Let's see, one is a damage-control PR statement, and the other is sworn testimony from the head of a company that has no stake in the matter anymore (I think they've sold their SCO by now). Which to believe...
Which to believe? Well if you believe the head of a company you'd have to admit he's also an idiot for not getting it in writing; tehrefore, how on earth did he become a head of a company able to spend $50 mil on a crappy investment?
Something isn't adding up.