Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

There's a really concern here the Coalition is going to vote against client directions and/or pressure clients unethically.

If you vote yes, I can buy that vacation home in Cabo and you can afford a partial year of therapy.  If you vote no, I'll have to work more on this project and my wall street backers may increase my interest rate.  Please vote yes.  I think I heard a yes.  Ok, then, we agree ... yes.  Thanks!

Yeah ... good luck controlling the vote if the Coalition lawyers get the ballots.  As much as I love the BSA and I think this deal works out well for them, I really dislike the Coalition lawyers.  Those few hours I spent listening to court was enough to see who they represent.  BSA lawyers are great ... they represent BSA well.  The insurance lawyers are great defenders of their employer (one reminds me a a mob lawyer, but that's fine.)  The TCC lawyers ... also well spoken, clearly defending their position.  The claimant lawyers who are sex abuse lawyers have been stellar ... frequently objecting, telling us why it doesn't represent their client interests.  The one time I heard from the Coalition lawyer it was about themselves more than their clients.  It made me sick thinking that there is a group of people in this process so poorly represented.  It also makes me concerned, as a BSA supporter, that this could end bad ... because a group is so poorly represented.  I would rather have all sides represented well as the outcome is less likely to be appealed and when the plan is approved we are done.  I'm not convinced we are headed to that resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • 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,

A few months ago, one of the posters here offered some great advice I thought.  Type what you intend  to say. Set it aside for a few minutes and look at it again before you press "post". Does it

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

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

@CynicalScouter Do you have the link to register for this Zoom?  May be too late, but some may be interested.  

It is one of these zoom registrations, I forget which

The court prohibits providing direct Zoom links

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/62fd773a-1c0b-4533-ad29-f20527b5baac_6321.pdf

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8295d93f-c841-4c5d-beb8-7edd6cad2b2c_6331.pdf

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

All the kabitzing about "reliable", "fair", "equitable", and so on, especially in relation to assets, is simply legalese.  Few involved, especially the lawyers, can agree on much, if anything.  Greed is the guiding principle, especially with most of the lawyers.  But, even with some claimants I suspect, as if vetting was done thoroughly, some would be shown to be pretty much made up.  

Reality suggests, at least to me, that there is no end result that will find large satisfaction.  And the idea that somehow destroying the 95%+ positive elements of BSA, or for that matter, any youth serving groups, is fair to ALL is nonsense.  Humans are not capable of total real acceptance, and many are simply unable to see beyond their noses.  JMHO of course.  

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

All the kabitzing about "reliable", "fair", "equitable", and so on, especially in relation to assets, is simply legalese.  Few involved, especially the lawyers, can agree on much, if anything.  Greed is the guiding principle, especially with most of the lawyers.  But, even with some claimants I suspect, as if vetting was done thoroughly, some would be shown to be pretty much made up.  

Reality suggests, at least to me, that there is no end result that will find large satisfaction.  And the idea that somehow destroying the 95%+ positive elements of BSA, or for that matter, any youth serving groups, is fair to ALL is nonsense.  Humans are not capable of total real acceptance, and many are simply unable to see beyond their noses.  JMHO of course.  

Then don’t include COs and LCs in the deal and it can close.  The issue is COs and LCs are asking to wash their sins by paying a sum of money …. So who determines that sum?  That is the issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2021 at 2:47 PM, Muttsy said:

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?

No, but the amount of bankruptcy work I've done in Delaware (and New York) is insufficient to draw a conclusion from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point in court ... for the vote, the TCC wants to know votes for/against for BSA, LC and by CO.  For example, what % of Greater St. Louis Council votes in favor of the deal.  Same with LDS, Methodist, etc.  So those who are non LDS cannot release LDS.  Those who were not in St. Louis Council cannot release St. Louis Council.  Right now, they are talking about the ballot as it may be needed at confirmation (for example, there is a chance releases would be by council depending on council by council vote).  Judge wants to make sure there is the ability to know voting by council at confirmation (and CO).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So those who are non LDS cannot release LDS.  Those who were not in St. Louis Council cannot release St. Louis Council. 

Right, why should a hypothetical California claimant (no statute of limitations) get outvoted by everyone else about his claim against Golden Empire Council? I guess I can see maybe about BSA, but not the LCs.

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

Right, why should a hypothetical California claimant (no statute of limitations) get outvoted by everyone else about his claim against Golden Empire Council? I guess I can see maybe about BSA, but not the LCs.

The Ad Hoc committee lawyer for the councils raised a concern about this path, so it will be a post vote confirmation battle.  A plaintiff lawyer made it clear that this bankruptcy is different than others as there are individual non debtors that have their separate claims each attempting to get their claims settled.  The court decided to leave council names off the ballot, but said that is because they will know who voted and could later determine outcome of the vote by council, by CO, etc.  All of that will be available by discovery.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2021 at 10:13 PM, SiouxRanger said:

IF, and only IF that is the case, the question becomes, why would National include clearly time-barred claimants as a class of creditors to receive some payment?  And the only answer I can come up with is that National wanted to appear that it was trying to "equitably compensate" abuse survivors.

While that is what is being said, I suspect the true obective is to have finality regarding everythig with respect to both National and the local councils. They never want to deal with the past again.

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

$1 per vote right now.  However, at confirmation, she will be open to argument that the weighting can be changed post vote.

Yep. What a mess. That means that the California victim's vote is $1, the Alabama victim's worth 10 cents

Another mess: 75% of votes approved the plan BUT during confirmation the values are adjusted down, so that less than 66% approve.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Eagle1993 locked and unlocked this topic
  • Eagle1993 featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Eagle1993 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...