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.

57 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought it was

1) TCC hired CEBR

2) BSA hired JLL

3) Someone hired Keen

Not that all three were contracted by TCC. I could be wrong and happy to stand corrected.

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.

44 minutes ago, elitts said:

Eh.. I have to wonder what kind of an "appraisal" was really done on that kind of scale.  A true appraisal for a specialty property like a summer camp would run $5,000-$7500 minimum here in Michigan and I'm sure it would be higher on the coasts. (not to mention taking 6-8 weeks)  Did some attorney or the TCC actually front 5 or 6 million dollars for 850 appraisals to be run?

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.  

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

1) FCR/Coalition proposed letter for the solicitation package

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 people are a yes vote away from the claim valuation.  Oh, and yes, the last line says basically "your mileage may vary" but what do you think people will focus upon?  regardless, I'd anticipate a TCC Town Hall VERY VERY soon.

I. What You Will Receive Under the Plan
If the Plan is confirmed, a newly formed Settlement Trust will be established. Your claim against BSA, as well as any Local Council, and certain other “Protected Parties,” will be transferred to and paid from the Settlement Trust. The Settlement Trust will assess your claim in accordance with its Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP) and value the claim based on the type and extent of abuse suffered and other factors. Based on these factors, most claims will be valued between $3,500 and $2,700,000. If you do not wish to undergo the full claims evaluation process, you will be able to elect to receive a one-time payment of $3,500, prior to the start of that process.  The Settlement Trust will collect funds from the BSA, its Local Councils, their insurers, and chartered organizations, and distribute available funds to survivors. As noted above, to date, there are settlements that will provide over $1.8 billion in initial funding to the Settlement Trust. The actual amount of your recovery, unless you select the one-time $3,500 payment, will depend on both the specifics of your claim and the amounts contributed to the Settlement Trust by, among others, insurance companies and chartered organizations in the future.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Let's game this out knowing the following:

1) The absolute fastest the solicitation and disclosure can be finalized is next Tuesday.

2) The judge has said she wants 60 days of solicitation.

And assuming

3) Somehow the BSA gets its way for 4-day-turn-around-for-discovery (this is sheer madness, but let's map that out).

Disclosure Statement Hearing = September 28

Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices 8 days later = October 6

60 days to vote = December 6 (December 5, but that is a Sunday)
Preliminary Voting Report Deadline 5 days later = December 11
Plan Objection Deadline = December 12
Final Voting Report Deadline = December 15
Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline = December 20
Confirmation Hearing = December 31 (I think December 29 was mentioned in the hearing today)

In other words, sheer insanity.

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

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think to put this in perspective ... wasn't the vote from Imerys back in April roughly?  They are still debating the results of the vote now (5 months later).  We could be in a situation where the vote occurs in October and we are debating the results in March 2022.... and that isn't even talking about confirmation of the plan.

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.

Just now, MYCVAStory said:

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.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Release to the public, or other mediation parties? The reason I ask is because Stang seemed to indicate he'd share them with Zalkin and others NOW (or last evening).

Public as a court document.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

The dispute was put on the back burner after a lawyer for the official tort claimants’ committee, James Stang of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, offered to share information his team has put together surrounding certain claim valuations and how much is being contributed by local councils compared with their available assets."

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.

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

Silverstein herself admitted that she did not pay close attention to the provision of the solicitation procedures order governing vote changes.

“Just because I signed it doesn’t mean it’s correct,” she said.

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. 

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I also believe I heard something about a “hub system” which I guess means that claimants send their ballots to their lawyer who collects them and then sends to the court?

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.

25 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

These bankruptcy lawyers may all be Ivy League but they don’t know boo about people. 

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 don't hear from you we'll assume it's a 'Yes' vote and take care of that."

Just now, ThenNow said:

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. 

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....

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

My experience has been decades in state civil (and a little) criminal courts. I've never, ever seen this much "kick the can down the road" but I'll take your word for "this is normal".

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

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yeah, I don't even want to think that far ahead, but this plan gets approved (vote approved, cram down, whatever), and is insta-appealed.

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 "This isn't a disclosure issue, it's a confirmation issue."

Another coming attraction:  Multiply the number of professionals on this call times the number of hours times the average hourly rate....  This month's request for compensation from the parties should be jaw-dropping.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

This is probably not the case to get your feet wet...  WOW.  If she is not careful, this case will end up in appeals hell.  

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.

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Also Stang wants the average of Hartford Settlement per person.

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.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Who is Green?

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

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Won't that be a mess. The Coalition (including many of the victims' own lawyers) are saying "vote yes" and the TCC says "vote no".

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. 

45 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Only positive statements about the plan are included in the voting package

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. 

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think the judge should tell everyone to spend the next few days, ready our 6 threads on the bankruptcy and only then can they talk in court.  I'm serious ... some of these people are either intentionally lost OR they have no clue what is going on.

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!