Hurry Up and Die
posted by Latouche at Large at 9:53 PM
September 15, 2007
Contributors
Previous Posts
- et tu, Alan?
- Throwdown! Ted Stevens vs. Sleepy Kitten
- If It's This Cheap Being Self-Righteous, I'll take...
- I'll See Your Third Man and Raise You...
- Art Project?
- How to Pitch a Movie: Odenkirk vs. Odenkirk
- Forward With NOAA
- $500 For the Video
- The Third Man
- "Goodbye, Mr. Flatfoot!"
3 Comments:
I can't decide whether the case of SCO is an argument for or against free-market capitalism. The protected shareholders up to the bitter end, long after the only thing left of the company was a bank account (and loans) to pay attorney's bills.
One theory goes like this: for some time, it was not the stockholders but the execs' and directors' paychecks that they've been protecting.
Too cynical?
Interesting questions:
Is it true that, the Novell case aside, SCO actually has a decent balance sheet?
If the amount of SCO that Novell owns (or rather, the amount of Novell that SCO stole by conversion) is yet to be determined, how can they claim to be bankrupt?
This comment from Groklaw seems to sum it up:
"So now there are more interdependent court cases. Kimball needs to have things resolved at the bankruptcy court before his cases can proceed, and the bankruptcy court needs Kimball's determination of the sum of money involved in "conversion" before it can accurately determine whether SCO are actually bankrupt, and whether Chapter 7 or 11 applies.
"A very neat delaying tactic indeed by the SCOundrels.
"IANAL, but it does seem to me that the efficient course of action would be for the bankruptcy judge to ask Kimball to proceed with the elements of the trial which determine the amount of conversion, and then the bankruptcy proceedings would follow, provided that the law allows it to be done that way.
"But if not, we could be here for a very long time....."
Post a Comment
<< Home