Jump to content

MYCVAStory

Members
  • Content Count

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by MYCVAStory

  1. She's VERY concerned about the voting procedures because it has become a mess in Imerys where she is presiding. That may be a good thing in this case.
  2. But here's the rub. People on this forum are not typical. We'll probably all vote personally. However, tomorrow she's going to start addressing the "master ballot" issue. Essentially, this means that attorneys will be voting on behalf of their clients. The issue then is whether there is agreement to do so and what robustness the judge requires. So, must attorneys certify that they have discussed with their clients the plan and their wishes and received authorization to vote on their behalf (and have proof of that authorization) or can attorneys just send out an email that says "If we do
  3. To be accurate, she is the Judge in the Imerys (Talc) bankruptcy and that is mass tort. So perhaps she meant this was her first "abuse bankruptcy." Still....
  4. When I asked my bankruptcy folks I was told "This is pretty typical."
  5. I think it's important for everyone to understand that it isn't a case where a class of claimants approves a plan, or even a judge crams down a plan, and everyone heads home since it's a done deal. The reality is that a lot of deal-making can still occur in anticipation of the judge saying "here are the flaws" and parties serving notice what they will object to. Yes, it's completely illogical that a flawed plan would go out to vote but bankruptcy works that way and sees the plan not as a final agreement but a framework for hammering out a deal pre-confirmation. It's why she keeps saying "T
  6. It also points to the fact that she isn't going to break any new ground and will stay extremely close to precedent while seeking to minimize conflict-of-interest and other issues that I agree will see this appealed. A lot of what is happening today are attorneys having their say so that they can lay that groundwork for later. It's also why a LOT of bankruptcy gets hammered home well after a vote....when the real deal-making happens.
  7. His comments were wrapped around the issue, and he challenged the debtor attorney on this, exactly what can survivors expect in the way of settlements? The judge seems unwilling to have a disclosure statement that lays this out?! Of note....the judge commenting earlier that she is "new to mass tort bankruptcy." Wow. That should really make victims feel comfortable.
  8. Hand-picked by the Coalition. So...control the Trust...pick the Trustee in charge of distributing the money.....
  9. Yep. But if you're the coalition it's all part of the game plan. Collect as many clients as you can. Fight strict validation. Control the trust. Don't communicate with your clients because you don't want to answer the tough questions, and settle QUICKLY. Why? Because for every billion in an award fund the coalition attorneys stand to earn before paying off their funders 400 MILLION DOLLARS. Oh, and the last part of the plan....move on to the next mass tort and repeat. This isn't an anti-lawyer post. It's a "how the game is played" post.
  10. That won't happen. The TCC will include its recommendation in any packet.
  11. The Judge's fixation on the Local Council's was unexpected. Third-party releases are quite the concern nowadays. We should all remember that this was a DISCLOSURE hearing and nothing more. Can a judge approve disclosure for a faulty plan that has legal issues? Yes. THOSE are decided at a later date. I know. Illogical.
  12. The reality is that this is for the benefit of the JUDGE. No one is assuming (correctly) that she is abreast of the issues. As well, she had a 12-hour hearing yesterday. So, this is the "sausage-making" part of bankruptcy. The devil is in the details and when a plan is going to get considered it is ALL details. We need to remember as well that there are professionals representing groups like the TCC and Coalition as well as members of those groups. Some of the members have precious little experience in bankruptcy court and unfortunately like to prove it sometimes!
  13. Well, between that argument and the fact that a mediator didn't sign the last mediation report it tells you a lot about how well mediation went and how the Coalition and BSA have become strange bedfellows.
  14. That number is self-proclaimed by the Coalition and the BSA uses it to its benefit. Stang just went there...the Coalition wants this over because it stands to gain $400 million plus from settlements.
  15. Well, it just might be closer to 13.8% and explain why the TCC is saying "enough is enough" and coming out swinging. OK, for the data-geeks, a VERY deep dive on this gives additional perspective from a friendly accountant looking over my shoulder. His comment: The percentages in the summary appear to be mathematically correct based on the amounts reported by the BSA; however, it is important to remember that amounts reported in Exhibit 1 for “Land Buildings & Equipment” are book value. As a result, in most (if not all) cases the percentages calculated in the summary you shared are a
  16. No, the TCC has said that officially it is "agnostic" regarding the future of the BSA. What it wants is what's best for victims. If that means the BSA survives because it has restructured its finances and operations appropriately, or not, is secondary to the goal of getting the maximum compensation for victims.
  17. Thank you for capturing this. It's CRITICALLY important for this plan to see the light of day and the court allow victims to decide. The more the BSA and Coalition object the more you know it's going to be a better option for victims!
  18. They tried to play nice and make it work. The Coalition overplayed its hand and now must hope, and the BSA too, that this judge doesn't care a thing about victims. The US Trustee's opinion will be interesting.
  19. Yep. the TCC knew this was coming. Now we'll see a group that might care about ALL victims. Worth noting why the Coalition just might think the BSA plan is a good one. The lawyers that are a part of the Coalition GET REIMBURSED 10.5 MILLION DOLLARS to pay their attorneys. PLUS almost a million a month until this is done. That's money that could have gone to victims everyone. The portion below.... 19. Payment of Coalition Restructuring Expenses On or as soon as reasonably practicable after the Effective Date, Reorganized BSA shall reimburse state court counsel for amounts they hav
  20. I think I hear wayyyy off in the distance the TCC's planes getting closer and closer to dropping a load of objections and motions onto the court. I'm still guessing it's by the close of business today. Whether that's the COB east coast or west coast is the question but they had to expect this and be prepared for this plan to be filed.
  21. Perhaps. But if the TCC files a motion it will be interesting to see the law cited. This judge does like to follow precedent.
  22. A hearing can be requested prior to 30 days. It may make sense to end exclusivity quickly before people start believing all the "Settlement reached" headlines for a plan not supported.
  23. Hmmmm....since it was my suggestion that the TCC just might file a motion to end plan exclusivity so it can file its own plan I'll see your rare OA flap and raise you a rusted metal kneckerchief slide and that sweaty "Guardian Angels" red beret we had to wear for a while 🙂
  24. If the TCC files a motion to end plan exclusivity, right after any new plan is announced, it's pretty much guaranteed that it has its own plan locked and loaded to be filed as soon as the judge accepts its motion.
×
×
  • Create New...