SCO said it was informed of BayStar's wishes in a letter April 15.
BayStar declined to comment.
Stowell said in an e-mail statement that BayStar is accusing SCO of violating four provisions of their investor agreement:
- Section 2(b)(v), which required SCO to re-affirm certain "representations and warranties" it made Oct. 16 as part of the original Series A stock financing transaction. Stowell said the statements were true as of Feb. 5, when SCO said they were true. "We do not yet know which of such representations and warranties BayStar claims SCO allegedly has breached."
- Section 2(b)(vii), in which SCO says that, from Oct. 31, 2003, the end of the last fiscal year, to Feb. 5, 2004, there was no "material adverse change or development" in SCO's business "and that during such time SCO has not taken any steps to seek protection under bankruptcy or similar laws," other than those described by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Stowell said: "SCO would have breached this provision if there were in fact a material adverse change or development in its business that had not been disclosed in the SEC filings described above. Again, BayStar has not provided specific information about what it allegedly views is the material adverse change or development that occurred in the period between October 31, 2003 and February 5, 2004."