Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling


Recommended Posts

  • 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

Judge rules/reads decision from bench.

1) Parties agree that "good faith" section of the RSA withdrawn by parties, so no longer issue.

2) Coalition fees, I am not approving that.

3) Hartford deal is still in.

That means RSA is dead.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

More coming, but that Harford deal could be a big issue ....

I'm not surprised about the coalition fees ... she killed many debates and it seemed like she wasn't going to approve.

Edited by Eagle1993
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eagle1993 said:

More coming, but that Harford deal could be a big issue ....

Biggest. The RSA says that the TCC/FCR/Coalition all or some can now walk away from the RSA. And they have all said they would and will.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember: BSA does not HAVE to have the RSA in place in order to get to the disclosure hearing/a plan for voting. But without it, they are coming in attached with the Hartford deal and that means TCC/FCR/Coalition are going to officially be vociferously opposed.

The BSA toggle plan (BSA only, LCs and COs are left to themselves) is back on the table. OR they sent the Global plan with Hartford attached out for a vote and watch as that goes down in flames.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving on: judge finds that there was no conflict of interest/BSA used good business judgment. Remember: the "business judgment" doctrine is the HARDER standard to meet, and it appears the judge is saying yes, they met it. And the third party releases (LCs) are going to come back as part of the disclosure plan and if there are even more issues they can be argued then. But the conflict-of-interest argument won't work.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, what does this all mean in terms of BSA exiting bankruptcy? My curiosity is in wondering about going back to court on a state level, continuing on with one of the original lawsuits. You all are so helpful. I’ve been loosing ground in the area of understanding what in the actual…. (Curse word) is going on.  
I will say I can read at a higher level than a fifth grader, as long as there are pictures to accompany. 

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

In short, what does this all mean in terms of BSA exiting bankruptcy?

As the judge just said (quoting BSA attorney Lauria) we are heading into an epic fight when it comes time for disclosure and what victims will be voting on. That fight just got 10 times harder because the TCC/FCR/Coalition, who previously were willing to partner with the BSA on a deal THAT DID NOT INCLUDE HARTFORD, will now walk away because the Hartford deal is back in.

It means that the exit is either

  1. Delayed into 2022
  2. ONLY going to cover BSA (and leave LCs and COs high and dry)
  3. Something else

Keep in mind as well: the RSA agreement also put off or settled disputes over a) Sale of the HA bases b) valuing of claims, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RSA approved

- No Coalition fees .. they are abuse victims which the TCC already represents.  Are services duplicated? Rule 2019 motion there was discussion on who would pay for it ... and in that filing 1429 "Coalition council is being paid by state court council."  The state court council must pay those fees, not trust OR BSA ... only through client pockets (not directly).  Relative scale ... not that great (my point) ... it doesn't matter.  Coalition must make substantial contribution ... need to see outcome of their efforts.  Also no evidence of their role in mediation..

- Hartford deal stays; however, the RSA cannot be used to append other requests (such as releasing the Hartford deal).  Basically ... the judge cannot rule on the Hartford deal and she agrees.  This requires a different vehicle. ... Basically, kick the can down the road.

 

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

RSA approved

It's approved, but the FCR/TCC/Coalition have a provision that says they can walk way but they do not HAVE to walk away.

Judge is indicating that if parties want to go ahead with the RSA anyway they can.
 

Quote

Termination by Coalition, TCC, and Future Claimants’ Representative. The Coalition, the TCC, and the Future Claimants’ Representative may each terminate the RSA as set forth in Section V.D of the RSA, in each case upon delivery of written notice to the Debtors at any time after the occurrence of or during the continuation of any of the following events (each, a “Creditor Termination Event”):

(v) (A) the Bankruptcy Court determines that the Debtors must adhere to the terms of the Hartford Settlement and (B) the Debtors and Hartford have failed to reach an agreement that is acceptable to the Coalition, the TCC, and the Future Claimants’ Representative;

Judge wants all parties to be notified ASAP if BSA intends to even try and hold that August 25 hearing after this ruling.

After all the kicking and screaming that the TCC and Coalition did about how unfair the Hartford deal was, it would seem they HAVE to walk away from the RSA, invoke that provision above, and go into the disclosure phase opposing the BSA.

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

Judge wants all parties to be notified ASAP if BSA intends to even try and hold that August 25 hearing after this ruling.

To add my color commentary, that is the first and only moment in all the appearances that I saw Jessica Lauria rattled. She took in a huge breath and you could see her pulse. 

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

After all the kicking and screaming that the TCC and Coalition did about how unfair the Hartford deal was, it would seem they HAVE to walk away from the RSA, invoke that provision above, and go into the disclosure phase opposing the BSA.

As a “law firm” of one retired attorney and one freeloading client, I am glad the Coalition deal was ditched on principal. As to it’s impact on this process, I have to assess my thoughts and feelings. Let’s see how they react. Regarding the Hartford deal, if I get a $1 vote and it remains part of the deal, I can’t in good conscience vote for such a plan. However, I will wait for words from the TCC and, maybe, the Coalition to further inform me.

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