goes back in to BK, or the shadow investors have to fill up the trust putting their money at genuine risk right? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 02:45 PM EST

Groklaw is people!!!



Is MOG so dim as to never ever get that?

/bowhead

/shakehead [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 03:49 PM EST

Microsoft reportedly took this technique to an even higher level around the same time when it tried to buy Intuit, which at that point was primarily known for its Quicken home finance application. Microsoft wooed Intuit and won the company in 1994 with a $1.5 billion all-stock offer. Another reported incentive to Intuit was Microsoft's threat to throw $1 billion into development of competing products if Intuit didn't sell out. Already in antitrust trouble with the Department of Justice, Microsoft eventually dropped the offer, paying Intuit a $46.25 million termination fee. But according to at least one Intuit techie who jumped to Microsoft shortly thereafter, the primary purpose of Microsoft's bid was actually to get information on Intuit's programmers, NOT to buy the company. Unlike Borland, where Microsoft paid a PR penalty (and later scored a lawsuit) for sending limos to the parking lot and interviewing anybody who would get in, by entering a formal due diligence period with Intuit, Microsoft got access to many details, including Intuits product plans and employee records. By the time they bailed on the deal, Microsoft had a very good idea exactly which Intuit employees to recruit to both improve Microsoft Money and to hurt Quicken, QuickBooks, and TurboTax. It is a testament to Intuit that the company survived. CLIC KY [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: kh on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 04:44 PM EST

It doesn't have any way of generating money, which is what companies do isn't

it?



Going private would surely also affect the stock holders wouldn't it? That

would make them interested parties. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 04:47 PM EST

Let me see, we have a 'buyer' willing to cough up $5m to buy what is left of

tSCOg and offers an extremely competitive 21% interest loan of up to $95m as

well - with a few strings applied.



Now that's might look a bit better than the York deal, but is it actually that

good? Is it contingent on getting out of Chp 11 BEFORE the Utah thing is

settled?



Is it?

I can't tell



---

Keep B-) ing [ Reply to This | # ]



Hmmm... - Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 04:52 PM EST

Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 05:19 PM EST

How many wagers where you can bet (about) $10m against a $5billion pay day are

available to you?



Even if the odds are pretty remote, and the court has decided against you?



---

Keep B-) ing [ Reply to This | # ]



If you are a multibillionaire... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 01:34 PM EST

Authored by: Eeyore on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 05:33 PM EST

E-week has an interesting story on this....



What`s Behind the SCO Buyout - "primary purpose and intended results of the Plan, and the financing commitments provided under the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) is to encourage and promote an early and favorable resolution of the Novell/(IB)M Litigation. Notwithstanding the August 2007 interim ruling by the Utah District Court in the Novell Litigation, SCO believes it has an excellent chance to prevail in the Novell/ IBM Litigation, including potential for an award of substantial damages in its favor should SCO prevail."



E-week is also linking to a couple of stories on this from Linux Watch.



SCO goes private, gets $100M to keep going - "Not only will this deal position us to emerge from Chapter 11, but it also marks an exciting future for our business."



SCO CEO Darl McBride is on his way out [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 05:44 PM EST

So, regardless of which troll is financing this saga, after SCO gets the verdict

of how much it owes Novell, it will appeal and get out of chapter 11. What

happens then?

Will IBM be able to move on with the final kill despite an appeal in the Novell

case or will it be on hold?

I'd like to see IBM put the final nail in the SCO coffin ASAP!

But I'm afraid the legal system will allow SCO to continue at snails speed

because the chair-throwing troll behind SCO wants this to go on as long as

possible.



Happy Ubuntu user [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 06:29 PM EST

... maybe.



It would require somebody else to invest in SCO after SNCP did, and SNCP bleeds

off that money by the high interest loan.



But who (else) would be dumb enough to invest in SCO? Well, there are two

possibilities. One is that SCO gets somebody who actually believes in them.

This isn't impossible - say that SCO appeals the Novell decision and the appeals

court finds something in Kimball's decision that they don't think is adequate.

So they send it back to Kimball for him to correct that point and re-roll the

case from there. Well, that doesn't necessarily mean that SCO won anything. It

might just mean that Novell has to work harder to finish them off. But you

could see someone who doesn't follow the case closely thinking that SCO is going

to win and make a lot of money.



The other option is that the new investor doesn't think SCO is going to win.

They are just gambling that they can find someone else - a third investor - to

make the second investor's investment pay off. This is kind of like the

"greater fool" theory of real estate investing. It actually works -

until the music stops. Then someone loses their shirt.



Someone is going to lose their shirt here, too. But it might not be SNCP. They

could come out OK, if they can find another sucker.



MSS2 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 06:30 PM EST

LIBOR is one of the standard bases for Mortgage rates and basis points are absolute percentages. Each basis point is 1/100 of one percent. An interest rate of 5% plus 100 basis points is 6% (See Wikipeia ). The current LIBOR rate is between 3% and 5.36% (See Bloomberg). so the MOU lending rate is between 17% and 19.36%. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: JamesK on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 06:34 PM EST

I seem to recall someone mention that if SCO wants to appeal, they have to post

a bond to cover what they have to pay. How does this fit in with this new

"deal"?





---

This space intentionally left blank.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: GLJason on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 07:50 PM EST

SCO gets $5 million cash to pay off current creditors and keep alive with their current expenses for a while. They also get $95 million to pay to Novell and IBM when they trounce SCO in the courtroom. If they wish to appeal the upcoming judgements against them, they will have to borrow that money at 17% interest (not a bad rate considering the risk assumed by the creditor) from this investor. Novell and IBM (then RedHat and Autozone) will actually get some money back for their troubles and other companies will think twice about doing what SCO did. The company that is investing will be out $100 million. The company will become the primary creditor of SCO and SCO will then file for chapter 7 I'm sure. Even if this company does get whatever "IP rights" SCO has, I would think they would be shy about rehashing the same lawsuits that had already cost them $100 million. If they aren't shy, then future targets of lawsuits can just point to the Novell, IBM, RedHat and Autozone decisions in their request for dismissal with prejudice. Granted, I haven't seen the papers yet. However I see no downside to this deal with what I know unless someone is worried about SCO winning on appeal and hoped they would go out of business before that. I for one am happy that IBM and Novell will finally be getting their days in court after five years and that they will get some money to pay for the lawyers that have done such an excellent job. In fact, if this would bring them out of bankruptcy then there would be no constructive trust issue to bring back to the bankruptcy court, Judge Kimball could decide the Novell case in its entirety. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: elhaard on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 08:46 PM EST

There have been a lot of comments about how huge an amount this is just for

prolonging the FUD.



But it's nothing compared to the fines that Microsoft gladly paid to EU instead

of revealing documentation for interoperability.



$100M is, what, less than two months worth of EU fines?



And it is certainly nothing compared to the overall MSOOXML bribes.



---

This comment is licensed under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 2.0).

Share & enjoy! [ Reply to This | # ]



Nothing compared to EU fines - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 11:38 PM EST

Authored by: billposer on Friday, February 15 2008 @ 11:50 PM EST

Does anybody remember Darl's letter to Congress on how Linux is a national

security risk? I wonder how the sale of SCO and its putative interest in Linux

to someone with disturbing connections to Islamic terrorism will go over?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Stevieboy on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 07:43 AM EST

"Never give a sucker an even break"



To Steve Norris and Partners - They saw you coming, dudes.



By the way Steve, are you any relation to the Steve Norris, one time Tory MP and

candidate for Mayor of London and who openly had 4 mistresses (he married the

last one)? I quite liked him and, if you are related, I wish you well but

advise you to drop this hot potato forthwith! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 11:48 AM EST

As I understand it, this deal is contingent on Darl's retirement as CEO. But if Darl leaves before SCO exits bankruptcy, then doesn't the bankruptcy court have to approve Darl's (substantial) retirement benefits? Which seems unlikely for a company in bankruptcy. But if he tries to stay until SCO exits bankruptcy, the deal doesn't go though. Catch 22. Or am I overanalyzing this? [ Reply to This | # ]



A clarification - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, February 16 2008 @ 04:47 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 04:51 PM EST

Let's have a look at it in a different way:



SCO took a bad turn before judge Kimball and run into Chapter 11 to save the

money (and the IP) with some tricks.



In Chapter 11they failed, it went back to Kimball. No they tried to sell the IP

three(?) times without success. It's still there at SCO and Kimball on schedule.

What do to? How can you save the IP (FUD)?



Get out of Chapter 11, which became a dead end, and try to get private. As a

private company you can sell anything you like whenever you like to whomever you

like without a notice to anyone. Is that the next plan, the definite catch 22?



That brings me back to the question: How do you technically turn such a complex

shareholder company into a private company. If you have 51% you might do many

things, but you can't bleed out the company without the thread of being sued.

Haven't they said that they would like to go out of chapter 11 and turn it

private thereafter? Going private isn't related with chapter 11.



Isn't time another precious good that keeps running through their fingers? If

Kimball rules high enough, isn't it to late? If SCO owes Novell more as it's

worth + 5 million US-$, isn't SCO bankrupt? A credit over 95 million US-$

doesn't solve the debt. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mobrien_12 on Sunday, February 17 2008 @ 05:13 PM EST

Maureen O'Gara: "SCO going private will give the Groklaw crowd one thing

its always wanted  SCO CEO Darl McBride out."



No, I think we truly would like to see him investigated by the SEC so that we

could see if he should be "IN" for a long time.



As "in prison."









[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: hamstring on Monday, February 18 2008 @ 10:00 AM EST