decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Files an Amended Schedule F
Monday, November 17 2008 @ 02:12 AM EST

SCO, or more precisely, SCO Operations has filed an amended Schedule F [PDF], its list of unsecured nonpriority creditors, or in bankruptcy lingo "creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims". Here's the original Schedule F [PDF], if you wish to compare the lists. Schedule F is found on page 7 of the older PDF.

It is interesting to compare, even without fully understanding what it all means.

Here's the docket entry:

11/12/2008 - 605 - Response to Debtors' First Omnibus Objection to Claims (Non-Substantive) Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 3007 (related document(s) 574 ) Filed by Deborah Roth (TAS) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

11/17/2008 - 604 - Notice of Service /Notice of Amendments to Schedules of Liabilities and Time to File Claims in Response to Such Amendments (related document(s) 130 , 390 , 392 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Schedule F) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

Boies Schiller has been blacked out, I see, and so has Dorsey & Whitney, Fillmore Spencer LLC, American Express, Hatch James & Dodge, Profile Consulting, Sales Synergy Canada, Stealth Insight, and Hyperion. Oh. Also 'Jeff Hunsaker - Commissions' is blacked out. So is Sandeep Gupta, although he's not on the original list. I can't explain that one. Strhold Spa was on the first list but it's not on the new one and it's not blacked out either. Hmm. I think it's Strhold S.P.A., by the way, a software distribution and marketing company with a Linux Competence Center that also seems to do conferences and migrations to Linux (unless my computer can't read Italian), not some Italian spa SCO partied at. Just kidding around. I'm sure there is very little partying going on at SCO these days. Well. After AIG, who knows, really? Interestingly, Strhold S.P.A. distributed Xenix and UNIX in the 80s. Both Novell and IBM use their services, you may have noticed from the home page.

There are new items too, like Initial Public Offering Litigation, John Maciaszek (remember him at trial? His severance of $486.91 for 10 years service at SCO?), Krishna Aluri (who was laid off in the same wave as Maciaszek, and listed as owed $693.07 in severance after 11 years of work), Sontag Consulting, SUSE, Soltis Investment Advisors, SWire Coca Cola, USA Mobility Wireless, and Win4Lin added to the new list.

SUSE? I wonder what they owe to them and why.

Folks and entities getting this notice have deadlines to respond with a proof of claim The total amount on the amended Schedule F owed to unsecured nonpriority creditors is $3,553,669.98. The total for unsecured nonpriority claims on the original Schedule F was only $2,533,975.36, so the arrow points upward on debts, to the tune of about a million. Even though some are no longer on the list, others have hopped on. I suppose that's kind of normal for a bankruptcy, that you'd find more claims after the first filing. But what about the ones blacked out? Do they belong on a different list?

SCO's filing references Bankruptcy Rule 1009 and the notes to 1009 say that it's essentially administrative, and that usually it's mainly to let the trustee know, in addition to those affected. However, the notes mention this:

Absent a request in some form by a party in interest, the court should not be involved in administrative matters affecting the estate....

If a list or schedule is amended to include an additional creditor, the effect on the dischargeability of the creditor's claim is governed by the provisions of Sec. 523(a)(3) of the Code.

Here they are, the provisions of Section 523(a)(3):
ß 523. Exceptions to discharge

(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debtó...

(3) neither listed nor scheduled under section 521 (1) of this title, with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permitó

(A) if such debt is not of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing; or

(B) if such debt is of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim and timely request for a determination of dischargeability of such debt under one of such paragraphs, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing and request;

I understand that whole page to be saying that some debts, like fraud while acting as a fiduciary (paragraph 4) -- say, that sounds familiar -- or if you put a diamond necklace on your credit card the day before you file for bankruptcy, are not dischargeable. But even if something is normally dischargeable, if you fail to list it in time for the creditor to file a proof of claim, or at all, it's not going to be discharged. That can lead to various complexities, like whether to bother to reopen the bankruptcy, as you can read about in this appeals court ruling from Texas, where a party simply forgot to list something and the creditor found out after the bankruptcy was done. Of course, SCO's is a Chapter 11, not a 7, and it's in Delaware, not Texas, but the concept is more or less the same.

The bottom line is: it's in SCO's interest to list everything it knows about. If, just for imagining's sake, it ends up filing a cramdown plan, it could clear the decks rather nicely, in theory anyway.

Except for any debts due to fraud while acting as a fiduciary? I honestly don't know what the rules are for sticky wickets like that, but I have a funny feeling we are going to find out in due time.

You probably noticed that there's also another pro se response filed, responding to SCO's First Objection to Claims. In legal things, every detail matters. Note the meaning of the word 'proof', for just one example of things I think are being overlooked by some. I worry that folks who don't get legal advice from a bankruptcy lawyer could wake up one day to learn they have no claims left. That's what this part of the dance is for, I suspect, from the perspective of the debtor -- to flick off debtors who haven't filed perfectly or aren't paying attention or need to be on a different list.


  


SCO Files an Amended Schedule F | 130 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 03:00 AM EST
Please place any corrections here.

It would be helpful for the Title to summarize the correction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here - off topic thread starts here
Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 03:48 AM EST
Please make links clicky

---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).

All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 04:43 AM EST
Add the Title to the subject for clarity.


---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files an Amended Schedule F
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 04:50 AM EST
I wonder if this is preparing the ground for a demerger. I know the books of
Group and Operations are one and the same, but perhaps this is a best fit
separation of the litigation creditors and the operations activity creditors.

I'm sure it is also part of Spector's long held plans for a cramdown, as well
and it helps to encourage creditor errors to list them separately in as many
lists as possible in the hopes they will miss the deadline. I look forward to
the pizza list.

---
Regards
Ian Al

Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gambling odds on the lawyer's fees
Authored by: YetAnotherSteve on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 06:28 AM EST
> I worry that folks who don't get legal advice from a bankruptcy lawyer could wake up one day to learn they have no claims left.

For the claims that are $4000 or so, I can see people balancing up:

  • Pay for the lawyer, and hope that there's money left after Novell have had theirs.
  • Send in a pro se claim, and put the money on a racing horse at 40-1.

The long-odds horse looks more tempting to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correction
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 08:24 AM EST
or in bankruptcy lingo "creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims"
Shouldn't that read: "creditors holding the bag" ?

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ahh.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2008 @ 10:57 AM EST
I don't understand this bit ..
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 08:45 AM EST
Are they including 'Wages/Salaries' to themselves as part of the 'unsecured
nonpriority creditors'. It's as if they were deliberately trying to confound and
confuse us all ..

- quote -
Schedule E-Creditors Holdings Unsecured Priority Claims ..

Account No.,, Amount of Claim, Amount Entitled to Priority, Amount not Entitled
to Priority, if Any ..

State Taxes - See Exhibit E-1.,,$1,226.99, $1,226.99, $

Wages/Salaries - See Exhibit E-2.,, $483,287.95, $289,081.27, $194,206.68
- unquote -

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files an Amended Schedule F
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 10:02 AM EST
<quote>
SUSE? I wonder what they owe to them and why.
</quote
Probably monies awarded for damages from libelous public
statement in Germany.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Lucent Pension obligation
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 10:27 AM EST
Does anyone have information on the Lucent Pension claim. This is very large (>$800K) and is disputed by SCO as are the AMICI and SUSE claims.

It was not on the original claim schedule, but did occur on the March revisions-- Docs 390 and 392.

Is this a residual commitment dating from the USL sale, or does it relate to some service contract?

A keyword search for "Lucent" on Groklaw does not show any discussion of this particular claim. A websearch drags up PR on voicemail contracts and the USL sale to the old-SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did you understand "sticky wicket"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2008 @ 03:49 PM EST

PJ:

I honestly don't know what the rules are for sticky wickets like that,

The reference to "sticky wickets" is perfectly clear to Brits (and Indians, Pakistanis, Australians, Jamaicans ...) but I would not have used it in a forum populated largely by Americans, because I'd have assumed it would not be understood.

Would the Americans among you comment on this please? Is it widely understood in the United States?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )