Eagle1993

My thoughts from what I saw from the 1st day (I didn't listen in all day so may have missed key updates).

• Bad faith ... I expect that objection will fail.  Judge almost said as much.
• Venue location ... objection will fail
• Is TDP a settlement ... my understanding is this is mildly important to help provide more power over insurance companies.  ... tough to say, judge pushed back on this; however, it seemed like Dr. Patterson (sp?) made some progress arguing this later on.
• Fee for independent review ... judge didn't ask many questions, but she may when someone argues in favor of it

TCC lawyer went on a while about how important this case is to resolve the claims and that tort is a bad substitute ... the judge responded I understand your non technical summary of this case.  Seemed to be a bit of a shot.

Those who want the whole case thrown out or the plan blown up are not winning any arguments.  I think this is more about details within the plan structure.  

Lauria done & court done for today.  Judge had no questions.  Now Patterson defending $20K fee.  Many arguments including the fact the trustee can waive the fee.  No questions from judge.

11AM tomorrow

Done ... this is going to go well into next week.  

DOJ done (about 3-4 mins).  Now Lauria responding.

No questions from the judge ... probably not a good sign.  BSA is ready with responses but Judge now going to Buchbinder (DOJ) about the $20K fee.

I believe Lujan Wolff said she would take 10 minutes.  She is now 30 minutes in with almost no questions from the judge ... only the quick point that she isn't changing venue.

Wolff arguing venue ... judge not agreeing ... we are 2+ years in.

Wolff with good faith objection & DOJ independent review process fee objection to close out the day.

Girl Scout lawyer just jumped in and want to go now.  Attempt to close out some 1 off issues.

6.5 hours of argument in support of plan, was suppose to be 2 hours.  Certain insurers questioning if they should even start today.

4 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Pachulski covers for the Judge that the TCC, BSA, FCR and Coalition sat down to address certain insurers' objections regarding Trust operation.  This included STAC does not need to approve neutral in IRP, or approve claims professionals (Trustee may make this decision.  Trustee will get $125K a month.  (Nice work if you can get it but in reality the Trust WILL BE a multi-billion dollar entity so that's probably the going price for a CEO.  I'm still jealous).  Trustee won't have a financial interest with any non-settling insurers.  There were a host of other changes to "clean up" operations that allow the Trustee to act independently.    Today's filing is Docket #9595 and the Trust may be set up as an LLC.  Any disputes between the Trustee, STAC and FCR will take place via ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) instead of going back to bankruptcy court all the time. 

This was a LONG presentation of "Courthouse steps" changes addressing concerns before the insurers raise them.  I'll be in my car so I'll leave it up to someone else to post the Judge's reaction.

No questions/comments from the judge.  She said she will wait for the insurers.

Given that this trust will last 10+ years, that means at least $15M of the trust is just going to the Trustee.  

Judge just gave up attempting to keep this on schedule.  Taking a break for lunch (she was hoping to get through proponents before lunch).  She said ... we are behind.  Part of that is on me, part is not.  1 hour break for lunch.  Way off schedule per judge ... but it's where we are.

Just now, ThenNow said:

Well behind. Pretty soon we will have chewed up the entire allocated block with just the supporters. If they take 4 hours, the objectors are entitled to equal time, righto? 

I believe that is true.  However, the judge seemed clear the timeline was nice, but not anything she plans to hold to.  She is going to allow the sides to argue their point.  I do expect if she sees no value and it is beyond time limits, she may use them.  

I had to drop off for a bit and just joined during a break.  Judge focused on settlement language and part of bankruptcy code to use.  The judge keeps going back to the fact that not one single claim is being settled in this plan.  The trust will then settle the claims.  The lawyer with Brown Rudnick is pushing back hard.

It would be interesting to know why this is a battle and the impact if the judge covers this as not a settlement of claims.

Some redlines to the Settlement Trust this morning.  Interesting that it could become a LLC.  In any case, nothing major as far as I can see.

bfe4d8b9-2f7f-455a-90da-18ff8a1a4199_9595.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Looks like debate around the TDP legal language.  Questions if these are considered a "settlement".  Sounds like we are already behind schedule (or soon will be).

Just logged into the hearing.  Judge is asking a lot of questions about various aspects of the TDP, specifically why is there language in there that simply restates law.  Her point ... if there is no change to a contract term, then why restate it and make her rule on it. Let another judge deal with it later as needed.

Why are the TDPs (matrix, scaling factor) a "settlement".  

14 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Thanks for all of your detailed posts.

In a sense, an enterprise should not leave bankruptcy with much more than zero.  Do you have an idea of the total non-liquid asset value they will retain?

BSA didn't use bankruptcy to deal with their secured debt ... only their sex abuse liability.  They do have a lot of non-liquid assets but those are heavily indebted.  

Again, I expect they will be near $10M in cash in September.  This aligns to what BSA has been saying ... they are running out of money. 

10 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Actually, the debtor must file a five year business plan that shows that the nonprofit will be financially sound.  In order to do that, they must have enough liquid assets to sustain it in the business plan.  That means that the BSA will need a substantial amount to carry them until new Scouts are recruited in the fall and recharters occur in early 2023.  That is a substantial amount of money.  

During the confirmation hearing, BSA had an expert testify to the feasibility of the 5 year plan.  In reality, everything is dependent on membership.  It appears their membership assumptions are reasonable.  However, I didn't hear any discussion about inflation which I was surprised.  Inflation on labor and materials is substantial right now and I wonder how their debt is structured (hopefully the rates are locked in).

BSA must have made their insurance payment in February.

Unrestricted liquidity dropped to $118M.  Note that $66M of that is a retirement fund ... so in reality, they have $52M left in the bank.  When they started the bankruptcy, they had $115M in the bank and they also burned through 100% of an endowment of $54M.  BSA will contribute some of that $52M to the settlement trust.

BSA's liquidity remained flat until June ... July & August sees pretty big negative cash flows, probably on the order of $30M or so.  I think BSA, if they leave bankruptcy by end of April should leave with about $30M in cash in the bank.  

SO.... around September, BSA will be out of cash.  That assumes the bankruptcy goes through as planned.  Recruiting helps in Sept - Jan + BSA should be a bit better off as they won't be paying big bankruptcy fees.  So they probably won't hit $0 in Sept ... but could be close.

f4a81bfa-d54b-4da2-b599-945c95d1997f_9538.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Dumas sees the TCJC issue as unique vs other non-debtor releases and judge stated she agreed.  I thought that was a bit of an interesting point.

I'll be surprised if it holds to this week ... I expect it will spill into next week but we will see.  The judge has been willing to go very late (near 7PM eastern) in non stop hearings with little time for breaks.

 Court with definitely patient with Pro Se claimants.  However, I expect it will be a bit of cat hurding to keep it to 1.5 hours.  The judge will have a difficult job of keeping Pro Se claimants on track.  I'm sure many if not most are not experienced court, clearly have a very emotional aspect of their involvement and may see this as their last time to get their pain/suffering acknowledged.  Each Pro Se, I believe, only has 10 mins.  I know there are other avenues for victims to be involved (National and council boards, etc.) but I expect many will see this time as one to get their voice in front of the court/national BSA.

US DOJ is going to make significant argument about 9019 issues & 3rd part releases.

All times Eastern

BSA has various charts that summarize all of the objections that will help to structure the closing arguments

• Status hearing  10AM Today
• A lot of discussions around scheduling each day.  Attempting to keep to two days, hard to see that holding.

Does anyone have the schedule of hearings this week?  I know they discussed a status hearing today and then closing arguments (I think starting with YPT and moving on to various other topics/groups).

We lost several units but I still think some of this is Covid hangover.  I expect everything will be back to normal this fall.  It will be important for BSA to be ready to rebound then.

One interesting argument near the end of the hearing today was about the Archbishop of Agana.  They object to the plan but have never shown up in court.  The Guam committee lawyer went on and on about how the Archbishop still objections and has not withdrawn their objection (Guam is a different group).  The judge said fine, but if they don't show up it doesn't matter.  I'll have questions about the objection and who am I supposed to ask.  It looks like the Archbishop just filed a renewed objection but honestly, I wonder if they plan to show up.

I think closing will really be critical.  My understanding is that the judge will be asking a lot of questions.  Depending on those questions and how they are answered to her satisfaction, we may get a sense where this is headed.

For those with more experience .... what are the judges options?  I assume accept or reject are clearly two options.  However, can she modify the plan or line item veto it?

Judge ... concerned over TDPs.  Her gut says there are issues.  She is asking what is the point of the TDPs and how they were created.  She said her gut may be wrong ... but that will be important.

Wondering ... whether she has any truly contested facts or how the facts are applied.  For example ... what does it mean to emulate the tort system.  Everyone agrees with the discovery tools available in tort ... that doesn't seem contested.  She would like it pointed out if there are contested facts.