Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, David CO said:

 

If a Catholic diocese went through bankruptcy a few years ago during the clergy sexual abuse scandal, are their CO's still on the hook for the BSA lawsuits? 

 

A little complicated but here goes: assuming the parishes were not separately incorporated COs, the discharge in bk of the diocese discharged and channeled all claims arising before the diocese’s bankruptcy petition date are discharged or fall in to the future claimant category. 
 

Abuse occurrences occurring after the effective date of the discharge, could be brought against the diocese. 
 

That’s my understanding. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • 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

25 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

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

But here's the rub.  People on this forum are not typical.  We'll probably all vote personally.  However, tomorrow she's going to start addressing the "master ballot" issue.  Essentially, this means that attorneys will be voting on behalf of their clients.  The issue then is whether there is agreement to do so and what robustness the judge requires.  So, must attorneys certify that they have discussed with their clients the plan and their wishes and received authorization to vote on their behalf (and have proof of  that authorization) or can attorneys just send out an email that says "If we don't hear from you we'll assume it's a 'Yes' vote and take care of that."

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

We'll probably all vote personally.

I also believe I heard something about a “hub system” which I guess means that claimants send their ballots to their lawyer who collects them and then sends to the court?

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

I also believe I heard something about a “hub system” which I guess means that claimants send their ballots to their lawyer who collects them and then sends to the court?

She's VERY concerned about the voting procedures because it has become a mess in Imerys where she is presiding.  That may be a good thing in this case.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

But here's the rub.  People on this forum are not typical.  We'll probably all vote personally.  However, tomorrow she's going to start addressing the "master ballot" issue.  Essentially, this means that attorneys will be voting on behalf of their clients.  The issue then is whether there is agreement to do so and what robustness the judge requires.  So, must attorneys certify that they have discussed with their clients the plan and their wishes and received authorization to vote on their behalf (and have proof of  that authorization) or can attorneys just send out an email that says "If we don't hear from you we'll assume it's a 'Yes' vote and take care of that."

Given the disaster of her other case that involves voting of large number of claims she better be careful to avoid a repeat.
 


https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/imerys-talc-reorg-plan-vote-changes-prompt-confusion-contention-bankruptcy-2021-06-23/

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Given the disaster of her other case that involves voting of large number of claims she better be careful to avoid a repeat.

Thank you she mentioned this or alluded to it I had no idea it was that bad.

wow

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

And take years to sort through.

I agree with you.

 

Personally, I don't have any sympathy for National that the mess it created could take years to resolve, with time running adversely against National, the tortfeasor.  National made this mess and it should step up and take real measures that "equitably compensate" abuse survivors. And give them sound information to make an informed decision on its Plan.  "Informed Consent" as a concept has worked its way into many aspects of life, except, apparently, bankruptcy law.  And if National liquidates, well, someone will step up and pick up the pieces.  It just won't be the self-interested folks that got everyone in this mess.

Accepting National's argument that it can't afford delay (to clean up our own mess) in effect, blames the abuse victims.

And that is intolerable.

 

Edited by SiouxRanger
typo
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Given the disaster of her other case that involves voting of large number of claims she better be careful to avoid a repeat.
 


https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/imerys-talc-reorg-plan-vote-changes-prompt-confusion-contention-bankruptcy-2021-06-23/

From the above quoted article:

Silverstein herself admitted that she did not pay close attention to the provision of the solicitation procedures order governing vote changes.

“Just because I signed it doesn’t mean it’s correct,” she said.

Res ipsa loquitur. (the thing speaks for itself.)

I was going to write something about this statement, but instead, I am headed to the garage to put my head in a vise.  Ten minutes used to be enough before this week, when I increased my dose to 20 minutes.  With this statement of the Judge: we'll try 30 minutes...

(Now I understand why this process seems so hesitant, tentative, and chaotic. Oh, and downright unjust.)

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

Silverstein herself admitted that she did not pay close attention to the provision of the solicitation procedures order governing vote changes.

“Just because I signed it doesn’t mean it’s correct,” she said.

I really think this is good news in the BSA bankruptcy proceedings.  Imerys was her first mass tort bankruptcy and she learned what NOT to do with voting.  Let's hope she's given thought to what TO do. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I really think this is good news in the BSA bankruptcy proceedings.  Imerys was her first mass tort bankruptcy and she learned what NOT to do with voting.  Let's hope she's given thought to what TO do. 

Oh, I only so hope you are right.

Judges really fear and hate being appealed and more so detest being reversed.

But if she has learned little, that means that the abuse survivors will have to sit out an appeal.

 I truly hope that is not so for them.

 

We, or at least I, do not have much insight as to what is happening behind the scenes, but I am totally unimpressed with the proceedings so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:
4 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

National made this mess and it should step up and take real measures that "equitably compensate" abuse survivors.

What does that look like in your eyes?

This is a great question and was asked to me by my therapist and honestly I had no real answer.  In the context of how this bankruptcy is unfolding I think there will never be enough monetary compensation to make a difference.  It appears  at this juncture that I as an abused will have no real recourse but just to accept whatever will awarded to me and what that amount will be is anyone's guess.  From what I have read and all that I can glean from comments and lawyer statements it looks like I will be asked to vote for something that really promises me nothing.  

I will say that if to little is awarded then it will feel as if my suffering and my pain will have very little value in the eyes of those who were responsible to keep me safe. That includes the BSA, my LC and the insurance company who theoretically backed them by granting a policy.  I think it would also be fair to say that the Judge in this case might also be one to think has no real value for mine and others pain and suffering.  First I think she should be telling LC's and CO's that if they want to be channeled in then they need to pony up enough that it actually hurts them financially. Not to the point of putting them out of existence but actual financial pain.  I also believe she should have the same attitude towards the insurance company if they want to settle now.  Otherwise all of them can take their chance in state court.  

I would like to add one more thought and that is I believe that no matter what the outcome will be many who are victims are being revictimized and the mental devastation that opening up these old wounds will cost many lives.

Edited by johnsch322
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I believe that no matter what the outcome will be many who are victims are being revictimized and the mental devastation that opening up these old wounds will cost many lives.

On this point, I feel affirmed to be echoed, but hate that it seems few who can or will do anything are listening. I know for a fact that some of you reading this care and are fighting valiantly. We are grateful. The media need to take up this story now. I suppose, in the beginning, middle and end, there is no real leverage point into the turgid muck of the bankruptcy process. The self-interested will not be dissuaded from their march through the village nor persuaded by human misery along the way. “Alas. Earwax...”

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

First I think she should be telling LC's and CO's that if they want to be channeled in then they need to pony up enough that it actually hurts them financially. Not to the point of putting them out of existence but actual financial pain.  I also believe she should have the same attitude towards the insurance company if they want to settle now.  Otherwise all of them can take their chance in state court.  

This is one of the best observations I've seen. As there isn't enough money to cover typical payouts, all of the discussion about how to compute a final amount is only good for showing that there isn't enough money to go around.

Past that, the only measure is "pain" to the debtors. I suspect it's the unwritten rule in the room, at least for the judge, and all the details are just a way to talk about what they can in a bankruptcy case - money - while the underlying discussion is about pain. I'm not sure why the claimants don't just bring it up directly. 

As for the renewed pain of the victims, I'm sorry to hear that. 

 

 

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...