Jump to content

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


Eagle1993

Recommended Posts

  On 6/9/2021 at 9:41 PM, Eagle1993 said:

Kosnoff Law

"This bankruptcy may go down in history as the only instance in which the judge never made a single, solitary ruling.  Survivors would have been better served by a used side by side refrigerator with a broken ice maker and wrapped in a black robe."

Expand  

I dunno. Some see insolence towards the court, I see some smuck trying to sell his old broken fridge to a client.

My $0.02,

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 6/10/2021 at 12:57 AM, 100thEagleScout said:
  On 6/10/2021 at 12:54 AM, ThenNow said:

 

Expand  

Yeah, Kosnoff is a giant in the BSA sexual abuse litigation world

Expand  

I think you’re being serious, not facetious. If the former, I agree. Ask some of his former clients. The proof of the puddin’ is in the eatin’. I don’t care for it when folks attempt to delegitimize someone’s work because they find her personality or character lacking. You can, in fact, “separate the policy from the man.”

Edited by ThenNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 6/10/2021 at 1:02 AM, ThenNow said:

If the former, I agree.

Expand  

He represents ~20% of all total claimants (17000/82500).

Even if you don't like him or what he does, from a purely legal perspective you have to account for him. If he can persuade the bulk of his clients to reject any BSA deal, it makes it that much harder. Especially when you consider that it is not 2/3rds of ALL claimants, it is 2/3rds of VOTES CAST.

If he can both persuade those 17,000 claimants to not only oppose the BSA plan BUT to also mail in their ballots, look out.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 6/10/2021 at 1:18 AM, CynicalScouter said:

Especially when you consider that it is not 2/3rds of ALL claimants, it is 2/3rds of VOTES CAST.

If he can both persuade those 17,000 claimants to not only oppose the BSA plan BUT to also mail in their ballots, look out.

Expand  

That's interesting. I did not appreciate that distinction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 6/9/2021 at 10:09 PM, CynicalScouter said:

1) Only 2/3 mediators asked for this.

Expand  

Where did you see that or are you just inferring? My read is Finn was not a signatory solely because he had a conflict and is not in attendance. I don't think there is any indication of a lack of unanimity. 

"The Mediators support the Debtors’ request."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 6/10/2021 at 1:29 PM, ThenNow said:

Where did you see that or are you just inferring?

Expand  

Only 2 signatures on that document. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/faeb7741-2d46-4c37-b696-d10629348ddd_5285.pdf

You may be right, it was just the third mediator was absent. Kosnoff's making a point of 2/3rds

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 6/10/2021 at 1:32 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Only 2 signatures on that document. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/faeb7741-2d46-4c37-b696-d10629348ddd_5285.pdf

You may be right, it was just the third mediator was absent. Kosnoff's making a point of 2/3rds

Expand  

I don't believe they would have used the full plural or footnoted it as they did if Finn dissented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...