Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:36 UTC, submitted by dylansmrjones
SCO, Caldera, Unixware Yahoo reports that SCO has filed [.pdf] for bankruptcy in order to protect assets. "The SCO Group today announced that it filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. SCO's subsidiary, SCO Operations, Inc., has also filed a petition for reorganization. The Board of Directors of The SCO Group have unanimously determined that Chapter 11 reorganization is in the best long-term interest of SCO and its subsidiaries, as well as its customers, shareholders, and employees." Groklaw has a story on it, too.
Thread beginning with comment 271653
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Wrong chapter
by Geoff Gigg on Sun 16th Sep 2007 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wrong chapter"
Geoff Gigg
Member since:

Groklaw is more than PJ's opinions. It is also a convenient repository of the legal filings. There you will see SCO's motion in the Novell case in which they quote Chapter 11 law to support their contention that the Novell trial should be postponed until the bankruptcy situation is concluded. I don't know if that's ironclad, but it's definitely their intent.

As stated, Novell is not yet a creditor, and won't be until the trial is concluded because it's in dispute.

I agree with you on the probable merits of SCO's appeal. But that won't stop them trying. It's all they've got!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Wrong chapter
by sbergman27 on Sun 16th Sep 2007 03:01 in reply to "RE[7]: Wrong chapter"
sbergman27 Member since:


May I suggest The nice thing about LamLaw is that Lewis A. Mettler is a real, honest to god, attorney. He's not just a paralegal pretending to be one.*

The stays on the current court cases are automatic, yes. But the bankruptcy court can lift them. I (as a citizen, not a lawyer!) cannot imagine it *not* ascertaining what is owed to Novell as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

* Oddly enough, there are no real legal qualifications for a paralegal. There are no educational requirements. Not even a high school diploma, so far as I can tell. No state or federal licensing. Just an optional certification. And no experience requirements. I guess I could call myself a paralegal, buy a domain name, pay my monthly hosting fees, and do my own blog. How about Has a nice ring to it, don't you think? ;-)

Edited 2007-09-16 03:12

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Wrong chapter
by Geoff Gigg on Sun 16th Sep 2007 14:12 in reply to "RE[8]: Wrong chapter"
Geoff Gigg Member since:


That's an interesting article. I would say even more opinionated than PJ. But maybe entitled to it given qualifications.

Please note that I never cited any PJ opinion, just the SCO filing. So Groklaw's take on the matter never entered into anything I said. Not sure why you kept bringing up PJ's lack of qualifications, paralegal only, etc.

[But on that topic, I also noted that lamlam said "Stay tuned. Read Groklaw. (Forget the trade press ...)" So he must think it is of some worth - maybe for the documents?]

My take was simply that SCO did this as a delaying tactic, which they are expert at. How long they can spin it out, who knows? It probably seemed to them like the only choice they add to try to stay in the game. A last throw of the dice.

The interesting thing added by the lamlaw commentary, as you point out, is the power of the bankruptcy court to change things and take control.

I'm a little surprised at lamlaw's confidently asserting that the probable course will be for that court to take Novell's et al's claims still under dispute into immediate consideration and force the proceedings to continue, and/or move to Chapter 7. But obviously I know nothing next to the experts.

Tuesday will indeed be interesting! It is fascinating to watch all this legal maneuvering for its own sake, let alone what's at stake.


Reply Parent Score: 1