Oh for ... sake
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jacog Nov 21, 2007 4:39 AM EDT |
Is there no end??? |
| number6x Nov 21, 2007 5:46 AM EDT |
just yesterday Groklaw published an article that SCO has withdrawn its request for this asset sale. It seems everyone involved in this, including the Court appointed Trustee, is opposed to the terms of the proposed sale of assets.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071120141133294 SJVN's article was probably written before this was filed with the bankruptcy Court. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2007 8:01 AM EDT |
All confusing to me. I have a hard time seeing any real value in the lawsuits unless the proposed buyers can convince the bankruptcy court there is some merit to the appeals. However, all of the court records from the case are admissible in the bankruptcy if the issue of appeals comes up..so, methinks IBM -- as a major creditor -- could have a field day. After all, SCO got swatted real darned hard for dragging its feet and not complying with court orders. That sort of stuff tends not sit well with judges. |
| jdixon Nov 21, 2007 8:10 AM EDT |
> I have a hard time seeing any real value in the lawsuits... I'd say it's worse than that. IBM and Novell have counterclaims pending. I would assume that if they purchase the rights to pursue the lawsuits, they also purchase any liabilities thereof. That's not something I'd want to touch with a 10 ft. cattle prod. |
| techiem2 Nov 21, 2007 8:39 AM EDT |
If I remember the Groklaw analysis of the proposed deal right, the terms gave York the right to be repaid before any of the debtors. Obviously that wouldn't sit very well with IBM and Novell, as SCO doesn't have much of anything to pay with to begin with. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2007 8:55 AM EDT |
>the terms gave York the right to be repaid before any of the debtors. That is something the bankruptcy court would have to approve. Expect trouble getting that to happen. |
| gus3 Nov 21, 2007 10:00 AM EDT |
>the terms gave York the right to be repaid before any of the debtors. Debts incurred during bankruptcy proceedings (which require court approval) are guaranteed, even over the debts incurred before bankruptcy. However, SCO's loss did not result in a legal debt to Novell. It was ruled an "illegal conversion" of assets, by SCO from Novell. SCO's use of the term "debtor in possession" w.r.t. Novell's assets is laughable. |
| jdixon Nov 21, 2007 10:13 AM EDT |
> SCO's use of the term "debtor in possession" w.r.t. Novell's assets is laughable. Yeah. It's more like cat burglar in possession. But that's all up to the bankruptcy court to handle now. |
| gus3 Nov 22, 2007 7:42 AM EDT |
> But that's all up to the bankruptcy court to handle now. Unless the bankruptcy judge lifts the automatic stay in the Utah case. Novell had requested this almost immediately, and the judge denied the request. Both of these were expected. However, as the judge gets the feel for what's actually going on (strong evidence for this), Novell will be ready to ask again, when they think the time is right. If/when the stay is lifted, I expect the bankruptcy judge will burn their ears with loud and clear orders to hand over what was never theirs. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!