Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Creditors Being Objected to by SCO Begin to Respond

By Pamela Jones et al.

Some of the creditors that SCO tried to toss out of the lifeboat with its First (Non-Substantive) Omnibus Objection to Claims are starting to show up, evidently mad as can be, to support their claims. And Pachulski Stang has filed a quarterly bill.

However, I worry that the responses to SCO's objection may not be sufficient to achieve the intended goal. IANAL, though, so ask one. What I think stockholders are supposed to do is file an amended proof of interest, providing whatever was missing from the initial filing, whether attaching a copy of the stock certificate or whatever else was the original problem. The reasons could vary, so there is no blanket instruction. If you care about your interest and/or claim, depending on why you are on the list, then, you really need to ask a lawyer to help you. This is all about getting the details right.

I see one of the filings asserts that one of the lawyers at Pachulski Stang is representing him, but I fail to see how that can happen, since Pachulski Stang represents SCO. Just saying. Seriously. Ask a lawyer to help you get this right. You can pay a lawyer for a visit, where he or she tells you how to amend a claim, and then do it yourself, if your funds are limited. You're allowed to appear pro se, including at the hearing by phone even, but you still need to know what you are doing. SCO's lawyers are not your lawyers. They are paid to help SCO, not you. That's how I'd see it, anyway. SCO's motion tells you exactly what you are supposed to do, as far as what information must be included. Follow the directions to the letter, if you don't want to be tossed. I'll repeat the instructions at the end.

Full post as published by Groklaw on October 22, 2008 (boomark / email).