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

14 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Not sure USA Today is a very reliable source from most of what they publish.  

The data they have is EXACTLY the same data published by the BSA as part of its disclosure statement. Unless the BSA is lying?

The data comes from the BSA disclosure statement. PDF pages 40-42 of this document.

I reformatted it here to avoid referring to abuse types (I called it Tier 1-6, the disclosure statement spells it out). https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

 

 

 

Base Min

 

Base Max

 

9.63% of Base Min

 

Open

 

Gray 1 Midpoint

 

Gray 2 Midpoint

 

Gray 3 Midpoint

 

Closed Midpoint

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100.00%

 

60.00%

 

37.50%

 

17.50%

 

5.50%

 

Tier 1

 

$600,000

 

$2,700,000

 

$57,771

 

$57,771

 

$34,663

 

$21,664

 

$10,110

 

$3,177

 

Tier 2

 

$450,000

 

$2,025,000

 

$43,328

 

$43,328

 

$25,997

 

$16,248

 

$7,582

 

$2,383

 

Tier 3

 

$300,000

 

$1,350,000

 

$28,886

 

$28,886

 

$17,332

 

$10,832

 

$5,055

 

$1,589

 

Tier 4

 

$150,000

 

$675,000

 

$14,443

 

$14,443

 

$8,666

 

$5,416

 

$2,528

 

$794

 

Tier 5

 

$75,000

 

$337,500

 

$7,221

 

$7,221

 

$4,333

 

$2,708

 

$1,264

 

$397

 

Tier 6

 

$3,500

 

$8,500

 

$337

 

$337

 

$202

 

$126

 

$59

 

$19

 

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

Not sure USA Today is a very reliable source from most of what they publish.  

The reporter has been following the case and the only questionable thing I see is that $19 comment. 
 

The truth is that BSA is asking claimants to settle for far less than the average Catholic Church payout of $268K per abuse claim.  They can try to put lipstick on this pig, it’s still a pig.  The question is if that pig can get better if the deal is rejected.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what do you know: The Coalition is also objecting to Rule 2004 discovery as well.

They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.

The argument is, in effect, that now that the court has agreed to allow all 82,500 claimants to vote, there is no legal basis for Century to examine or ask to examine how those claims were generated.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0cf9b37e-1d03-45af-b46d-411e1171879c_6460.pdf

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

The reporter has been following the case and the only questionable thing I see is that $19 comment.

The $19 comment comes directly from BSA's own table/chart. It refers to Tier 6 abuse in a closed state. It appears PDF page 41 of this BSA disclosure statement.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge news if true.  
 

 

D2C95565-A15A-4DF1-B13E-9990FCC8C44F.jpeg

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The $19 comment comes directly from BSA's own table/chart. It refers to Tier 6 abuse in a closed state. It appears PDF page 41 of this BSA disclosure statement.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

So will the $3500 quick pay be reduced based on state? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eagle1993 said:

Huge news if true. 

Kosnoff has always said the AIS will not use master ballots and the other two firms have agreed to that from the start.

It is also a question of whether victims look at $3500 as an insult and vote no or a sign of defeat.

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

And what do you know: The Coalition is also objecting to Rule 2004 discovery as well.

They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.

The argument is, in effect, that now that the court has agreed to allow all 82,500 claimants to vote, there is no legal basis for Century to examine or ask to examine how those claims were generated.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0cf9b37e-1d03-45af-b46d-411e1171879c_6460.pdf

That is garbage.  Even the judge stated she needed to get through the disclosure so she could move on to discovery.   Will be interesting to see how she rules.  

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

And what do you know: The Coalition is also objecting to Rule 2004 discovery as well.

They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.

The argument is, in effect, that now that the court has agreed to allow all 82,500 claimants to vote, there is no legal basis for Century to examine or ask to examine how those claims were generated.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0cf9b37e-1d03-45af-b46d-411e1171879c_6460.pdf

I'm sorry folks, but I just literally can NOT get over this. The Coalition is now arguing that ANY examination of the aggregators must end because the judge, in accepting the solicitation plan that allows all 82,500 claimants to vote, has in effect mooted discovery in to HOW those claims were generated.

Somehow I doubt that's what the judge thought she was doing, but who knows at this point.

Quote

While there arguably was not a plan in front of the Court when the Rule 2004 Motions were filed and the 2004 Discovery Order was entered, there undoubtedly is now. Further deliberation concerning the Original 2004 Motion and Rule 2004 Motions is not necessary. While the Coalition might dispute the factual premises for the Original 2004 Motion and Rule 2004 Motions and reserves all rights to object to any particular discovery request, there is no reasonable dispute that discovery does not require an award of Rule 2004 relief by this Court.

 

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

I'm sorry folks, but I just literally can NOT get over this. The Coalition is now arguing that ANY examination of the aggregators must end because the judge, in accepting the solicitation plan that allows all 82,500 claimants to vote, has in effect mooted discovery in to HOW those claims were generated.

Somehow I doubt that's what the judge thought she was doing, but who knows at this point.

 

I see no way this flys.  During the hearing there were several discussions about discovery.   The plan hasn’t been confirmed.  How can they have a confirmation hearing without this discovery?

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

The reporter has been following the case and the only questionable thing I see is that $19 comment. 
 

The truth is that BSA is asking claimants to settle for far less than the average Catholic Church payout of $268K per abuse claim.  They can try to put lipstick on this pig, it’s still a pig.  The question is if that pig can get better if the deal is rejected.   

Where is the DOJ/U.S. Trustee in this?

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

They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.

The argument is, in effect, that now that the court has agreed to allow all 82,500 claimants to vote, there is no legal basis for Century to examine or ask to examine how those claims were generated.

Clearly, no shame. I hope and pray their unabashed brazenness comes back to bite them. Viciously. As a matter of ethics, isn’t there yet a compelling interest of the court to examine, even it their lack of shame wasn’t so shameful, which it is? Having no shame is, in this context, well, shameful. 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Where is the DOJ/U.S. Trustee in this?

Possibly not interviewed or have a no comment.

keep in mind the UST is in record/ in briefs at least questioning the use of channeling injunctions like this for third party not debtors. I would expect at confirmation the UST to oppose much/most of this Plan.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

During the hearing there were several discussions about discovery.   The plan hasn’t been confirmed.  How can they have a confirmation hearing without this discovery?

Yes. Agreed. I recall several times she shut down attorneys deferring or deflecting with, “that’s a confirmation issue” and “you’ll have discovery for that” or language similar. She didn’t make her discovery rulings in ignorance of how this process works or with the anticipation that would “expire” upon her approval of solicitation. That’s boneheaded to think and even more numbskulled to put in a motion. That’s my cranky opinion anywho. 

Edited by ThenNow
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...