Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Just now, MYCVAStory said:

It's why she keeps saying "This isn't a disclosure issue, it's a confirmation issue."

My experience has been decades in state civil (and a little) criminal courts. I've never, ever seen this much "kick the can down the road" but I'll take your word for "this is normal".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is Doug Kennedy, a member of the TCC.  First, I want to thank all of you for your comments over the past 18 months.  Your comments and those in other forums, whether I disagree with them or not,

Scouter.com is not well liked by National and believe me, while we are all scouters, we have various opinions of BSA.  I think if BSA fails, we will help build up a new scouting organization. If you w

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, Cyni

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

My experience has been decades in state civil (and a little) criminal courts. I've never, ever seen this much "kick the can down the road" but I'll take your word for "this is normal".

When I asked my bankruptcy folks I was told "This is pretty typical."

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Of note....the judge commenting earlier that she is "new to mass tort bankruptcy."  Wow.  That should really make victims feel comfortable.

Yup. Lovely. And, there it is in living color and on the record. Is this the biggest on record? Where does it rank? Talk about getting into the bigs from the jump without so much as an practice swing. Meh, meh, meh. I would characterize this as an admission well after the fact (was obvious). My opinion of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

This month's request for compensation from the parties should be jaw-dropping.

Mine has been on the floor for sometime. Better get busy pulling up hardwood and subfloor to squeeze my head between the joists. That way, I have at least ten more feet before the basement concrete. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThenNow said:

Yup. Lovely. And, there it is in living color and on the record. Is this the biggest on record? Where does it rank? Talk about getting into the bigs from the jump without so much as an practice swing. Meh, meh, meh. I would characterize this as an admission well after the fact (was obvious). My opinion of course. 

To be accurate, she is the Judge in the Imerys (Talc) bankruptcy and that is mass tort.  So perhaps she meant this was her first "abuse bankruptcy."  Still....

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan for tomorrow: Go over the solicitation process and scheduling of the voting. Non-disclosure related items come first. There's a pro se party (this is I believe the Mones effort to withdraw as counsel?)

BY FRIDAY: New/revised solicitation document. BSA claims it will only take 1-2 hours next week to go over the "minor" edits. Yeah. Minor.

The CO issues are being delayed/tabled because there are ongoing discussions and, as someone noted, it makes no sense to argue now in public when they are working this out behind the scenes.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Schivoni has indicated he will be making a big issue about solicitation procedures about the fraudulent/aggregators. "We've made a robust record" which is telegraph for "We'll appeal".

Kosnoff's Rule 2019 in particular is mentioned and how Kosoff indicated someone misused his name/signature.

"There's no discussion or disclosure about these claims"

He is pushing for lawyer depositions.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge is fighting, hard, and I mean HARD against having the disclosure statement include aggregate contributions / victim. So the math I and others have been doing (e.g. $250 million from LDS /2400 claims = average pf $104,000) the judge is saying has way too many assumptions regarding statute of limitations, types of abuse, etc. Therefore, she doesn't think that is helpful information since it has too many assumptions built in.

This is the same argument that came up and was rejected (for now) with Hartford and LCs.

So all the math I've been doing (contribution / claims = average) has been rejected by the court.

So...my work was useless I guess. Alas. Alack.

Stang then offered the following: well BSA says total payouts are 2.4-7 billion, and LDS claims are 10% of all claims (he just pulled a percentage for easy math) then LDS's total exposure is $240 million - $700 million and they are only paying out $250 million. Can THAT math be put into the disclosure? Answer (appears) to be no.

In other words, they are going to do everything they can to NOT have any of the charts I and others have done such as LC contribution / claims, etc.

Her point is that kind of ham fisted math as SOOOOOOO many assumptions and SOOO much contested questions that it could be misleading.

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

Her point is that kind of ham fisted math as SOOOOOOO many assumptions and SOOO much contested questions that it could be misleading.

Seems to me that what is left is also misleading, and pro National.

Perhaps the Judge should compel the parties to produce accurate information so the the vote results are not corrupted by misleading simplification or misleading complexity.

This is looking a lot like a third grade aptitude test:  "Class-time is up, pencils down."

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Perhaps the Judge should compel the parties to produce accurate information

As she pointed out, some of this is "Facts" (and no "alternative facts") and some contested issues.

For example I recall the issue of "occurrence". It may be a "fact" that Hartford in 1972 had a policy for BSA that had $500,000 cap per "occurrence" and no aggregate cap, but TCC and plaintiffs attorneys are going to say that each  "occurrence" means each act of sexual abuse where Hartford is going to claim no, it means (in effect) per abuse victim.

Not to mention the statute of limitations issues.

So, there's "accurate" and then there is "contested".

EDIT: It is "Accurate" to say there were 2400 claims in 1972 (maybe)

But is it accurate to say they were valid? Time barred? 2400 "occurrences" or 2400 claims involving 5000 "occurrences".

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

So...my work was useless I guess. Alas. Alack.

Not so. You identified the 900 pound gorilla in the room. It is the kiss of death for this Plan. All claimants will do what you do, divide the pot by the number of claims and vote the check box that says “Heck, no!

These bankruptcy lawyers may all be Ivy League but they don’t know boo about people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...