05.20.09
Gemini version available ♊︎SCO’s Chapter 7 and Novell’s Response to It
Summary: Update on the SCO situation
SOME TIME ago we wrote about SCO and Chapter 7. SCO is at the stage where saying “goodbye” to it would be reasonable.
The news is quite significant assuming that SCO is technically not history just yet. Chapter 7 would spell its death. It’s still covered in some press, including Law360.
Law360, New York (May 12, 2009) — Novell Inc. and IBM Corp. have asked a judge to convert UNIX software provider SCO Group Inc.’s bankruptcy from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, claiming that SCO is squandering its estate on pointless copyright litigation against Novell and IBM.
Novell finally has a formal statement about this, a portion of which is:
Novell believes that SCO has completely failed to move forward with a workable Plan of Reorganization and has significantly depleted the company assets. Novell agrees with the United States Trustee that it is time for an independent evaluation of how to best preserve the estate for the benefit of SCO’s creditors and shareholders.
LamLaw has resumed some writings about SCO vs. Novell, but apart from that, the stage is all Groklaw’s. It has the key documents now:
- Novell’s Motion to Convert SCO’s Cases to Chapter 7, as text
- IBM’s Motion to Convert SCO’s Cases to Chapter 7, as text
For context, see this article:
IBM and Novell have each filed motions in the SCO bankruptcy to convert the SCO Chapter 11 cases to Chapter 7. That makes three such motions. Here’s the US Trustee’s motion, if you are new. We’re working on text versions. Keep in mind these are motions, not yet granted, and SCO can file objections and/or can still file a plan to try to abort the motions if anyone wishes to give them a truckload of money. Anyone?
Groklaw has connected another valuable transcript to it:
Here at long last is the transcript [PDF] of the May 25, 2005 hearing in SCO v. Novell, and while it is dated, and even quaint in some respects, some of it is very timely because the arguments include some of the same or similar arguments heard in this week’s hearing on the appeal, specifically what was Amendment 2 to the SCO-Novell Asset Purchase Agreement for? What did it achieve? Was it a copyright transfer?
Other new articles from Groklaw:
- May 25, 2005 Hearing Transcript, SCO v. Novell – no line numbers
- Contracts – California law on witness testimony
- Bankruptcy bills… and unpaid invoices
Groklaw deserves great credit for the admirable job it does tracking SCO. █
“On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO’s strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA