scoutesquire

I disagree about the voting.  First, in most major elections only a bit more than half of individuals vote.  Here, we had many people vote.  Secondly, many survivors are transient in nature and hard to find because they are avoiding debt collectors, imprisoned, and have other hardships that make it difficult to communicate with.  Also, if you look at most individual bankruptcy voting results---they are abysmal as far as attendance goes.  

Why have the insurers not shown hard proof of fraud?  They don't have any.  

As far as intake goes, a survivor told their story and were not able to be reached before the bar deadline again to verify their story. That hardly indicates fraud.  That indicates that maybe they had a change of heart, maybe they are incarcerated, or maybe there are a million other reasons.  

Again, what proof of fraud is there?  I would say the strongest indication is dual representation.  However, that happens in every major mass tort case.  Additionally, with the punitive nature of the bar date many survivors probably wanted to make sure they were covered.  

I just think this board has bought into the fraud accusations of the insurers and I think its a shame.

There literally has been zero proof of fraud.  The insurers would have paraded it around the Courtroom.  There might have been people that didn't fill out the claim form completely--does that mean Fraud?  No.  It might mean they had a change of heart.  It might also mean they don't remember the details because it is suppressed.  Where is the fraud?  Why didn't they present fraud at the trial?  Signatures have nothing to do with fraud.  You all have bought into the insurers arguments.  

I think it is overlooked that anyone that wants to appeal this case is going to have to put up nearly a 200m dollar bond.  I believe at this point that would be only the non-settling insurers.  That is a lot of cash to put up.  

The judge said she wanted to hear from the survivors.  A master ballot is from "lawyers."  The survivors voted in favor by a large margin if the OMNI data is correct.  It appears that the vast majority of "no" votes came via master ballot. 

Of the 14,000 reject votes nearly 8,000 were done via master ballot. 

Of the 39,000 Accept votes only 2,000 were from master ballot.

It is pretty clear from the data (unless OMNI is wrong), that a group of lawyers voted no via master ballot.  

OMNI made mistakes before, so this could be obviously incorrect.