MYCVAStory

All of a sudden the judge is concerned about the BSA running out of money! How convenient for the BSA after 18 months of spending it. Judge indicates that she might be amenable to hearing the TCC motion to retain Claro for claims estimation. THAT would help!

Rothweiler tries to make people feel bad for HIM because everyone is against the poor mass tort attorneys and he has invested so much into this and its taken its toll. His comments go on and on and the judge has lost control of her courtroom. So the judge lets Rothweiler speak until he's done and now lets Stand speak but cautions him about time. Unbelievable.

CBRE, JLL and Keen Summit are the three valuation firms. The TCC engaged CBRE and Keen, while BSA engaged JLL. TCC analyses used valuation data provided by all three firms. BSA’s valuation analysis also uses information from all three. Let's hope the BSA does the right thing and allows this data and all the TCC dashboard data to be available to the public. Breath not being held. Transparency isn't a skill the BSA seems to have learned thus far.

The TCC contracted with three real estate appraisal firms who do this on a national scale. The appraisals ran from fairly simple to deep-dives into trust and restriction issues. It took a long time. Who paid? The BSA because it was a professional fee charged to the BSA as the debtor in this case because the debtor hadn't done it themselves.

Well....here's the bait and switch from the Coalition and FCR below. Note thatthey use the "CLAIM VALUE" of the plan to show a figure to 2.7 million. This is an arbitrary plan number that is the best estimate of attorneys for valuation. They "will be valued" but that does NOT, I repeat NOT, mean that any survivor can expect to see that amount. That little tidbit of information is conveniently left out. Survivors should hope that the judge allows for both sides to make their cases in letters to go in the voting packet and doesn't restrict the TCC from calling BS on this suggestion that peo

Realistically, a confirmation hearing in mid to late January. That will take 3-5 days.

Collecting date, like voting, is best done when you have VERY specific and logical methodology. The worst data always is produced when you collect it first and then say "Okay, now let's figure out what it means."

Theme of the day for the Judge: "We'll let this go and deal with it another time if we have to." Possibility of this creating a mess at another time: 100%. I suggested that she would learn from her Imerys mistakes. It appears I was wrong.

The parties should be able to develop a mechanism where claimants can "opt-out" of a home mailing. Might make some attorneys actually speak to their clients.

David Buchbinder is to be thanked by every single Survivor. He just forcefully convinced the judge that EVERY survivor deserves to get the paper documents and NOT required to request the full package as the BSA wanted. Shame on the BSA after ALL the expenses it has incurred to suggest that the SINGLE most piece of information for survivors would be too expensive to do. I should have added that this is the US Trustee.

Public as a court document.

But, because it came out of mediation it requires a "meet and confer" with the BSA before any LC dashboards are released. If the BSA doesn't agree then the TCC must file a motion to have the court agree to its release and this of course would allow the BSA to object. Let's hope that the BSA doesn't try to delay so that those interested in the financial picture of their LC might be able to learn a bit more, and victims will get a better idea of their LC's ability to pay. This is critical to an informed vote and transparent reorganization.

I really think this is good news in the BSA bankruptcy proceedings. Imerys was her first mass tort bankruptcy and she learned what NOT to do with voting. Let's hope she's given thought to what TO do.

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.

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

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....

When I asked my bankruptcy folks I was told "This is pretty typical."

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

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.

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.

Hand-picked by the Coalition. So...control the Trust...pick the Trustee in charge of distributing the money.....

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.

That won't happen. The TCC will include its recommendation in any packet.

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.

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!