SCO vs. IBM					 Tech Insider's Review

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:25:33 -0600
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
Subject: Potential investors were "waiting to see a public document"
From: Al Petrofsky <>
Date: 21 Feb 2010 17:25:27 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Organization: The Vegetable Liberation Front
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 101
X-Trace: sv3-RAvmjRcyC+WM3FlI7JoVQh4giQ11/
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your 
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Xref: alt.os.linux.caldera:14

On Friday, February 19, 2001, I spoke to Bonnie Fatell, counsel for
Edward Cahn, the bankruptcy trustee in In re: SCO Group, Inc. (f/k/a
Caldera International, Inc., the namesake of this usenet group,
alt.os.linux.caldera), case No. 07-bk-11337, Bankr. D. Del. (see
docket in  See
below for the email that preceded our discussion.

On the monthly operating reports for November and December (which, at
the last hearing, she had represented she expected to be filed by
January 31), she said that they would be filed "next week" (this was
on Friday), and that their delinquency was "not for lack of trying,
it's just that it's been very difficult to get the information from
the company."

She assured me that the business operations -- not including the bills
from bankruptcy professionals, which "aren't being paid anyway" -- are
cash-flow positive, and she expects them to remain so for at least a
couple more months, but that's as far out as they've projected.

On the financing proposal, I asked if she had anything signed yet by
any of the potential lenders.  She responded no, they don't have any
written commitments yet.  They're going out now and trying to get
commitments.  The potential lenders had been "waiting to see a public
document" before committing.

Thus, as with all the past major deal proposals, there's clearly no
there there.  Frankly, it sounds like the potential lenders were not
so much interested in actually lending, but just in seeing some public
development that would temporarily boost the stock price.

Last year, when SCO filed its second major asset sale motion (dkt
#815, filed June 22, 2009), Stephen Norris hadn't actually lined up
any substantial amount of capital (see July 27, 2009 transcript, dkt
#892, at 352:23-355:7), but he had at least taken the steps of legally
forming an entity (Unxis, Inc., Del. file #4698278, formed June 12,
2009) and signing an agreement that would at least be binding on that
entity (poor as it was) if the court granted the motion.  This time,
we haven't even gotten as far as those basic steps.


   Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:16:49 -0800
   From: "Alan P. Petrofsky, equity security holder" <>
   To: "Bonnie G. Fatell, counsel for trustee" <>
   Cc: "Stanley B. Tarr, counsel for trustee" <>
   Subject: Is the financing motion still on for March 5?; MORs;
     In re: SCO Group, Inc. et al., No. 07-bk-11337, Bankr. D. Del.

   Dear Ms. Fatell:

   I'm confused by the trustee's filing yesterday of a notice of
   withdrawal of a motion, a couple hours after the Court had completely
   disposed of the motion with an order that granted it in part and
   denied it in part.  Specifically, docket no. 1057 purports to withdraw
   a motion to shorten notice, docket no. 1052, which the order in docket
   no. 1053 had granted as to the requested hearing date of March 5, but
   had denied as to the requested objection deadline of February 26,
   instead setting an objection deadline of March 1.

   Did you intend to file a notice withdrawing the underlying financing
   approval motion (docket no. 1051)?  If not, does the trustee intend to
   go forward with the financing motion on March 5, per the order, or
   does he intend to renotice it for a later date?

   Also, could you send me a nonscanned copy of the financing motion's
   Exhibit A (the "Secured Super-Priority Credit Agreement")?

   Lastly, could you tell me how soon the trustee expects to file monthly
   operating reports for November and December (months for which, at the
   December 30 hearing, you represented that you expected MORs to be
   filed by the end of January)?  I've been patient about those reports,
   but I certainly expect them to be filed, and for them to document that
   the business operations are no longer running at a loss, before I
   would consent to any agreement that commits the estates to staying in
   chapter 11 for many more months or years (e.g., the proposed financing
   agreement at sec. VII(i)).  If the business operations are still
   losing money (as they always have in the past), then these cases
   should be converted forthwith and the litigation pursued from within
   chapter 7.

   Yours truly,

   Alan P. Petrofsky
   Equity security holder of debtor The SCO Group, Inc.


   Subject: RE: Is the financing motion still on for March 5?; MORs;
      In re: SCO Group, Inc. et al., No. 07-bk-11337, Bankr. D. Del.
   Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:12:56 -0500
   From: "Fatell, Bonnie Glantz" <>
   To: "Alan P. Petrofsky, equity security holder" <>
   Cc: "Tarr, Stanley B." <>

   Mr. Petrofsky - I just left you a voice mail message- please call me at
   215-[redacted] and I will be glad to discuss your email.  Thanks Bonnie 
   Also - Stanley Tarr will email you the Exhibit to the financing motion .

   Bonnie Glantz  Fatell  | Blank Rome LLP

The materials and information included in this review are not to be used 
for any other purpose other than private study, research or criticism.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb: