|
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 03:00 PM EDT |
Maybe the judge can grant SCO's motion to re-open the case with the requirement
that SCO post some sort of bond that will make IBM whole in case SCO loses.
Obviously, if SCO has such a winning case, based on the record, then SCO should
be able to convince Yarro and friends, and other investors, to cough up many
more millions to back the litigation dream. C'mon guys, open your wallets, it's
a sure thing!
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Reven on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
The automatic stay is is in chapter 3, and is worded:
a petition
filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed
under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970,
operates as a stay...
The way I read that, and the way I read ยง1112
(the chapter 11 section about conversion) is that a conversion is not a new
petition, so there would be no new automatic stay.
And really, the stay
is to protect the debtor (SCO in this case), so even if there was another
automatic stay, SCO could pretty easily have it lifted.
--- Ex Turbo
Modestum [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 11:43 PM EDT |
Does anyone have any idea? I re-read the order converting the
case from
chapter 11 to 7:
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf3/SCOGBK-1439.pdf
If you read the line right
before signature you can see the
the same court retains jurisdiction so it
probably would be
just a matter of asking, but is that necessary? If IBM
wishes
to raise objections, would a hearing be necessary? Any ideas? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|