SCO announced on Thursday it faces possible delisting from the Nasdaq SmallCap market, because it failed to file its annual report in a timely fashion.
SCO plans to request a hearing with the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel to appeal the decision, according to the company. In the interim, the company's stock will trade under the ticker "SCOXE," starting Friday, rather than the current "SCOX". (Nasdaq adds an "E" to the ticker of any company delinquent with a filling to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.)
SCO's fiscal year ended on 31 October, but it said it has yet to file its annual report because it is reviewing its handling of stock options as a form of compensation.
"The company is working to resolve these matters as soon as possible and expects to file its [annual report] upon completion," SCO said in a statement.
The company has been under pressure to reinvigorate its business as its revenue has tumbled and its losses have increased.
With its request for an appeals hearing, SCO can stay the pending delisting, which is scheduled for the market's open on 25 February. The company noted, however, that there is no guarantee the appeals panel will grant its request to remain listed.
SCO, a former Linux seller that focuses now on just Unix products, is embroiled in other legal matters, as well.
The company has several copyright infringement lawsuits pending, alleging that parts of SCO's Unix source code were copied into Linux. One of the company's most notable cases is a $5bn lawsuit against IBM, which shocked the industry when it was filed in 2003.
SCO also has threatened to file lawsuits against other companies using Linux, though it missed a self-imposed deadline for doing so.
Talkback
with SCO's case having gone from extremely dubious a couple of years ago to down right pathetic now, one wonders why the courts are still even bothering to let their lawyers walk in through the doors everyday (or once a month as SCO prefers).
It was obvious from the start of the case, all those years ago, that the sole purpose of this obviously doomed case is to reduce businesses confidence in Linux.
I'm sure since they started sponsoring SCO, Microsoft have won hundreds of large contracts with companies who realised Linux was cheaper, more reliable and more secure yet went with Microsoft (or possibly SCO) to avoid taking the risk (escpecially with mission critical systems) of having to replace them in a few years if Linux were to be deemed illegal.
Escpecially now, when it is totally obvious SCO cannot win and are just shelling out money to prolong the case in court, it is obvious that the accountants have decided they stand to gain more from uncertainty about Linux than they are paying in court costs.