Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

But even if the coalition does in fact sell out they don’t control the votes it’s still possible to have a situation whereby Based on coalition lawyer advocacy you get a 51% majority or even a 60% majority but still failed to get the 2/3.

that would be an absolute horror show and I mentioned it back in May. 67% is the threshold what happens if it comes in at 65% does the judge order a cram down and just skip the 2%?

what if it were 60% or 55%?

NO judge in a bankruptcy has ever forced a cramdown on victims.  Now, if it gets to a point or two from 2/3 then perhaps but not much more than that.  As well, sexual abuse bankruptcy decisions have seen 90% agreement as a standard from judges because they want that much agreement.  The judge is realistic and won't have that high a standard but cramming down a decision when half a group disagrees would be unprecedented.  That might also be the reason why she is so interested in how claims were generated and whether they should turn into votes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 918
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I also was abused at home. Best thing my father ever did was leave. Scouting was my safe place, and all of the adults were positive role models who i can never thank enough. They showed me positive wa

Sir, I find your comments juvenile, vile and disgusting. You certainly disgrace the few decent people I have personally spoke with who are still trying to defend the organization as being still worth-

@David CO Sometimes, things end up being what you weren't trying to do. You may not think that your troop was a safe place, that you didn't adopt any of the scouts, and that it wasn't a big brother pr

Posted Images

30 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Did you read the joint AIS 2019? It couldn’t be clearer. His firm DOES represent those clients. So do AVA and Eisenberg.  Jointly.

Yeah, that's clear. Does that make 1/3 or 2/3 of the attorneys representing a client are also Coalition members?  How many of those clients replied to the Coalition's solicitation that the COALITION represents them and produced the coalition's 18,000 affirmative signatures?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s been said the coalition has about 5000 claimants total of various firms who signed consents to be represented as a whole not as individuals by Brown Rudnick.
 

The judge said earlier that attorneys would not be allowed to vote their clients’ ballots without express written authority. Is anybody here a Coalition member? If so, were you asked to sign a proxy to have your lawyer vote your ballot? 
 

i don’t understand why these Coalition lawyers statements to the media that they represent 70 000 men means they control their votes. I don’t think they actually have much if any client control. It’s misleading and the brainless MSM report it has real. 

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

Here are the aggregators being deposed.

  • Verus Claims Services LLC (“Verus”)
  • Consumer Attorney Marketing Group (“CAMG”)
  • Archer Systems (“Archer”)
  • Stratos Legal (“Stratos”)

Have any of these folks landed in the judicial crosshairs prior to this lovely scenario? If so, to what end? What has been alleged by the insurers and their experts doesn’t speak highly of their methods or morals. Hoping to read ahead in this 10-part dramedy screenplay. Thanks.

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

[7] A seventh group made up of all the above 6 subgroups

Minor quibble: the 7th group was a uniform sampling across all claims NOT in the earlier groups. See the Neumann declaration, D.I.1972 attachment 6 page 3 (page 77 of the PDF):

"We then sorted the Abuse Claims by this random number. [...] We then limited the remaining claims on the randomly sorted list to those that were not coded into any of the six sub-categories and selected the first 200 claims from that group."

17 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

If the insurers had tried to randomly sample 1,400 out of ALL 82,500 claims, then maybe.

Did she say something that hinted that, or is that just your guess?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Did she say something that hinted that, or is that just your guess?

Something hinted at

The judge quoted the statistician Martin that Martin testified she COULD get sample with a margin of error of 4-7%.

If your population (of claims) = 82,500, selecting 1,400 leads to a margin of error of 3% at the 95% Confidence level.

If your population (of claims) = 82,500, selecting 1,400 leads to a margin of error of 4% at the 99% Confidence level.

So, assuming random sampling and all other standard sampling caveats apply, 1,400 could get to that 4-7% alluded to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

This is interesting.  Are there numbers available for these subgroups?  How large could the group be who indicate "No Impact Alleged" or "No Physical Abuse"?  Certainly I understand emotional abuse, but what kind of claim can be made for No Impact?

Yes, but they were redacted pursuant to the courts various confidentiality orders.

See page 78

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf

I am going to be as careful, oh so careful, as I can be here about "No Impact Alleged" and "No Physical Abuse" and I am hesitant to even go this far but I think it is a legit question worth answering. No Impact Alleged/No Physical Abuse COULD mean one of a few things.

As a point of reference, this was the Sexual Abuse Proof of Claim form. See in particular PART 5: IMPACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/CMSVol2/pub_47373/849007_SA_POC_4.pdf

1) Part 5 (impact) was left blank and claimants failed to fill it out because it was too traumatizing.

2) Part 5 (impact) was left blank and claimants failed to fill it out because the victim determined for himself it had no impact among those listed and opted not to complete the "Other" section.

3) The victim determined for himself it had no impact at all or was not physical. Keep in mind that some of the listed types of sexual abuse include not-invasive, non-physical acts and that are lumped as "Sexual Abuse-No Touching" and that would only be paid out anywhere from $3500-$8500 (BSA Plan 4.0/RSA). I do NOT want to get into graphic descriptions of what that does/does NOT include. Let's leave it at that.

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

Yeah, that's not quite how it worked in the asbestos claims.  Bankruptcy is a federal action and the bankruptcies for that were nationwide just like this one; and any claims as of the discharge were wiped away, regardless of SOL.  Those companies that went back for second or third bankruptcies did it because new claims, resulting from illnesses that began after the discharge would start accumulating.

Exactly. There's no such thing as "This bankruptcy only good for claims in the following states". It is ALL claims and debts owed as of the bar claim date (and some incurred during the pendency of the bankruptcy such as general operating expenses) nationwide.

I agree that this makes the situation involving the legal status of SoLs problematic. A person in State X for example, may have no claim TODAY against BSA due to the SoL but by next August WILL under a new state law that lifts the SoL in State X.

From a purely legal standpoint, that is what makes this even more of a challenge as I believe the US Trustee pointed out.

Now, the BSA 3.0 plan and RSA/BSA Plan 4.0 handled this issue in very, very different ways.

BSA Plan 3.0 said that if in the future a SoL was lifted, that the victim/claimant could come back to the Settlement Trustee and try to get more money.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/75cad6f2-cc34-4b0c-896f-0d26815b1189_5368.pdf

Quote

provided, further, any Direct Abuse Claim that is substantially reduced pursuant to this mitigating Scaling Factor that becomes the subject of statute of limitations revival legislation may be re-determined in the sole discretion of the Settlement Trustee.

But that became a problem: what happens if the SoL window reopens 10 years from now and the Settlement has 100% paid out?

RSA/BSA Plan 4.0 offered an alternative: you have 12 months to get your legislature to pass a SoL window reopen. It was called Claim Determination Deferral

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7082572a-2eeb-4a35-bc9b-e515925846fd_5486.pdf

Quote

H. Claim Determination Deferral. For a period of up to twelve (12) months from the Effective Date, and by an election exercised at the time of the Trust Claim Submission, Direct Abuse Claimants whose Direct Abuse Claims may be substantially reduced by the Scaling Factor described below in Article VIII.E.(iii) (statute of limitations defense) may elect to defer the determination of their Proposed Allowed Claim Amounts to see if statute of limitations revival legislation occurs, provided, however, that this claim determination deferral window shall close for all Direct Abuse Claims twelve (12) months from the Effective Date at which time such Submitted Abuse Claims shall be determined based on then applicable Scaling Factors.

So, to make it easy, if the effective date of the BSA Bankruptcy discharge is September 1, 2021,  you have until August 31, 2022 to file for a claim deferral. If at any time between September 1, 2021 and August 31, 2022 your state legislature enacts a SoL look back window, your claim would shift from Closed or Gray 1/2/3 to Open.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

The judge is realistic and won't have that high a standard but cramming down a decision when half a group disagrees would be unprecedented. 

But, conversely, what about a pan when half a group AGREES? 50%+1?

The other factor as the judge noted in her ruling from the bench yesterday is she will want to figure out how those mass aggregate claims COULD impact voting.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is a question. If, during discovery/deposition of the claims aggregators, they identify fraudulent claims... does anyone have any speculation as to what might happen next? The same question for AIS, which clearly has lawyers/law firms tied to it... what might happen if it comes out that fraudulent claims were filed? Are those claims just tossed out... or would it give the insurers the ammunition they need to be more aggressive with their demands/motions?

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