Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow 1373]

6 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Remember, in bankruptcy, like politics, a day is a year.  Much can and often changes quickly.  "Dead" deals are resurrected miraculously. 

Hm. I hadn’t known. It makes sense I couldn’t remember. I feel better. Thank you. Now I “know” something else about a subject and context I hope I never need to remember, even though I now know it in my knower. 

As to death, resurrection and miracles, I’m getting a Zombie Apocalypse vibe. I think I’ll prepare accordingly. Not sure if we’re in the Walking Dead, Zombieland, Resident Evil, Night of the Living Dead or Train to Busan. I’ll give it some thought and report back.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

7 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Remember, in bankruptcy, like politics, a day is a year.  Much can and often changes quickly.  "Dead" deals are resurrected miraculously.  Also, just a reminder, the TCC will be providing its "take" on the situation in a week:

I agree that SOME kind of RSA is possible to be brought back and I mentioned as such earlier. Perhaps one where the Coalition isn't pre-paid/paid ahead of abuse victims.

The broader point, however, is that even if it is brought back, there is still enormous opposition, not just from the insurance companies but others including some victims attorneys about some key aspects, especially the voting rights of victims in closed states and that the COs are absolutely livid at the RSA and the plan it contemplates.

Sure, it can come back, but BSA has also been squawking about how it is soon out of cash. What of that as well. Etc.

 

[RememberSchiff 3661]

I'm curious, what happened with the TCC reorganization plan circa May/June? Will that resurface?

Also curious about Congressional action on the proposed SACKLER Act, as I understand this would prohibit bankruptcies from staying liability lawsuits (e,g, Perdue Pharma, BSA,...) but that should be a new topic.

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/Blumenthal-Tong-push-for-bankruptcy-reforms-in-16341536.php

[CynicalScouter 1434]

9 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don’t understand how the RSA could have expired.   Didn’t the main groups just file documents supporting the RSA?  I’m struggling to understand what could have changed. 

Right, as recently as July 26 you had a brief filed by the TCC/FCR/Coalition in support of the RSA

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0d7f3457-6371-48c1-98d4-07c0cd63a58b_5760.pdf

And on July 22 they filed in Joinder in support of BSA's brief https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cb5ac036-4493-4999-bba6-faf70eed01ee_5680.pdf

But the opposition to the Coalition being prepaid ahead of everyone else was universal and included the US Trustee.

If I had to guess, the parties to the RSA were re-negotiating the Coalition payment. Those negotiations were still going on when the deadline crept up. Unable to agree on the issue prior to the deadline expiring about how much the Coalition should be pre-paid and when, the deal fell apart.

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

So, with only the Rule 2019 motion left for tomorrow, let's see what that means.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5047339b-0dff-47e3-8939-4bd5f4cf3406_5802.pdf

In short, this gets at a problem that has been rolling around for over a year: what exactly is Abused in Scouting, its legal status, and who speaks for those abuse victims? And what is the relationship between Abused in Scouting and the Coalition?

Quote

Mr.  Kosnoff,  for  his  part,  filed  a  response  in  which  he  admits  to  the  core  factual   predicate for the Motion (that there is dispute over who represents the 17,000 AIS claimants), but then  refuses  to  make  any  disclosure  whatsoever  as  to  who  in  fact  represents  the  17,000  AIS  claimants,  which  ones  are  in  fact  members  of  the  Coalition  and  what  his  relationship  is  to  the  claimants who he asked to file letters with the Court.

And oh yeah, his constant insulting of the judge? The Insurance Companies made sure the judge is aware of it.

Quote

On July 25, 2021, after filing his response refusing to comply with Rule 2019, Mr. Kosnoff issued tweets calling Your Honor a “jellyfish” who fails to decide anything in apparent defiance of the Court’s direction to disclose his ties to the authors of the letters filed with the Court. This statement follows on the heels of a series of prior public statements disparaging the Court in wholly
in appropriate terms.

And the insurance companies even found out Kosnoff was held in contempt for court as part of his divorce last year.

Quote

Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington upheld
an order finding Mr. Kosnoff in contempt for his effort to conceal his representation of claimants in this case. Kosnoff v. Kosnoff, No. 80922-9-I, (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2021). See Exhibit A. While the contempt order arises out of dispute over a support agreement, the findings of the Washington Court evidence a disregard for the law by Mr. Kosnoff.

But this is all a side show to the real question: when it comes time to sign documents on behalf of clients, who exactly is the attorney/attorneys of record here? What is AIS? What is the Coalition? And can any of them really, truly sign anything on behalf of anyone?

Quote

The Rule 2019 disclosure sought from the Coalition, AIS and Mr. Kosnoff are mandatory. But the information sought as to who represents the 17,000 AIS claimants also goes directly to matters that are or will shortly be before the Court such as BSA’s motion to approve solicitation procedures and motion to approve the Disclosure Statement. In a schedule attached to the RSA, Mr. Rothweiler is held out as individually representing all 17,000 AIS members in signing the RSA.

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[elitts 464]

9 hours ago, yknot said:

I hear you but we've been saying that scouting is so much better at YP than the public swimming pools. locker rooms, etc. What we need to be saying is that we can't protect your kids any better here than anywhere else. Our YP is good but your kids could still be victimized. BSA is at this moment trying to market safety which is something we can't provide. Where is the waiver, like the ones you sign at the climbing wall or the tubing outfitter or wherever, that says scouting is an inherently risky activity when it comes to youth protection and you as the parent accept those risks? 

And apart from all that, look at this report. We are in the middle of a bankruptcy because of CSA. That guy is wearing a boy scout t shirt espousing On My Honor for his perp shot. The irony cannot be lost on you. If the wrong (right?) media outlet picks up on this, it could be a meme to end all memes for scouting. If AIS has a PR arm, they will make hay with this. I think we have to hope that BSA has become so irrelevant, that most media don't even notice it and pick it up. 

It's called the "Activity Consent Form", I can't personally say how long it's been around, but at least since 2014 as that's when an article about it was written on the Scoutingmagazine blog.

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/19-673.pdf

[MYCVAStory 687]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

If I had to guess, the parties to the RSA were re-negotiating the Coalition payment.

Or just perhaps the BSA and AD-Hoc got cold feet about excluding the Charter Organizations.  Some may not like the payment of the Coalition professional fees but I bet a whole lot of victims would be irate if the charter organizations were included in an injunction without providing any compensation.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

47 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Or just perhaps the BSA and AD-Hoc got cold feet about excluding the Charter Organizations. 

Sure, it could have been that there were enough people who had problems that no one could agree. Just based on the court filings the issue was the Coalition payment, but there may have been a slew of other problems behind the scenes.

I would note that the attorney for the Ad Hoc Committees for Catholic Dioceses and Methodist Churches (same lawyer, different committees) was pretty irritated when he noted the Ad Hoc Local Committee for LCs and BSA has said that the RSA was not the real, final plan and that work would be done with the COs. His point was (paraphrasing) what are we doing here then if the REAL plan is going to include COs and there's no mention of them in here yet? He mentioned his clients don't have tons of money to engage in "bare knuckle" litigation and reminded BSA that without COs that scouting doesn't exist.

Once again, BSA's lawyers assured the COs lawyer that they understand and (it was either the judge ot BSA's lawyer, I forget) that said there was a mediation with the COs coming up.

Edited July 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Nice. This is just epic level trolling.

The insurance companies have now filed a supplement to their Rule 2019 motion that consists of nothing but Kosnoff's tweets mocking the judge and indicating that he (Kosnoff) is the one truly in charge of the 17000 clients.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/861e377e-a772-42e9-8779-1b90257e5fab_5804.pdf

[ThenNow 1373]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurance companies have now filed a supplement to their Rule 2019 motion that consists of nothing but Kosnoff's tweets mocking the judge and indicating that he (Kosnoff) is the one truly in charge of the 17000 clients.

Sweet. Now I have them all in one, uber convenient document. Not being a citizen of the Tweeterverse, I genuinely appreciate this compilation. I think it’s suitable for framing. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Have to say I am surprised that the media has not run this story yet. Even the bankruptcy focused media has been from what I can see silent.

[skeptic 992]

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

As I’m a titch dim, what are you looking for, specifically? 

Simply ANY acknowledgement that this whole witch hunt pales in comparison to the issues in our Government agencies and connected support groups who "supposedly" are paid to protect children.  I am simply looking to see actual balance in responses to these tragedies.  But, it seems to me, a novice, that few will make the effort to "fix" these shortcomings in Government agencies.  Why?  Lawyers do not feel they can win?  It is cheaper to attack non-governmental groups?  The Government and related groups have the aura of being official, so they cannot be held to the grindstone?  I do not know.  But the imbalance is distressing, and it often appears that our legal system is weighted against actual fairness when it comes to public awareness of their improprieties (to be kind).  I am NOT defending the errors in BSA responses, though do feel we continue to ignore that it often was not just the BSA that looked the other way.  Families, policing agencies, political powers all played a part.  Yet, only the BSA is being held up as the ogre.  Am old enough to understand that there is no answer and that the BSA too is a victim in a way.  Life is not perfect, and people are surely not, at least not mere mortals.  In the end, NOONE will win, except perhaps some lawyers, though maybe the actions of the worst of them may draw sanction (we can hope).  But, many will lose, including the actual victims, as has already seemed obvious by a few posters who suggest their hell has been re exposed.  

Meanwhile, back in the real world I have to get boots repaired so I can try to do a hike Saturday, and our "local" programs try to simply work the program and still offer the actual benefits of Scouting that is still there amidst the turmoil.

[ThenNow 1373]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Have to say I am surprised that the media has not run this story yet. Even the bankruptcy focused media has been from what I can see silent.

I connected with several on this months ago. Other than reporting what’s been said in the pleadings — now in my favorite takeaway carton — they’ve been reluctant to touch it. I gather they’re waiting for something more definitive on the composition of the various attorney groups and the background info we hoped would/will be the result of the TK depo. I offered to take a couple with me to Puerto Rico on the yacht hunt, but they were all busy tapping out the latest hot scoop of hoopla and horse pucky. 

[ThenNow 1373]

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Simply ANY acknowledgement that this whole witch hunt pales in comparison to the issues in our Government agencies and connected support groups who "supposedly" are paid to protect children.  I am simply looking to see actual balance in responses to these tragedies.  But, it seems to me, a novice, that few will make the effort to "fix" these shortcomings in Government agencies.  Why?  Lawyers do not feel they can win?  It is cheaper to attack non-governmental groups?  The Government and related groups have the aura of being official, so they cannot be held to the grindstone?  I do not know.  But the imbalance is distressing, and it often appears that our legal system is weighted against actual fairness when it comes to public awareness of their improprieties (to be kind). 

This was wonderfully discussed and debated back when I had dark hair and didn’t need trifocals. I think Qwaze, Cynical, ynot and Fred (?) were the most engaged. Not p-positive on all four. Oh. Perhaps Mr. Lambert, too. I was, but I’m now weary, old and gray and don’t remember what I said. I seem to have run out of Geritol. I inherited my gampa’s bottle. Maybe someone can link back to those days of hail and thunder?

[fred8033 1591]

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

This was wonderfully discussed and debated back when I had dark hair and didn’t need trifocals. I think Qwaze, Cynical, ynot and Fred (?) were the most engaged. Not p-positive on all four. Oh. Perhaps Mr. Lambert, too. I was, but I’m now weary, old and gray and don’t remember what I said. I seem to have run out of Geritol. I inherited my gampa’s bottle. Maybe someone can link back to those days of hail and thunder?

It sounds right.

Now old arguments.  I'm sure some victims will get some funds, but I cringe at the the damage and the cost and the ugliness and the injustice in the whole process.  I see the web sites of the advocates proclaiming their aggressive history and it's often listing those who have deep pockets.  It smells.  

Side comment ... I'm not sure I'd want my lawyers propagandizing on twitter.  We just got done with the mad twitter.  Haven't we learned anything?  ... What was that political guys name?  I can't remember.