Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Businesses The Almighty Buck IT

SCO Given NASDAQ Delisting Notice 116

Posted by Zonk
from the vultures-are-circling dept.
SCO Delenda Est writes "The SEC has given SCO notice that they will be delisted from the NASDAQ if they cannot keep their share price above $1 sometime in the next 180 days. Although they may be able to avoid delisting for a while, their small market capitalization will hinder their efforts. Given their other financials, this just goes to show how desperate their current financial situation is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Given NASDAQ Delisting Notice

Comments Filter:
  • The slashdot tagging says "business" ...yep what business is that for trying to sell fear and get cash out of it ?
    • by Skreech (131543) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @02:49AM (#18909769)

      The slashdot tagging says "business" ...yep what business is that for trying to sell fear and get cash out of it ?
      The media? ;)
      • by Marcion (876801)
        So Long and Thanks for all the Fish. Proprietary Unix will be dead by Christmas. Linux forever.

        See also:

        http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704271 85116413 [groklaw.net]
      • by Marcion (876801)
        "The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX® software technology and mobile services, today announced it has received a Nasdaq Staff Deficiency Letter "

        What is the definition of mobile services here? I'm sure Nokia or Vodafone called be called leading in their markets, as for UNIX, the only company with any hope of success with proprietary UNIX were Sun and Oops they open-sourced it. AIX is still big but IBM are certainly backing the Linux horse as their primary Posix
        • by Marcion (876801)
          I'm sure Nokia or Vodafone *could* be called leading in their markets,

          Sorry, still eating breakfast, no caffeine yet.
      • Just saw this wonderful little tid-bit in the press release

        SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers.
        To the death they'll defend that claim... And now they're in for a delisting... Let's all keep our fingers crossed until Oct. 22, then it's official!
      • The Aug 14 2003 I wrote the following to SCO:

        Dear Sirs,

        I'm very disappointed with your actions and claims this summer by attacking Linux and also GPL in the farsighted way you are doing.

        The only logical conclusion I can make from this is that you have decided to kill your own product, UnixWare.

        Whether you win this case or not is not important from that point of view. You have harmed your own business for all future. UnixWare is dead. If you win this case, the freedom in this world is gone. You ar

    • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @03:16AM (#18909877)
      Darl's business strategy was very successful for some, if not for SCO:

      Pump and dump: The "we're going to screw over IBM" hype lured in the vultures and pumped up SCO stocks. Those that then dumped stocks probably got 10x the true value for their stocks.

      Milking the cow: Darl's brother Kevin is part of the SCO legal team. Keeping SCO and the conflict alive and spending big on lawyers fees got a lot of money into Darl's brother's pockets. Families help eachother out.

      Unfortunately SCO was once a great software company that got trashed by poor management and greed.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 28, 2007 @06:06AM (#18910355)
        the software company sco from that time is not the same company with that name today

        just to remember, it was caldera who changed the name to sco after they bough the trademark sco

        so it has absolutely nothing to do with the once successfull sco, they just try to let it look that way
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by _Sprocket_ (42527)

          the software company sco from that time is not the same company with that name today

          The software company known as SCO (The Santa Cruz Operation) sold their rights associated with Unix to Caldera Systems in 2001. SCO then renamed themselves Tarentella, Inc. having retained rights to their Tarentella product (something akin to Citrix). Caldera Systems immediately changed their name to Caldera International. In 2002 there is another name change to The SCO Group (often referred to as "SCOg" to avoid confus

      • Well maybe Darl's family isn't out of the scoop here. The court can judge that damages are taken from the laywers to if the ligation was without merit. It doesn't happens much but see it as the neighbour that always complains. If the neighbour for the fourth time starts a lawsuit against you ungrounded the law can simply request damages from HIM for the damage he done to you!

        In a case like this with Sco lying and cheating and trying to inject steriods into a dying case..well I think this is the type of case
      • by lingenfr (62184)
        I don't know that SCO was every a great company. They had some great products. As a company, my cut is that they always sucked. I can remember the days of being on the phone with their arrogant staff while they explained to me why I had to pay extra to be able to compile, extra to have standard communications packages, extra.... After paying $6000 for a single server license of Unix. As a company, I am not sure that SCO (regardless of incarnation) every GOT the UNIX market. Had they been able to pull their
      • If all this is true, wouldn't it violate some kind of securities legislation? I mean, isn't that "insider trading" or something?

        If I were a major shareholder that got burned by this, I'd be thinking about suing the McBrides personally, or at least trying to get prosecutors to make him the next Conrad Black. I mean, there must be some law that prevents executives from manipulating a publically-traded company for personal gain... right?

        Right?

      • by killjoe (766577)
        This case was simply about MS spending a few million dollars to hurt IBM and Linux. The intent was to sink SCO all along and use it as tinder to burn Linux and IBM.

        Along the say MS also burned baystar which may have some repercussions further down the road and it opened itself to all kinds of interesting lawsuits from IBM once the discovery from this case is gone over with a fine toothed comb.

        MS knows this is coming and this is why they made a deal with Novell. They didn't want to fight two major lawsuits a
      • Unfortunately SCO was once a great software company that got trashed by poor management and greed.

        Though the name SCO probably deserves better than they're getting, even oldSCO wasn't that great of a company. They made a semi-decent for the time port of UNIX to x86, but never improved it and as time wore on showed it lacked features and was generally ugly. They never improved it in the face of not one but many free alternatives that were better on features price and support. They had an initial advantage

    • .. only on slashdot can an article about a company's financial situation, nasdaq et al be questioned to not be business-related..
    • It would be nice to get a minimal # of stocks and demand that SCO print the certificates of shares for it. Then hang them in the den like people have war trophies of the defeated.
      • by morcego (260031)
        That "minimal #" being 1. There is at least 1 company [oneshare.com] that allows you to do it. There might be others too, but this is the one I know (I'm not from USA, and don't play on the USA market).
  • Dear Darl, (Score:5, Funny)

    by baryon351 (626717) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @02:48AM (#18909759)
    Dear Darl,

    We told you so.

    Sincerely,
    Internet full of geeks with a clue.
  • by Glowing Fish (155236) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @02:48AM (#18909761) Homepage
    I am sure that even without the NASDAQ, SCO can sell stock other ways. We can perhaps expect to be getting this e-Mail many times very soon:

    Br3ak!ng NEWS! Great NEW STOCK P1CK! SCO corp is posed to go thru the roof when it wins LAWSUIT! CURR#NT PRICE: .50 cents. TARGET PRICE :$22.50!
  • by orbitalia (470425) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @02:51AM (#18909777) Homepage
    Just for the fun of it. Then sack Darl of course.
    • Maybe IBM or Novell could do it.
    • by qbwiz (87077) * <`moc.ylimafnamuab' `ta' `nhoj'> on Saturday April 28, 2007 @03:04AM (#18909833) Homepage
      The bad part of this plan is that part where we increase the stock price, thus giving Darl money.
    • by HaeMaker (221642)
      Heh. It would only cost $19.4 Million!
      • It'd be worth paying just to get at the details of the MS/SCO Unix cross licensing deal and/or the Baystar investing silliness.

        The flip side is if Novell are right and SCO don't have any real rights to Unix then MS may want their cash back.

        Mark Shuttleworth could afford it...

        Mark? YOU OUT THERE!? Fancy a laugh?! G'wan! ;-D
      • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @04:43AM (#18910125) Journal
        Yeah but think about it : you would be owning Linux then !
        • Think about it. You own Linux. Then you open it officially to the OSS, untouchable for any corporations.

          Your name would be standing right next to Linus and Richard in the book of reverence of geeks all over the planet. I mean, that ain't worth a mere 20 mil?

          • Worth a mere $20 mil? Maybe.

            Worth giving $20 mil to Darl, SCO's board, BS&F, and anyone else scummy enough to be holding SCOX shares now? Not even close.
            • by HUADPE (903765)
              SCO is worth probably -$100 million. They will lose the IBM case badly, and get judged against for some gigantic amount. If you bought out SCO, you'd have to pray that IBM, Sun, and all the other people suing would drop the cases and let you be. If you arranged that in advance...you'd go to jail for insider trading.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Opportunist (166417)
              Where's the problem? You buy out SCO, drop the case against IBM and declare all *nix code you own OSS, IBM comes after the company for damages, company goes poof since there's no assets left and IBM goes after management and board for money.

              Bottom line, you give IBM a headache and drive Darl and his pals into bankrupcy. Win-Win.
              • by darkonc (47285)
                SCO has poison pill provisions which mean that, if you buy out the company, Darl, his partners in crime and BSF get oodles of money. Then, when IBM finally wins the lawsuit and goes after the executive and board, they find you holding an axe. It won't do either you or IBM any good.

                At this point, the best thing to do is allow IBM and Novell to beat the company into a whimpering pulp and then (hopefully) go after the executives and BSF for the blood money that is no longer in the company.

                • If I understand such severance contracts right, they only get dumped a load of money on their head should the company decide to sack them before their time. I'm far from that! I certainly won't sack him, actually, I would not even allow him to go. I want him to go down with the ship.

                  Should he want out of his contract against the company's intentions, I'm pretty sure the payment has to flow the other way.
    • Although I'm sure it's crossed many people's minds to do just that, the problem with it is that it sets a bad example for future situations which may arise, where struggling companies might see starting baseless lawsuits with big corporations as a viable way to generate some final revenue, hoping that if they make a pest of themselves long enough that the big company will just get fed up and buy them outright (for a minuscule fraction of what they were asking, so it might look like a real "deal"), and then
      • by gmack (197796)

        You mean take the money and run then Sue for breach of contract for being fired like Dark did to Ikon [wired.com]

        Knowing these guys there are most likely some nasty poison pills waiting in their contracts to bite anyone who fires them.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        That's why IBM won't buy them out... they will not only beat SCO, but using counter-claims, grind them into the dust as an example of "this is what happens when you sue IBM".
    • Count me in. I'll take three rolls if it's the quilted variety (sensitive sphincter).
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dkleinsc (563838)
      If by "sack" you mean "tie up in a sack" then I'm all for it.
    • So who wants to chip in? I think the Slashdot community can come up with $50.

      :)

  • No "haha" tag? Someone falling down on the job?
  • Link to proof (Score:5, Informative)

    by Soko (17987) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @03:05AM (#18909843) Homepage
    Since there was no link in the story, I figured it'd be prudent to provide one [groklaw.net] sowing that SCO is indeed in peril of having their stock de-listed.

    As usual, PJ provides the relevant and proper info.

    Soko

  • What? Again? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anna Merikin (529843) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @03:09AM (#18909857) Journal
    Wasn't the same warning given SCO several years ago...just before Microsoft and Sun bought SCO's expensive UNIX licenses for linux, bringing SCO's per share price back above the penny-stock listings?

    This was just a warning, like last time, not a notice of delisting. That would come just about the time SCO v. IBM finishes.

    Nothing to see here, move along.
    • Look for Microsoft to fund them again, but only enough to keep them alive, much as described on Slashdot in http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/11/158214.shtm l [slashdot.org]. Deals like this keep SCO and its Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt campaign against open source projects like Linux alive, while shielding Microsoft from counter-suit or public exposure of their genuine motives for keeping SCO alive.

      Remember, Microsoft doesn't necessarily want SCO to *win*. They want SCO weak to prevent any good products coming from that parti
      • Re:What? Again? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Weedlekin (836313) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @07:37AM (#18910703)
        "Microsoft doesn't necessarily want SCO to *win*. They want SCO weak to prevent any good products coming from that particular UNIX vendor, and to continue the demonstrably false rumors that Linux developers steal from UNIX."

        SCO was far too weak to be any threat to Microsoft long before this case started, and any FUD value it might once have had is now gone due to the fact that it's dragged on for so long, and has turned out to be so full of obvious crap from SCO and their lawyers that most geeks have lost interest in it, let alone everybody else. Microsoft's FUD-generation funds are thus now being spent on injecting money into commercial Linux vendors like Novell so they can make a noise about the possibility of Linux infringing on _their_ IP, which they have such vast quantities of that, unlike SCO's laughable (to geeks) claims, isn't easy for even the most diligent open source developers to discount because of the loose and wide-ranging nature of software patents.

        From Microsoft's POV therefore, SCO has already served its purpose, and there's no reason for them to waste money propping up a case that even known shills like Laura Didio seem to have given up on, especially when that same money could be spent far more productively on their current "Linux probably infringes several of our patents" FUD campaign.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I see your point, but SCO's usefulness to Microsoft is not yet played out. Like a tobacco lobbyist ranting about individual choice, Darl McBride's helps cast doubt on the intellectual property of Linux. It's been a *cheap* investment for Microsoft to harass Novell, IBM, RedHat, and other Linux and genuinely open source development companies this way.

          You may be underestimating Microsoft's willingness to continue spreading FUD, long after intelligent technology people recognize it as malicious rumor-mongering
          • by Dan Ost (415913)
            The SCO lawsuit might have been good for MS in the short term, but I think that Linux is far stronger now than it would have been without the lawsuit.

            For example, do you think that mainstream media would be writing articles comparing Vista to Ubuntu on the desktop if the SCO lawsuit hadn't placed Linux so clearly on their radar?
          • by Weedlekin (836313)
            "Like a tobacco lobbyist ranting about individual choice, Darl McBride's helps cast doubt on the intellectual property of Linux."

            Not even the most anti-Linux members of the computer press believe that SCO's claims of (a) owning any significant UNIX copyrights that (b) they have proof Linux infringes hold any water whatsoever. Their obvious and constant delaying tactics, failure to produce _any_ evidence whatsoever of Linux infringement or indeed that they actually own any rights that could be infringed, end
    • They are still around where they were four years ago [yahoo.com]. One could say the fair value for SCO stock is around $1, the bubble that sent them above $20 was just a wild speculation about that court swindle they tried.
  • Related... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jginspace (678908) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {ecapsnigj}> on Saturday April 28, 2007 @03:10AM (#18909859) Homepage Journal
    ...as discussed [slashdot.org] here two weeks ago. More details at PRNewsWire [prnewswire.com].
  • by fluch (126140)
    The tag you are looking for is the "haha" tag. :-)

    - Martin
  • Wow... not only no link to the story, but the half attempt at a summary says something different then the title. Possibly should be 'The SEC has been given notice by SCO that they will be delisted from the NASDAQ', not whats above.

    Either way, SCO is toast. Not like its a big surprise or anything.
  • by tmk (712144)
    'SCO delenda est' is gibberish. You mean 'SCO esse delendam'.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Opportunist (166417)
      SCO eunt domus!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Ixot (915315)
      What Cicero would say was indeed "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam". This translates (roughly) to "Furthermore, I think that Carthage must be destroyed. The "C. esse delendam" part of the quote is what one calls an "Accusativus cum infinitivo" and usually follows verbs of dialogue, reflection or counsel.

      I believe that "SCO delenda est" really translates to "SCO must be deleted".

      Of course my Latin is a bit rusty, so I may wrong.
      • See also: my sig.

        Your latin is actually quite correct.

        However, the fact is moot: "SCO se deleveit" would be more accurate.
    • by Deadstick (535032)
      Simple adaptation of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est [wikipedia.org]

      rj
  • I for one.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by apodyopsis (1048476) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @04:11AM (#18910027)
    .... strongly think we need a new tag for this case.

    "justdeserts" should do it nicely.

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/just_deserts [wiktionary.org]
  • or in other words... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft has a 180 days to decide if this angle of attack on Linux is worth
    another cash infusion. Me thinks, they'll not throw good money after bad.

  • by essence (812715)
    why can't their price drop below $1? Is there a particar reason why a share can't be traded below $1?
    • by MaGGuN (630724)

      Quoted [groklaw.net] from Groklaw [groklaw.net]:
      On April 23, 2007, The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market ("Nasdaq") indicating that the bid price of its common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share required for continued listing under Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4). Pursuant to Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(D), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until October 22, 2007, to regain co

      • by essence (812715)
        ok. its the NASDAQ rules ..but why is it in the rules?
        • Re:$1 (Score:5, Informative)

          by KokorHekkus (986906) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @05:29AM (#18910261)
          It's because when a stocks value go that low it becomes very easy to manipulate in various ways (such as different pump-and-dump schemes etc) since even a very small swing in paid price means many percent in profit. Basically the stock price becomes much more unreliable as an indicator of the actual value of the company and that in turn would reflect badly on the stock exchange where it is trade.

          More about penny stock fraud at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_stocks#Penny_St ock_Fraud [wikipedia.org]
        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Below $1 shares become increasingly volatile since a minimal movement in price - 1 cent - becomes more than 1 percent of the stock value. If you think about all those stock scams where you get emailed begging you to buy such-and-such in the hope that a few mugs doing it will knock the price a few percent and make someone a fortune, well that's exactly the sort of thing that Nasdaq don't want on their market. Some people would say that pretty much the same thing happened with SCO in the over $1 range but if
        • by jcr (53032)
          Like any other stock exchange, NASDAQ is the ultimate guarantor of any trades that take place under its auspices. Penny stocks are more likely to involve traders who can't make good on a contract, which leaves the exchange holding the bag. Penny stocks just aren't worth the trouble for an exchange to list them.

          -jcr

        • by mangu (126918)
          Suppose share prices could fall without limit. What happens when it reaches $0.01? At that point it cannot fall any further, and the smallest price increase, to $0.02, would bring a 100% profit. This is the ideal pump-and-dump scheme, unscrupulous managers would always try to get the stock price oscillating between one and two cents.
          • What happens when it reaches $0.01? At that point it cannot fall any further, and the smallest price increase, to $0.02, would bring a 100% profit.

            Stocks can trade lower then $0.01. They can trade at fractions. When I watch a streaming stock screen low price shares often trade at the thousandth of a $1 level (usually 1000 shares at $2.225 or somthing like that). People will make trades at thousands of shares at a time at a minimum level hen stocks get really low in price, otherwise it doesn't make sense t

  • Ha Ha!

    --Nelson Muntz [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
  • We must have run out of "haha" tags, 'cause I don't see one (yet). Can someone have a look and see if we got an old rusty one somewhere in the basement? Otherwise, we could borrow a tag from previous SCO or MS related articles.
  • So where's your link to a story backing up you NASDAQ delisting claim for SCO? Sure, it's plausible, but where's the link it sounds speculative.
  • by (H)elix1 (231155) * <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Saturday April 28, 2007 @10:19AM (#18911491) Homepage Journal
    I picked up a handful of SCOX shares the last time they were in danger of delisting. The paper certificates, framed, make for one of the best white elephant gifts in the IT sector. Even more desired than the chia pet or the Apple II people were swapping for. You pay extra to get the paper version, but at least the stock itself is less than a buck.
    • by tinkertim (918832) *

      I picked up a handful of SCOX shares the last time they were in danger of delisting. The paper certificates, framed, make for one of the best white elephant gifts in the IT sector. Even more desired than the chia pet or the Apple II people were swapping for. You pay extra to get the paper version, but at least the stock itself is less than a buck.

      I think socks would be more fun as a gift, unless you got one paper certificate and used it to have some toilet paper printed.

      Wipe, send back to SCO , repeat. Wipe

  • Reverse stock split (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Skapare (16644) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @01:24PM (#18912585) Homepage

    A stock split it normally done when the share price is too high which makes it difficult to trade. This is done by issuing new shares to existing shareholders on a specifically designated date, such that if they previously held N shared, they now hold N*M shares where M is the stock split multiplier. It generally changes the stock price to about 1/M. It usually makes the stock a bit easier to trade, so price will go up a bit just because of the split all else being equal.

    A reverse split can also be done with M simply being less than 1. It can be harder to carry out due to the fractional shares involved. However, I have seen cases where stock splits with M greater than 1 have had non-whole values for M, so apparently brokers understand how to handle this for fractional shares.

    If SCO did a reverse split, it would raise the per-share price. But whether they have enough outstanding shares to even do this is a big question. And it won't change their total capitalization (aside from a very minor price increase from making the shares have an easier to trade price), which might be the real issue, anyway. People with 1 share might end up with 1/5 share (same value ... mostly worthless).

  • Apparently, getting a warning that you may be delisted from NASDAQ is not that earth-shattering a thing, necessarily. Dell is on its second warning [bizjournals.com] now.

    This is not to say it's nothing, but it doesn't by itself mean that the company is going down in flames.

    • by nuzak (959558)
      > This is not to say it's nothing, but it doesn't by itself mean that the company is going down in flames.

      Dell is not going to trade below a buck -- Dell got its notice because its filings are deficient. SCO is getting the notice because essentially, SCO itself is deficient.

      In the grand scheme, SCO is a pissant flyspeck that investors don't care about, so no it's not really big news. But it is a rich source of schadenfreude for us folks who have been waiting for this moment going on four years.
    • by darkonc (47285)

      This is not to say it's nothing, but it doesn't by itself mean that the company is going down in flames.
      True. But in this case, the company *is* going down in flames, and the gunners that shot it down are getting more hits on (what's left of) the flaming fuselage as it gets closer to the (eagerly awaiting) ground.
  • If I still owned SCO stock, I'd be a man and hold on to it until the end. If you unload your SCO stock en masse, it might give them reason to say it was a grandiose conspiracy to get them de-listed.

    That company is shameless (as demonstrated by their actions), and they deserve anything that our government deems appropriate.

  • Serves Them Right (TM). I hope they go down hard and painfully.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...