Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

35 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Stang: "We do think you are going to have to value the claims."

The TCC wants to employ a valuation expert. The judge WILL be asked to value the claims by the TCC.

This was the motion Stang/TCC to hire a claims valuation expert.

As noted: BSA is insisting, and continues to insist, that as a result of statutes of limitations and other factors the TOTAL claims values AGGREGATED are in the $2-7 billion range. The TCC is clearly going to want a much bigger number.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of talk about "Master Mortgage" standards. That refers to a case about third-party releases.

Note that second prong

"In Master Mortgage, the court outlined the following five factors that bankruptcy courts should consider when evaluating the release of claims against a nondebtor third party without the consent or agreement of the party deemed to be bound by such release:

(1) An identity of interest between the debtor and the third party, such that a suit against the nondebtor is, in essence, a suit against the debtor or will deplete assets of the estate;

(2) Substantial contribution by the nondebtor of assets to the reorganization;

(3) The essential nature of the injunction to the reorganization to the extent that, without the injunction, there is little likelihood of success;

(4) An agreement by a substantial majority of creditors to support the injunction, specifically if the impacted class or classes “overwhelmingly” vote to accept the plan; and

(5) Provision in the plan for payment of all or substantially all of the claims of the class or classes affected by the injunction."

The BSA is a debtor, but if the LCs and COs want to be released, they will HAVE to show to the court that they made a "substantial contribution...of assets to the reorganization".

How "substantial" is "substantial"? Well, that's why the TCC wants a) a true and accurate valuation of LC properties (which they think the LCs are low-balling) and b) aggregated claims values.

If I had to guess, "substantial" could be valued one of two ways

  • Total contribution to settlement. If the settlement trust is $100 million and a nondebtor third party chipped in $99.9 million, that's "substantial". But what about $25 million? $2.5 million?
  • Total contribution to settlement as a percent of assets: And this is where I think the LDS and LCs are going to get plowed under. The LDS is settling for $250 million and there are reports they have $100 billion in assets. That 0.25% of assets. That's not "substantial", that's a rounding error. As for the LCs, the TCC has already staked its claim that $500 million is not "substantial" enough and they can afford to go to at least $1.5 billion

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just wow. The Coalition is outright attaching the TCC. Rothweiler of Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. (the third lawfirm that made up AIS) is trashing the TCC. Paraphrase: The TCC needs to focus on helping survivors, not putting up roadblocks.

This the first time I've seen claimants attorneys trashing the TCC or each other. Zalkin at least was respectful in disagreeing when he did with the TCC on some points. But Rothweiler  just outright trashed Stang and the TCC.

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

The Coalition is claiming its "survivors committee" should be listened to. The presumption is not the TCC.

I think Mr. KR is making his application for Knighthood, Sainthood, the Congressional Gold Medal and Presidential Medal of Freedom. Good grief. “Ditch the TCC. We got this...”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rothweiler tries to make people feel bad for HIM because everyone is against the poor mass tort attorneys and he has invested so much into this and its taken its toll.  His comments go on and on and the judge has lost control of her courtroom.    So the judge lets Rothweiler speak until he's done and now lets Stand speak but cautions him about time.  Unbelievable.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Rothweiler  just outright trashed Stang and the TC

Yup. Wow, indeed. The recitation of his CV was the setup for his attack from the High Wall while riding the White Horse with the Sword of Justice extended. 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stang being allowed to respond to the Rothweiler attack. Judge lets Stang know she is aware that he and the TCC will disagree with what was just said. Stang "I had to take a really deep breath."

Stang: Rothweiler said he was "on the TCC". No, he wasn't. Kennedy and the other victims were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I think Mr. KR is making his application for Knighthood, Sainthood, the Congressional Gold Medal and Presidential Medal of Freedom. Good grief. “Ditch the TCC. We got this...”

He gets none of them. Jim Stang’s application over road it with flourish, flare and fury. 

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...