Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD

[ThenNow]

12 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA is stretching mediation privilege to the limit.  Now it is Green, who again was NEVER a mediator or a mediation party, claiming mediation privilege as to why he won’t turn anything over

In fairness to Mr. Green and BSA, any names and identifying features of people mentioned or thought of within a mediation context or by a mediation party or between mediation parties must surely privileged. They talked about Mr. Green as a potential mediator. Oops. He can’t be touched. They previously agreed he would be the Great and Powerful. Oops. He’s off limits. Can we find out why either of those decisions were made? Of course not. Mr. Green is cloaked in imperviousness. Mr. Greenjeans, you can depose. Mr. Green Grocer, the same. Jolly Green Giant, also fair game. Want to search Green Acres via warrant? Have at it, and so on.

PS - BSA has just contacted me with a court order. All the secondary aforementioned “Greens” are now on the untouchables list. They are verboten as potentially related to Mr. Green, pending DNA testing. He who was the almost, so close, pretty nearly Great and Powerful casts a long shadow of privilege. 

Edited September 18, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

TCC wants courts permission retroactive to September 1 to hire professional to value/valuation for all 82500 claims. Remember that there was an attempt earlier at getting the US district court to make  valuation determination.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7deb7908-df9b-497d-9bf7-0fe922e7707a_6287.pdf

8. The Tort Claimants’ Committee seeks to retain Claro for the purpose of providing the following services (collectively, the “Services”):
a. expert consulting services and expert testimony regarding valuation of sexual abuse claims filed in the Chapter 11 Cases;
b. expert consulting services and expert testimony in connection with any plan or settlement filed by the Debtors regarding childhood sexual abuse claims. In addition, expert consulting services and expert testimony in connection with plan or settlement filed by the Tort Claimants’ Committee or any other party interest, and any contested matters and/or litigation arising in these Cases as reasonably requested by the Tort Claimants’ Committee and TCC’s plan, etc. ;
expert consulting services and expert testimony in the review and evaluation of reports prepared by the Debtors, their professionals, the Debtors’ insurers, and their professionals;
as may be requested by the Tort Claimants’ Committee, assisting with the preparation of affidavits/declarations, depositions, and briefing in these Cases concerning the issues for which Claro is providing expert consulting services and expert testimony;
as may be requested by the Tort Claimants’ Committee, assisting with the allocation of claims to potentially available insurance coverage;
preparing for and providing both deposition and court testimony in these Cases regarding the issues for Claro is providing expert consulting services and expert testimony; and
such other consulting and advisory services as may be reasonably requested by the Tort Claimants’ Committee.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

TCC wants courts permission retroactive to September 1 to hire professional to value/valuation for all 82500 claims. Remember that there was an attempt earlier at getting the US district court to make  valuation determination.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7deb7908-df9b-497d-9bf7-0fe922e7707a_6287.pdf

I want to delve into Claro, because they were a player in the USA Gymnastics/Nassar cases.

From the TCC filing https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7deb7908-df9b-497d-9bf7-0fe922e7707a_6287.pdf

Quote

Specifically, Claro has assisted several major universities, including
Michigan State University in connection with the Dr. Larry Nassar molestation/abuse claims, as the retained valuation consultants. In this role, Claro developed individual claim values for
each claimant and assisted in the settlement of the Nassar claims and hundreds of sexual abuse
claims against other defendants. Claro also worked closely with counsel and performed
numerous allocations of such claims across decades worth of available coverages to support
insurance recovery efforts. Claro has performed similar work for other universities, and is
currently serving as a valuation expert on behalf of the The Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors in the Diocese of Rochester bankruptcy proceedings involving abuse and molestation
issues.

Whereas BSA hired White & Chase to come up with an estimated valuation of claims ($4-7 billion) Claro will come in likely much, much, much higher.

[CynicalScouter]

BSA's filing objecting to all TCC motions.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0994528a-9b42-45b4-8651-8a14b191a2bf_6293.pdf

Main points

• The fact that the TCC approve and supported the RSA and Plan 4.0 should be held against the TCC's argument it needs more time. BSA is arguing, in effect, the TCC knew most of what Plan 5.0 would look like AND SUPPORTED IT, therefore the TCC does not need any more time
• The TCC just wants to delay to get past the exclusivity date and be able to submit its own plan.
• If the TCC wanted to, it had weeks after the RSA got knee-capped by the judge to file for exclusivity. Instead, it dithered. Therefore is there is an emergency it is of the TCC's own making.
• The TCC has failed to clearly demonstrate it has "cause" to demand the exclusivity period end before October 18.

[Eagle1993]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The fact that the TCC approve and supported the RSA and Plan 4.0 should be held against the TCC's argument it needs more time. BSA is arguing, in effect, the TCC knew most of what Plan 5.0 would look like AND SUPPORTED IT, therefore the TCC does not need any more time

This is why I think the judge will deny the request and push Plan 5.0 to a vote.  I completely understand the Hartford deal was not part of the RSA and that is likely a major issue.  I just think the Judge may be thinking ... lets get this out for a vote.  If approved, great, wrap it up.  If rejected, then give up and go with a BSA only exit (no COs, no LCs).

[ThenNow]

56 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

In this role, Claro developed individual claim values for
each claimant and assisted in the settlement of the Nassar claims and hundreds of sexual abuse
claims against other defendants.

We had the valuation/estimation discussion back when so I won't loop back to that. This is huge. They "developed claim values for each claimant and assisted in the settlement..." One, that's no small task and two, that could get quite complicated for those of us in closed states and with the variability of the prospect of SoL reform and/or viable rebuttals to the time-bar defense. 

[Eagle1993]

Everything right now seems to be based on the belief that the Coalition can delivery the needed 55,440 votes (or more) for the plan to pass.  In terms of voting...

• Do we know the number of claimants to coalition represents?  What number of these are questionable due to AIS?
• Did the coalition already get letters from 100% of these claimants that their lawyers can vote for them, or is there risk that some of the claimants won't vote or will vote no even through their lawyers would recommend voting the other way?
• How will voting work .. is it 66% of those who voted or do they need 55,440 yes votes?

It seems like BSA is putting all of their eggs into the Coalition basket.  With the TCC on the other side, in addition to many other law firms, there appears to have no room for error.  I'm curious how risky this strategy would be as a no vote could put BSA's survival at risk.

[ThenNow]

34 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Did the coalition already get letters from 100% of these claimants that their lawyers can vote for them, or is there risk that some of the claimants won't vote or will vote no even through their lawyers would recommend voting the other way?

My recollection is they very much do not have letters from all of them. I believe the number is much lower than represented as the "ballots they can deliver." Memory ain't what it used to be, dough. 

[CynicalScouter]

Green now files an appearance (through his lawyers) and a letter to the judge:

The insurer's claims for his documents as to why he was picked as trustee and NOT as mediator are all mediation privileged.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d60659d9-f30a-432a-9fd8-adda406b9f90_6299.pdf

Quote

Pursuant to ABA Standard V, Professor Green was required to assert privilege over all
documents and information he generated or obtained in the course of his work on the mediation
for the short period of time between the end of March 2020 and the Court’s order appointing an
alternate mediator on June 9, 2020.

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

• Do we know the number of claimants to coalition represents?  What number of these are questionable due to AIS?
• Did the coalition already get letters from 100% of these claimants that their lawyers can vote for them, or is there risk that some of the claimants won't vote or will vote no even through their lawyers would recommend voting the other way?
• How will voting work .. is it 66% of those who voted or do they need 55,440 yes votes?

• The coalition claims 55,000 or so at least that was the number in the RSA
• They do NOT have letters from everyone. Note the letter I sent around/found on FB. They are asking for such letters.
• 66% of voters, not 66% of total votes.

Edited September 20, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

• 66% of voters, not 66% of total votes.

That is a high hurdle.  That means every non vote is essentially a no vote.  So, with 84,000 voters, they need 55,440 yes votes.  I think if the judge forces this through it will be very risky.   The TCC and many law firms are on the other side plus 12,000+ of that 55,000 are questionable (many may listen to Kosnoff).  What a mess.

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

That is a high hurdle.  That means every non vote is essentially a no vote.  So, with 84,000 voters, they need 55,440 yes votes.  I think if the judge forces this through it will be very risky.   The TCC and many law firms are on the other side plus 12,000+ of that 55,000 are questionable (many may listen to Kosnoff).  What a mess.

I agree. Highly doubt this Plan 5.0 makes it over without plotzing. I’ve seen some awful injuries observing high hurdles. I wanted nothing to do with them and wish that on no one. In this case, well...

[PeterHopkins]

On 9/15/2021 at 11:50 AM, ThenNow said:

You want to survive Chapter 11, go to Wilmington, DE.

I work as a tax planner and consultant in Delaware. There are lots of reasons entities are formed in or redomesticate to Delaware. One of them would be the efficiency of the bankruptcy court here. It is adept at handling large, complex cases. More than 2/3 of Furtune 500 companies are Delaware entities.

The expectation of having a specific judge assigned to a bankruptcy case is not a reason to redomesticate to Delaware, and Kosnoff is smart enough to know that.

[Muttsy]

To your knowledge has any judge sitting on the DE bankruptcy bench ever refused to confirm a plan over creditors’ objections to non-debtor releases? 

[Eagle1993]

49 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

That is a high hurdle.  That means every non vote is essentially a no vote.  So, with 84,000 voters, they need 55,440 yes votes.  I think if the judge forces this through it will be very risky.   The TCC and many law firms are on the other side plus 12,000+ of that 55,000 are questionable (many may listen to Kosnoff).  What a mess.