SCO Given NASDAQ Delisting Notice

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."

I for one....

[apodyopsis]

.... 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...

[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.

$9,962,523.6 for a 51% stake.

[burnttoy]

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

Re:Lets buy them out.

[dkleinsc]

If by "sack" you mean "tie up in a sack" then I'm all for it.

Buy your stock certificate now!

[(H)elix1]

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.

Re:What? Again?

[Antique Geekmeister]

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. Inexperienced people will invest in the "known" or "safe" or "supported" vendor even when the vendor's history of customer abuse and fraud and lack of compatibility. Take a look at the BBC's decision to use Windows Media for its new Iplayer service for an example of such a policy, founded in avoiding difficulty with intellectual property or support issues.

Reverse stock split

[Skapare]

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).