Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Yep. the TCC knew this was coming.  Now we'll see a group that might care about ALL victims.  Worth noting why the Coalition just might think the BSA plan is a good one.  The lawyers that are a part of the Coalition GET REIMBURSED 10.5 MILLION DOLLARS to pay their attorneys. PLUS almost a million a month until this is done.  That's money that could have gone to victims everyone.  The portion below....

19. Payment of Coalition Restructuring Expenses
On or as soon as reasonably practicable after the Effective Date, Reorganized BSA shall
reimburse state court counsel for amounts they have paid to the Coalition Professionals for,
and/or pay the Coalition Professionals for amounts payable by state court counsel but not yet
paid to Coalition Professionals for, reasonable, documented, and contractual professional
advisory fees and expenses incurred by the Coalition Professionals (the “Coalition Restructuring
Expenses”) from the Coalition’s inception up to and including the Effective Date, up to a
maximum amount equal to (a) $950,000 per month for the period from August 16, 2021 up to
and including the Effective Date (pro-rated for any partial month), plus (b) $10,500,000

So....Hartford gets off lighter and drops its administratvive claim...Coalition takes less than it should but its bills get paid...  THAT'S why the TCC is saying "Enough is enough." 

 

Didn't the judge scrap this ask as part of the RSA?  

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

1 hour ago, MattR said:

Putting on my moderator hat here. Those using scatological terms to describe plans need to stop. The lawyers are doing there job.

I bow to the moderators and rend my garments. Apologies. Truly. (MYCVA started it, though. :)  Jk.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I like the TCC Plan. A LOT. Quite an about face. It is a much clearer path. I’m sorry it has taken so long to roll out. It could well be a game changer. 

So, could the following take place:

  1. The TCC gets the judge to submit its plan OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the the BSA/Coalition/FCR/Hartford/LDS.
  2. The Coalition lawyers recommend to their clients they reject the TCC plan.
  3. Now, instead of the BSA plan failing because the Kosnoff/burn-it-all-down groups ensure the vote stays below 67%, now it is the Coalition that encourages enough clients to vote "no" that the TCC plan cannot get 67%.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eagle1993 said:

There is 0 percent chance she allows this.  It seemed to anger her a bit.  It looks like a bribe....

Right, but she ruled I believe "without prejudice" meaning, they could try again. Doesn't mean it will WORK any better the second time around of course...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m wondering if the TCC approach requires 2/3rds. It is a consensual plan for those who consent. The non-participating entities don’t get released. I think it gives the trustee much more leverage. It puts some money in survivors’ pockets now and preserves the prospect of much larger insurance contributions down the road. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the TCC Plan will appeal to the judge who probably doesn’t care which plan gets BSA out of bankruptcy. The TCC plan is less problematic legally because it allows survivors to go back in to the tort system and get actual judgments which would be binding on the carriers. That’s where the true pressure points are. Plan 5.0 is cockamamie, rife with appeal issues and too cheap. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I’m wondering if the TCC approach requires 2/3rds. It is a consensual plan for those who consent.

Any plan requires 2/3rds of claimants in each class with claims valued at at least 50%. 11 U.S. Code § 1126.

Quote

(c) A class of claims has accepted a plan if such plan has been accepted by creditors, other than any entity designated under subsection (e) of this section, that hold at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number of the allowed claims of such class held by creditors, other than any entity designated under subsection (e) of this section, that have accepted or rejected such plan.

Since each claim is valued at $1, that's 2/3rds of victims voting.

In this case, all the victims are voting on is a plan that keeps their options open: they can accept what the plan is offering OR go into the settlement trustee system or go back into the tort system (item #6)

Quote

6. the TCC Plan includes modified TDPs that allow survivors to pursue and liquidate their claims in the tort system, enabling them to trigger the payment provisions under the applicable insurance policies

 

 

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

And she went on for a page and a half as to every reason why she objected to the idea. 

Yes, but she could have said "with prejudice" is my point. In other words, BSA was stupid to try again, but not outright out of line/contempt.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Eagle1993 locked and unlocked this topic
21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Any plan requires 2/3rds of claimants in each class with claims valued at at least 50%. 11 U.S. Code § 1126.

Since each claim is valued at $1, that's 2/3rds of victims voting.

In this case, all the victims are voting on is a plan that keeps their options open: they can accept what the plan is offering OR go into the settlement trustee system or go back into the tort system (item #6)

 

 

This plan would likely doom the BSA.  It will embroil the LC's in lawsuits resulting in bankruptcies.  This will make any membership growth impossible as the councils will rapidly have to decrease staff to meet the legal costs.  Losing membership will doom the BSA and the LC's over a few years.  This is disastrous.

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...