Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Zebra132 said:

I was watching court this morning but got there after Lauria started her address to the court. For all the hooplah, I thought I was going to see a multipage email instead of a copy of a Tweet!

This is a complete nothing burger. Kosnoff's communications were completely legitimate legal opinions. He had an absolute right to communicate to his clients Friday night after Eisenberg Rothweiler blind-sided him with the eBallot. That firm had a fiduciary duty to Kosnoff to let him see it before they started emailing it out to their joint clients. Saying that a lawyer is making false and misleading statements is not defamatory, particularly when it is true. 

The only mistake made was a clerical error by not limiting the email to Kosnoff's clients. And the TCC has a right under the bankruptcy code to distribute anything they believe is helpful to its constituents, including Kosnoff's letter. The Debtor doesn't get to control what the TCC decides to communicate to its constituents. I hope the TCC doesn't cave on this important First Amendment right. 

Century Glove's interpretation of the section cannot stand. Century Glove argues, and the bankruptcy court assumed, that only approved statements may be communicated to creditors. The statute, however, never limits the facts which a creditor may receive, but only the time when a creditor may be solicited. Congress was concerned not that creditors' votes were based on misinformation, but that they were based on no information at all. See H.R. 95-595, at pp. 225-25, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 124 Cong. Rec. ___, reprinted in, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.A.N. 5963, 6185 (House Report). Rather than limiting the information available to a creditor, Sec. 1125 seeks to guarantee a minimum amount of information to the creditor asked for its vote. See S.R. 95-989, at pp. 121, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 124 Cong.Rec. ___, reprinted in, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.A.N. 5787, 5907 ("A plan is necessarily predicated on knowledge of the assets and liabilities being dealt with and on factually supported expectations as to the future course of the business....") (Senate Report). The provision sets a floor, not a ceiling. Thus, we find that Sec. 1125 does not on its face empower the bankruptcy court to require that all communications between creditors be approved by the court.

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/860/94/465752/

 

  • Upvote 2
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, Eagle1993 said:

I also agree, if some of Kosnoff's tweets are accurate (passwords in the clear, questionable eBallots, etc.) those should be raised to the court as well.

So, kossnoff has tweeted about passwords in the clear, lawyers might have quit the coalition, and things the coalition said might be illegal. And none of this has been raised with the court. Who's trying to sway the vote? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MattR said:

So, kossnoff has tweeted about passwords in the clear, lawyers might have quit the coalition, and things the coalition said might be illegal. And none of this has been raised with the court. Who's trying to sway the vote? 

Swaying the vote is what all lawyers do. Otherwise we would just have the packet without letters and no communication with lawyers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Swaying the vote is what all lawyers do. Otherwise we would just have the packet without letters and no communication with lawyers. 

Therefore, nobody should whine about what Ken is doing, it's just part of the game.

I think it's time for this thread to get back to what's happening in the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MattR said:

Therefore, nobody should whine about what Ken is doing, it's just part of the game.

I think it's time for this thread to get back to what's happening in the court.

The difference is passwords in the clear could lead to stolen ballots.   Custom phone app ballots that do not register no votes are clearly wrong.   If these items are true, they are not just part of the game.  
 

Lawyers advocating for their clients and recommending a course of action, as long as it is being done in the clients interest, is perfectly fine.   Some of Kosnoff’s  acquisitions, if true, would be illegal or could call into question the entire vote from certain groups.   So, if true, they should go to the court.

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

The difference is passwords in the clear could lead to stolen ballots.   Custom phone app ballots that do not register no votes are clearly wrong.   If these items are true, they are not just part of the game.  

When I cast my vote I made certain to do it early as possible and both on individual ballot and communicated to my attorney for the master ballot.

 

This master solicitation is just a bad idea in general.  Take a look at regular public voting for example.  Parties of interest vote and make their selections but only usually 25-30% of the population votes.  Those not interested in voting should not vote and these lawyers pushing later votes are doing more harm than good.  Additionally, any votes after the first week there have been so many misleading remarks made and critical errors with some in bad faith that those votes may not even be valid anymore.

 

If I were the judge I’d request to see how the voting is going particularly the votes cast individually vs master ballot so she can track how everyone is viewing this chaos.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 100thEagleScout said:

If I were the judge I’d request to see how the voting is going particularly the votes cast individually vs master ballot so she can track how everyone is viewing this chaos.

As I understand, the court discussion on this and specifically the email error started yesterday and will continue today

image.thumb.png.6a8f6a0675ddc3d855d72380af62f917.png

https://debuscourts.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItf-GqrT0pHvrymyzIrZJeWzSQ7YqInw0

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1572bc69-d39a-42b8-a149-1c897388ac15_7147.pdf

Concur with others here that the voting process is too complex and possibly not secure. As I understand, a claimant can CHANGE their vote at any time before the deadline? Huh?

My $0.02,

 

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

As I understand, the court discussion on this and specifically the email error started yesterday and will continue today

The Debtor has a motion directed at TCC to enforce and supplement the Solicitation Procedures

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d9144e08-fd27-42bb-ad74-6441d11e1dfd_7118.pdf

as well as a Remedy, a corrective email,  which is also provided in link above. ( likely a heated discussion)

Edited by RememberSchiff
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

The difference is passwords in the clear could lead to stolen ballots.   Custom phone app ballots that do not register no votes are clearly wrong.   If these items are true, they are not just part of the game.  

Sure, if suspected then it's a problem that should be brought to the attention of the court, where the truth can be found and a solution dispensed. However, that doesn't appear to be happening. Until we know for a fact that any of these things have happened they are nothing but rumors being used in the court of public opinion to sway votes. 

Honestly, if these rumors are not pursued in court then what else are they?

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another almost 100 pages on this topic.   

 

I know Baden Powell said Scouting is a game but this game is getting ridiculous.   2 steps forward,  5 steps back.   Seemed like when there was an announcement on how much each council had to contribute, maybe the end was close...but I guess not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on judges is approving the TCC to send a letter:

- Letter to go out from TCC attempting to correct the issue

- Lawyers should be able to remove their claimants from the distribution of this updated letter

- She also ruled on the language of the letter, taking in points from all sides.  But she says the TCC does not need to include to language they don't agree with.

She is VERY upset about this and there is a hearing next week.  Discovery is ongoing to determine how this could happen.  Her point is questioning why TCC is sending out even to AIS clients let along all claimants.

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

Her point is questioning why TCC is sending out even to AIS clients let along all claimants.

From what I understand this is AIS’ disorganization at fault again.  Kosnoff probably couldn’t get a forum that could reach the Coalition members of AIS.  The non-coalition members of AIS it didn’t matter because they’re being encouraged to vote no by their lawyers (which are comparably very good).  I’m not sure how Coalition vs non-Coalition clients were decided but I think it probably had to do with statute of limitations and those not affected by the statute probably didn’t need to join the Coalition and are thus avoiding all of these problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

From what I understand this is AIS’ disorganization at fault again.  Kosnoff probably couldn’t get a forum that could reach the Coalition members of AIS.  The non-coalition members of AIS it didn’t matter because they’re being encouraged to vote no by their lawyers (which are comparably very good).  I’m not sure how Coalition vs non-Coalition clients were decided but I think it probably had to do with statute of limitations and those not affected by the statute probably didn’t need to join the Coalition and are thus avoiding all of these problems.

The judge said that since AIS clients are represented by 3 firms and those firms are not aligned, it gives greater weight to the point that the TCC should not have gotten involved.  I expect if TK couldn't get a forum to reach coalition members of AIS, that could have been brought up to the court.   In terms of AIS TK & KR were both in the hearing, their lawyers spoke but they didn't.  AVA was completely missing.  

I am curious if Omni is releasing the results of the vote or just the vote totals. One law firm indicated half of their clients have voted (I believe they are doing a master ballot).  

In terms of next week, a lot of focus on why that email was sent out by the TCC.  From the sounds of it ... there are two questions.  1) Why was it sent to all claimants. .... That COULD be just a clerical error.  2) Why was it sent to anyone.  Clearly that wasn't a clerical error and was deliberate.  Was is appropriate to even send it to AIS clients will be the question then.  Someone from TCC stated they got approval from their ethics counsel to send out the email ... the judge found that interesting that they determined it should go through ethics counsel, indicating they knew there could be an issue sending it out.

Most of this seems to be noise and may lead to sanctions against the TCC.  It doesn't appear to have any impact on counting of votes nor the plan.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...