ThenNow

On this point, I feel affirmed to be echoed, but hate that it seems few who can or will do anything are listening. I know for a fact that some of you reading this care and are fighting valiantly. We are grateful. The media need to take up this story now. I suppose, in the beginning, middle and end, there is no real leverage point into the turgid muck of the bankruptcy process. The self-interested will not be dissuaded from their march through the village nor persuaded by human misery along the way. “Alas. Earwax...”

Indeed...

Mine has been on the floor for sometime. Better get busy pulling up hardwood and subfloor to squeeze my head between the joists. That way, I have at least ten more feet before the basement concrete.

Yup. Lovely. And, there it is in living color and on the record. Is this the biggest on record? Where does it rank? Talk about getting into the bigs from the jump without so much as an practice swing. Meh, meh, meh. I would characterize this as an admission well after the fact (was obvious). My opinion of course.

[Insert “MegaMeh!” and bottomless disgust.] Blech! Color me disillusioned and disheartened.

“Never get involved in a land war in Asia” and “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.” I couldn’t resist. Btw, where is the Dread Pirate Roberts when you need him? 🤔

One is an element of the bankruptcy Plan. That’s the Disclosure Statement. The other, discovery, is a general element of litigation, taking various forms, that is one party going on a spelunking expedition to mine data and statements from another party. Let’s call it legal “Go Fish.” Each in turn: The disclosure statement is a document that must contain information concerning the assets, liabilities, and business affairs of the debtor sufficient to enable a creditor to make an informed judgment about the debtor's plan of reorganization. https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/b

Not a fair or apt comparison. The TCC is saying this before the court, all parties, BSA, God and the milk man (person). When you're talking about bringing in clients, it is not at ALL what the TCC is doing IN the case BEFORE the world. "Let's use these baselines for in-court valuations" is not equivalent to, "There are billions up for grabs and you can get in on it! Sign here. Oh, wait. I'll do that for you. We'll call you if we need you (to vote.)"

People of integrity, selling whatever it is they're selling, don't do things like that. Every time I deal with a vendor who undersells I make a huge deal out of pointing out what it means to me. Last week I had a guy bidding garage doors and openers. Mine are 21 years old, dated and the openers have put in for Social Security (eligible in garage door opener years.) When I asked him about this really expensive set up, wanting to never do this again, his answer said it all. "Well. I think that's overkill and you don't need it and probably won't ever use it." Sold. One of my friends is part of a

Some have said there's not fraud in this case, other than a limited area identified by that poster. I think that remains to be seen. If true, smells like fraudulent inducement to me. I have zippo words for how I feel as a human, never mind attorney and BSA child sexual abuse survivor, about what is being alleged by the insurers. If true, it's reprehensible.

This rather a cumulative question derived from several posts, so I'm not sure who to quote. We have many hints and no so subtle comments that the Coalition is ready to get out, collect the 40%+ and walk off with whatever that amounts to, likely in the range of $400Mish ish. Not sure how many claimant attorneys make up the Coalition, but that would be fun to know. Anywho, that's not my question. We keep talking about convincing clients to vote and bringing in ballots on behalf of or against a Plan. Many moons ago there was a fight about who gets to put their flyer in the coupon section of all t

Well done, you. I'm definitely at 6's and 7's. Last one. Promise. We need to amuse ourselves lest we weep.

This a bloody mess. (I use "bloody" as used in the Commonwealth.)

Jim Stang referenced the need to see those held by the Coalition. No idea about the statutory requirements, but seems critical for the court and parties to have confirmation.

Hey, now. Don’t be dragging me down into your mud wrestling EIN racketeering scheme! (I’ve had way more than 15 minutes of incarceration on top of my fame and misfortune, by the by.)

I agree. Highly doubt this Plan 5.0 makes it over without plotzing. I’ve seen some awful injuries observing high hurdles. I wanted nothing to do with them and wish that on no one. In this case, well...

My recollection is they very much do not have letters from all of them. I believe the number is much lower than represented as the "ballots they can deliver." Memory ain't what it used to be, dough.

We had the valuation/estimation discussion back when so I won't loop back to that. This is huge. They "developed claim values for each claimant and assisted in the settlement..." One, that's no small task and two, that could get quite complicated for those of us in closed states and with the variability of the prospect of SoL reform and/or viable rebuttals to the time-bar defense.

There are a good number of us on the forum that have talked via DM and elsewhere about the longing we have for people, including the judge and BSA, to have a better appreciation for what this is “doing” to us. I really fault the media for not picking up the story and telling it deeply and thoroughly. I have given them innumerable opportunities and stories to tell, not just mine. The TCC members were interviewed for hours and mere blurbs were printed. Disheartening. It’s not too late to run a story. A post mortem would be in part great, in another part disrespectful lacking the timely purpose.

In fairness to Mr. Green and BSA, any names and identifying features of people mentioned or thought of within a mediation context or by a mediation party or between mediation parties must surely privileged. They talked about Mr. Green as a potential mediator. Oops. He can’t be touched. They previously agreed he would be the Great and Powerful. Oops. He’s off limits. Can we find out why either of those decisions were made? Of course not. Mr. Green is cloaked in imperviousness. Mr. Greenjeans, you can depose. Mr. Green Grocer, the same. Jolly Green Giant, also fair game. Want to search Green Acr

Well, that’s not entirely true. Monthly, we can say with certainty the amounts being expended for professional fees and costs. That’s something. May it bring you comfort and sweet dreams. Or not. PS - This is not a cast aspersion, rather a statement of fact to sooth my friend in these times of fear and uncertainty.

Uh huh. It also doesn’t mean it isn’t, if they tried to retract, had the material facts (or absence thereof) filled in by an aggregator or attorney, etc. You sure about that? Are you just being dramatic? Not poking, just asking. Also, does Rule 9011 apply here as to attorney conduct, signatures on claims and documents...that may lead to sanctions?

Yes. It is their suggestion. I say, “Balderdash!” Their actions, may not only have been fraudulent and unethical, but in direct contravention of the judge’s stern admonition. “I better not see attorneys signing 100’s of POCs!” Get a bloody pen and sit down for an extended period of writer’s cramp. And, who gave the aggregators those scripts and questionnaires? Are we to assume the law firms had zero input into how this was managed? Did they know about the bonus structure? Did Mr. AVA do this stuff for the majority of his career? Meh. Exactly my point. (Omitting references to my favorit

I said “like.” Apt and applicable comparison. No aspersions or negative inference. I was, after all, likening them to nothing more than a dark cloud. Ever seen a kettle of raptors? Agreed. I love them. Aerial acrobatics, ta boot. Might be my favorite to work. (You may just be poking at me, eh?)

As I said. I like when you affirm other people before refuting or saying why it ain’t so, Joe.