Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Theme of the day for the Judge: "We'll let this go and deal with it another time if we have to."  Possibility of this creating a mess at another time: 100%.  I suggested that she would learn from her Imerys mistakes.  It appears I was wrong.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • 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

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

Theme of the day for the Judge: "We'll let this go and deal with it another time if we have to."  Possibility of this creating a mess at another time: 100%.  I suggested that she would learn from her Imerys mistakes.  It appears I was wrong.

 

I think to put this in perspective ... wasn't the vote from Imerys back in April roughly?  They are still debating the results of the vote now (5 months later).  We could be in a situation where the vote occurs in October and we are debating the results in March 2022.... and that isn't even talking about confirmation of the plan.

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

I think to put this in perspective ... wasn't the vote from Imerys back in April roughly?  They are still debating the results of the vote now (5 months later).  We could be in a situation where the vote occurs in October and we are debating the results in March 2022.... and that isn't even talking about confirmation of the plan.

Collecting date, like voting, is best done when you have VERY specific and logical methodology.  The worst data always is produced when you collect it first and then say "Okay, now let's figure out what it means."

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

The worst data always is produced when you collect it first and then say "Okay, now let's figure out what it means."

Yep. A research methodologist ("Collect data first, THEN decide the parameters.") would be screaming right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At issue: will the Coalition be forced to turn over all the power of attorneys that show that the Coalition lawyers are in fact allowed to a) vote on behalf of their client and/or b) collect the ballots that are voted by the clients.

So there are two issues:

  1. Can the lawyer vote FOR their client? ("Voters")
  2. Can the lawyer COLLECT the client's filled in ballot and mail it in? ("Transmitters")

And let's get written proof of the above, signed by the clients.

You can have a power of attorney that covers BOTH, or ONE, but many of these I bet cover NONE.

That means the Coalition's power to "deliver the votes" is going to get crippled.

Let's see what the judge rules.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coalition may also try a "negative notice": if the client says NOTHING, the Coalition lawyer will assume the client would vote "yes" and will vote "yes" for them.

That's the Coalition's endgame here? THAT is how they think they'll get the votes? They will simply mail clients notice "If you do NOT specifically tell us no, we are going to vote yes for the plan for you."

WOW.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Judge is going to insist on lawyers  attach to the master ballot somehow a document showing how it gained the AFFIRMATIVE consent of the client.

So ... they cannot assume a YES vote if they don't hear from the client.  Which lawyer will represent AIS clients?  Could we see three different firms submit those clients votes and what happens if the votes don't match?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

So ... they cannot assume a YES vote if they don't hear from the client.

Right. Silence = silence. Not a yes. Not a no. Simply silence. UNLESS (and this is the unless) UNLESS there is a specific signed document that allows the attorney to vote for the client.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion about the BSA timetable.

I laid it out here

https://www.scouter.com/topic/32791-chapter-11-announced-part-6-plan-50tcc-plan-tbd/page/17/?tab=comments#comment-532716

60 days to solicit ballot, the judge wants it. BSA wanted like 45.

With that, all the deadlines get pushed back.

Now Tanc and others want extended discovery deadlines.

Now we are talking 2022 if I understand this right.

NOW BSA is claiming they are out of cash in 1Q 2022. We've heard this before.

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

Right. Silence = silence. Not a yes. Not a no. Simply silence. UNLESS (and this is the unless) UNLESS there is a specific signed document that allows the attorney to vote for the client.

To me this is 100% fair. 

 

I think Century lawyer pointed out the big issue.  The largest group of claimants which the Coalition claims comes from AIS.  AIS is really 3 law firms, and they are NOT aligned.  Some are on board with the deal, others are not.  Without AIS, the coalition's power fades greatly.  I would not be surprised if many claimants from AIS have multiple and inconsistent votes submitted on their behalf.  If that happens, it will be a giant disaster.   The judge really needs to step in regarding the AIS claimants.  

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Now we are talking 2022 if I understand this right.

We were likely in 2022 anyway, but this seems to make it official.

 

 

 

Edited by Eagle1993
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

December 9 is "off the table", so confirmation hearing date needs to be reset.

BSA's claiming that the longer it goes past December 31, the less cash it will have.

If I heard it right, they are claiming if they are not out by March (could have been May), the amount of cash they can contribute to the settlement reaches $0.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

If I heard it right, they are claiming if they are not out by March (could have been May), the amount of cash they can contribute to the settlement reaches $0.

 

US Trustee was a bit spicy today and he held his own.  I don't think he was joking about BSA filing Chapter 7.  His point ... if you do not have enough cash to work your way through Chapter 11 by following the law, you need to reconsider filing for Chapter 7.   Basically, you can't rush this and undercut law by saying you are out of money.  You always have the option to liquidate.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

December 9 is "off the table", so confirmation hearing date needs to be reset.

BSA's claiming that the longer it goes past December 31, the less cash it will have.

If I heard it right, they are claiming if they are not out by March (could have been May), the amount of cash they can contribute to the settlement reaches $0.

IMHO,  BSA National will reach an inflection point where their legal expenses* exceed their victims' trust contribution before they run out of money.

My $0.02,

*legal expenses starting back in 2018 when BSA hired Sidley Austin

Edited by RememberSchiff
  • Upvote 3
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...