Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, which is why I'm very interested to see if TCC/FCR (maybe Coalition?) adds into the ballot packet a statement to the effect of "This in our opinion is the best BSA can offer." or even something as far as "We encourage a yes vote."

Yup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors.  However, there a

The mental fallout from my abuse was mostly dormant prior to the current lawsuit. It would still torment me in idle moments. Or at night sometimes when I lay in bed trying not to blame myself after so

I would like to not lock the thread but we seem to be in a rut that we need to get out of before any progress can be made. Here are some observations that might help. First, human dignity is the

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, which is why I'm very interested to see if TCC/FCR (maybe Coalition?) adds into the ballot packet a statement to the effect of "This in our opinion is the best BSA can offer." or even something as far as "We encourage a yes vote."

The TCC has stated that it fully expects to have a statement included in any packet related to a vote.  This is pretty standard bankruptcy procedure.  I would assume that it will make its position well known and available for viewing as well.  Remember though that in cases of this size victim attorneys often vote on behalf of their clients since they represent them and it's the client's responsibility to cast his/her vote separately or in consultation with the attorney if represented.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

The TCC has stated that it fully expects to have a statement included in any packet related to a vote.  This is pretty standard bankruptcy procedure. 

Right, I'm expecting a TCC statement. What I guess I was wondering is if it would be joint (FCR and Coalition) or the TCC alone? And how strong a statement is made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

The TCC has stated that it fully expects to have a statement included in any packet related to a vote.  This is pretty standard bankruptcy procedure. 

As for this dingy captain, if there is not a TCC statement in the packet, as BSA previously signaled by saying only supporting comments are allowed, that would pretty much ensure my "No" vote.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As for this dingy captain, if there is not a TCC statement in the packet, as BSA previously signaled by saying only supporting comments are allowed, that would pretty much ensure my "No" vote

Right, I thought that part of the BSA plan was...cute. Only PROponents of the reorg plan would get to put something in the packet. BSA wanted to keep out anything neutral or negative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

New mediation report https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/562a5663-2140-4815-a2c4-13de110eedda_5287.pdf

Cancel June 11 altogether.

The Mediators, having conferred today with certain of the Mediation Parties, including the Debtors, the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils, the Tort Claimants’ Committee, the Coalition, the Future Claimants’ Representative and insurers, suggest that the status conference scheduled for Friday, June 11, 2021, be cancelled to permit discussions among the Mediation Parties to continue without interruption.

This has all 3 Mediators on the signature line.

It really feels the are close.  I don't believe there would be time to exit this in failure.  Then have TCC/BSA present updated plans.  Obtain objections/support for those plans.  Hold a couple of hearings.  Then a plan for vote.  Wait for the results.  Review the results and finally approve the plan by September (or October or possibly even November).  What is the point.  They need to exit mediation with an agreement from TCC & the Coalition.  The only other option at this point would be liquidation and I don't see that as a viable path.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This has all 3 Mediators on the signature line.

It really feels the are close.  I don't believe there would be time to exit this in failure.  Then have TCC/BSA present updated plans.  Obtain objections/support for those plans.  Hold a couple of hearings.  Then a plan for vote.  Wait for the results.  Review the results and finally approve the plan by September (or October or possibly even November).  What is the point.  They need to exit mediation with an agreement from TCC & the Coalition.  The only other option at this point would be liquidation and I don't see that as a viable path.

Their plan better be substantial with clear numbers and procedures.  If not we are going to see an overwhelming no vote.  The BSA also can’t go ahead and try to make “easy settlements” with the masses.  If they’re looking to just buy off quick yes votes and cause some sort of voter fraud in this bankruptcy, get ready to see all hell break loose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

Their plan better be substantial with clear numbers and procedures.

BSA's been pretty clear about its numbers. What numbers do you think would be hidden or not clear?

3 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

The BSA also can’t go ahead and try to make “easy settlements” with the masses.  If they’re looking to just buy off quick yes votes and cause some sort of voter fraud in this bankruptcy, get ready to see all hell break loose.

And how do you propose BSA not do that? In bankruptcy, there is always a "nuisance payment" or "nuisance settlement" scheme where those with a claim can take $X now and waive all claims without having to prove them.

Are you suggesting that BSA and the court go through all 82,500 claims NOW to ensure no "voter fraud" (which is what the insurance companies want)? That would take years.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:
4 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

 

BSA's been pretty clear about its numbers. What numbers do you think would be hidden or not clear?

Insurance rights and LC contributions.  Only National BSA has been fairly straightforward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Are you suggesting that BSA and the court go through all 82,500 claims NOW to ensure no "voter fraud" (which is what the insurance companies want)? That would take years.

I’m suggesting those missing information be ineligible to vote if they can’t provide a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

Insurance rights and LC contributions.

Insurance rights wouldn't and couldn't be determined for years if they have to go through all 82,500 claims. I believe the plan(s) call for the Settlement Trustee to figure this out post-BSA bankruptcy.

And LCs I agree: either an aggregate agreement in writing or council-by-council numbers.

1 minute ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I’m suggesting those missing information be ineligible to vote if they can’t provide a reason.

Ok, how much "missing" information until a person doesn't get a vote? I'm not being mean here, this is what the insurance companies are saying as well.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 100thEagleScout said:

Insurance rights and LC contributions.  Only National BSA has been fairly straightforward.

Insurance rights won't be "clear" until eyeballed from the rearview. We'll see on the LCs. It has to have some clarity coming out of the mediation. I go back to the previously well made point that the BSA managed to tick off both the TCC and the Coalition in stereo. Now, they have to contend with them in lockstep, effectively a bulwark against shenanigans. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Ok, how much "missing" information until a person doesn't get a vote? I'm not being mean here, this is what the insurance companies are saying as well.

If someone doesn’t even remember the name/place of occurrence/date of occurrence.  If they can remember two of those three I’d give them a vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I’m suggesting those missing information be ineligible to vote if they can’t provide a reason.

How about how much time has past from the abuse, trying to keep it out of your mind for 40 to 50 years and now you are 70 or 80 years old and memories are not what they used to be.  Good enough?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...