Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, docSquatch said:

How transparent are they being with the finances? 

Pretty transparent in the following sense. They based their numbers on current financial status (as of June 2021) and made several projections/several scenarios, including BSA emerging from bankruptcy in August 2021, March 2022, and one other scenario (I missed it)

In all of them, cash-on-hand (liquidity) keeps dropping BUT stabilizes depending on when/if BSA comes out of bankruptcy and how much it has to pay to settle this bankruptcy.

In short: the longer this goes on, the more likely it is BSA runs out of cash.

No one denies it and no one thinks BSA or Whitman is lying about that.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@CynicalScouter Thanks from me and frankly, surely everyone, for tracking on the status of National's bankruptcy pleadings, and the procedural steps, past and pending, in the Bankruptcy case. And your

Okay. Enough. If you aren't talking about court proceedings then drop it.  It would be a shame to lock this thread now.

A few random observations from watching this bankruptcy unfold over the past several months: The focus has clearly been on protecting the national organization first and then the local councils.

Posted Images

What was the pro/con aspect of the "good faith" decision.  It sounds like the RSA parties (BSA, LCs, TCC/Coalition) decided they didn't want the "good faith" decision.  I'm confused as it sounded like it would be a benefit for the TCC/Coalition.

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

I'm confused as it sounded like it would be a benefit for the TCC/Coalition.

It would have been. I believe the TCC/Coalition was trying to establish that the judge has ruled the RSA plan (and by extension the full reorganization plan, as currently amended) was determined to have been done in "good faith" so that

1) The Coalition's sweetheart deal (where they get paid ahead of everyone else) is deemed legally OK.

2) The TCC and Coalition can get that "good faith" determination and use it in future legal proceedings against the the Insurance Companies. The theory is that they can say "Judge Silverstein already ruled this RSA plan and its provision that the insurance companies will have to pay at some point in the  future was deemed OK and done 'in good faith'."

But the problem, and the judge kept asking this over and over is NO ONE, not BSA, not the TCC, not the Coalition, NO ONE would say exactly why they wanted the provision. And the judge expressed her confusion and concern over and over.

Moreover, if that provision was kept in, the judge warned she'd allow the insurance companies a LOT of the documents that the insurance companies wanted access to.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, qwazse said:

Oh, numbers!

The numbers are always given to indicate a need for greater government involvement in all of our lives.  I don't want greater government involvement in my life, or the lives of my family.  So I reject the numbers.

Is this rational thinking?  Perhaps not.  

I am aware of the fact that there are people who want to have greater government involvement in all of our lives.  Many of these people are more than willing to fake numbers in order to get what they want.  So, I tend to be very suspicious of any numbers that tend to support the political viewpoints of my opponents. 

Is this rational thinking?  Perhaps so.

 

Edited by David CO
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, David CO said:

So, I tend to be very suspicious of any numbers that tend to support the political viewpoints of my opponents. 

Please don't tell me that the numbers one believes have been abused has anything to do with political views.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

Please don't tell me that the numbers one believes have been abused has anything to do with political views.

Or, that those who do “believe” those numbers are your “opponents.” Well, feel free if that’s the case.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Is the hearing over?

Oh, no. Just back from a break. CO counsel is cross-examining Mr. Whitman of Alvarez and Marsal. 

Comic relief meister that I am, we had a wonderful hot mic moment. Someone yelled, “Kick it! Kick it!”obviously to their child, but it was well timed to fall in dead space. Then their dog barked. Ha.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Or, that those who do “believe” those numbers are your “opponents.” Well, feel free if that’s the case.

Please stop twisting my words.  They are my political opponents because they want greater government involvement in all of our lives.  I think I made that very clear.

 

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

Please stop twisting my words.  They are my political opponents because they want greater government involvement in all of our lives.  I think I made that very clear

I just try to untwist them. It’s my speciality. I was responding to John and amending his statement, anyway. So, if you read those two together you will see I wasn’t twisting anything, not even your arm.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David CO said:

They are my political opponents because they want greater government involvement in all of our lives.  

So, the 82,500 sexual abuse victims are your "political opponents" because they want greater government involvement?

Well, to the extent they want the courts (government) to rule in their favor, yes I guess that would be "greater government involvement".

To which I say: fine. Victims get to have their day in court, whether you like it or not.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...