Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

It seems to me that the errant email made it to enough voters that it calls the entire ballot into question.  If it passes or fails by a substantial margin, maybe not.  But if it is close..... What a screwup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It seems to me that the errant email made it to enough voters that it calls the entire ballot into question.  If it passes or fails by a substantial margin, maybe not.  But if it is close..... What a screwup.

I partially agree, but I expect there would have been an argument about the ballot regardless of this email.

A lawyer indicated Omni/BSA messed up earlier by sending information directly to their clients (after agreeing not to), causing confusion.  This lawyer of 1,600 clients said it took them a long time to address the mistakes of Omni/BSA only to now see the email from Kosnoff/TCC cause more confusion.  He indicated that he wants communication to his clients to stop and only go through state counsel (he did not indicate what he recommended in terms of voting).  The judge agreed and said even corrections should only go out if state counsel approves.

There are many claimants that have law firms that have been actively engaged and communicating with them.  I think these claimants with engaged counsel will be fine.  Their lawyers probably already told them to delete Kosnoff's email and just listen to them (regardless of what they are recommending).  

The issue will be claimants with counsel who are absent (ahem ... AVA).  However, I expect they are already confused given the size 4 font mailing, hundreds of pages of legalese, multiple ballot options, etc.  Just add Kosnoff's email to that pile of confusion.  You can see the confusion in the letters listed in the docket.

It appears TCC, BSA and others have agreed to a remedy for this email which will be set this week.  By the time we get to vote analysis of the bankruptcy, I expect the email will be old news.  Yes, Stang's law firm will have a bit of a red mark (depending on what discovery finds) but I don't expect any major change to the course of the bankruptcy. 

Note that even if there is a big YES vote, there are parties that will slice and dice it various ways.  By council, by CO, by $3500 payout, by SOL.  The judge will have to rule on each of these.  In the end, unless we see 95%+ approval, I expect she will push for further mediation.  The vote is really going to be a  tool to see what side needs to give in more.

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

It appears TCC, BSA and others have agreed to a remedy for this email which will be set this week.  By the time we get to vote analysis of the bankruptcy, I expect the email will be old news.  Yes, Stang's law firm will have a bit of a red mark (depending on what discovery finds) but I don't expect any major change to the course of the bankruptcy. 

 

STATEMENT OF THE TORT CLAIMANTS’ COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO DEBTORS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (I) ENFORCING THE SOLICITATION PROCEDURES ORDER, (II) ENFORCING SECTION 1103 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AGAINST TORT CLAIMANTS’ COMMITTEE, AND (III) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2b91f52b-5b99-47de-9089-24c1725498f7_7216.pdf

Above also includes the Agreed Interim Order in Exhibit A.

 

Nov 17, Hearing

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9560bec6-f6b7-43a6-81f6-5aff038b3489_7215.pdf

Discussion of possible additions to interim order?

Debtors’ Emergency Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Enforcing the Solicitation Procedures Order, (II) Enforcing Section 1103 of the Bankruptcy Code Against the Tort Claimants’ Committee, and (III) Granting Related Relief (D.I. 7118, filed 11/10/21)

Edited by RememberSchiff
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Note that even if there is a big YES vote, there are parties that will slice and dice it various ways.  By council, by CO, by $3500 payout, by SOL.  The judge will have to rule on each of these.  In the end, unless we see 95%+ approval, I expect she will push for further mediation.  The vote is really going to be a  tool to see what side needs to give in more.

Exactly.  This email mistake is red meat for the bankruptcy professionals and a way to point fingers and curry favor.  But, this vote is going to be analyzed many ways, and the communication (all of it) will be a topic during a confirmation hearing.  It for sure was an unforced error by the TCC professionals but at the end of the day Survivors don't care and the vote will let the Coalition declare total victory if it gets 75% of the vote, partial victory if it gets 66%, TCC will do the same if it gets more than 25% or 33%, and then when the $3500 votes are backed out the same arguments will be made.  Lastly, remember that Survivors can vote repeatedly with the last vote cast counting (not reported to an attorney if superseded by a mailed-in ballot).  So, the Coalition wants to take its pound of flesh now on a remedy because they don't get to argue but so much later on and have the judge say "I gave you your remedy and you agreed on it.  You don't get to say NOW that it wasn't enough."

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

...Lastly, remember that Survivors can vote repeatedly with the last vote cast counting (not reported to an attorney if superseded by a mailed-in ballot). 

add to that the "Notice Requirement" imposed on the TCC in the current Agreed Interim Order and potentially you have the TCC silenced from sending general notices 48 hours before the voting deadline.

Another $0.01

P.S. IMHO, the TCC should argue the Notice Requirement expire a week before voting deadline.

Edited by RememberSchiff
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2021 at 3:01 PM, elitts said:

Except that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the Statutes of Limitations in Child Abuse cases in state courts.  Even if this passes, it would only be relevant to cases that could be filed in federal court.

I'm just catching up.  Glad to read that someone posted it.  

"Could be filed in federal court" ... refering to requiring events / abuse that cross state boundaries or occurred on federal property (military bases, national parks, etc).  Unless federal jurisdiction is triggered, state laws would be in effect with state SOLs.  ... really wish I would have studied law ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Court has released a status report (link below) regarding the TCC/Kosnoff email error , future TCC communications protocols,  answers to discovery questions, emails between TCC and Kosnoff, Debtor voting concerns, PSZJ billing restrictions, opening for additional remedies, the initial Agreed Proposed Interim Order (Exhibit 1), and the amended Red-lined Agreed Proposed Interim Order (Exhibit 2).

There is a lot here, recommend having aspirin handy.

The hearing continues tomorrow.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0d43cbe0-bbfb-451a-8e05-6d5045dce066_7250.pdf

Edited by RememberSchiff
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

The Court has released a status report (link below) regarding the TCC/Kosnoff email error , future TCC communications protocols,  answers to discovery questions, emails between TCC and Kosnoff, Debtor voting concerns, PSZJ billing restrictions, opening for additional remedies, the initial Agreed Proposed Interim Order (Exhibit 1), and the amended Red-lined Agreed Proposed Interim Order (Exhibit 2).

There is a lot here, recommend having aspirin handy.

The hearing continues tomorrow.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0d43cbe0-bbfb-451a-8e05-6d5045dce066_7250.pdf

The only issue I would have with the proposal is to reject some individual votes (or change them to yes).  Given that the voting deadline is a month away, most law firms have plenty of time to undo any damage (if any actually occurred).  This is mildly entertaining as we await the final voting numbers.  

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

Nov 16, 2021: The Court was advised that Paul A. Finn has resigned his position as a mediator.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/30ea6aeb-87e1-4be2-bbc1-603b30860a28_7283.pdf

Two mediators remain.

Paul Finn didn't sign the last mediator report.  Looks like he had a lot of experience in CSA mediation:

https://www.nadn.org/paul-finn

I expect everything he did was protected so he can't talk.  I wonder why he quit.

 

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

Paul Finn didn't sign the last mediator report.  Looks like he had a lot of experience in CSA mediation:

https://www.nadn.org/paul-finn

I expect everything he did was protected so he can't talk.  I wonder why he quit.

 

Looking at this further, they don't seem to have a CSA expert in the mediation team left.  They have a former bankruptcy judge and Timothy Gallagher who's focus seems insurance (and 1/2 his pay is from insurance companies).  

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/823873_812.pdf

Finn gave up $1,500/hr walking away from this.  

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

Looking at this further, they don't seem to have a CSA expert in the mediation team left.  They have a former bankruptcy judge and Timothy Gallagher who's focus seems insurance (and 1/2 his pay is from insurance companies).  

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/823873_812.pdf

Finn gave up $1,500/hr walking away from this.  

That anyone involved should even be making 10% of that figure is obscene.  Simply reflects the status of our legal system.  

 

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...