Eagle1993 2160 Posted February 7, 2022 Author Share Posted February 7, 2022 36 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said: I would expect the TCC to file an objection simply to preserve its ability to object if things fall through. The TCC can always withdraw its objection if things work out to its satisfaction. Agreed. The will probably dump a placeholder like Zuckerman just in case. Link to post Share on other sites
ThenNow 1373 Posted February 7, 2022 Share Posted February 7, 2022 2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: In Zukerman's objection they state the BSA gave email permission to submit objections until Feb 7 at 4pm. They also state the TCC has been given permission to submit their objection as late as Feb 9. They said the delay is due to updates to the plan that should capture more claimants including possibly the TCC. Zuckerman isn't included in mediation so they said they have no idea what the changes are and put in the objection as a placeholder. Thanks. I was referring to "clarity" in the sense of overall wellbeing of the head, heart and soul. THAT is what I need and for which "I will gladly pay you Tuesday..." 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
johnsch322 523 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 (edited) Well waters have definitely muddied now with the Bankruptcy Trustees objection. What do you think Hoochie Coochie Man @ThenNow Edited February 8, 2022 by johnsch322 Link to post Share on other sites
vol_scouter 365 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 20 minutes ago, johnsch322 said: Well waters have definitely muddied now with the Bankruptcy Trustees objection. What do you think Hoochie Coochie Man @ThenNow What is the basis of the objection or another place holder? Link to post Share on other sites
johnsch322 523 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 7 minutes ago, vol_scouter said: What is the basis of the objection or another place holder? In a nutshell unconstitutional Link to post Share on other sites
T2Eagle 902 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 22 minutes ago, vol_scouter said: What is the basis of the objection or another place holder? The constitutional objection is that claimants are losing their property interest in a law suit against the non debtor parties without having any chance in court, ie they are being denied due process. Their other big objection is that the bankruptcy statute doesn't allow the releases. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2160 Posted February 8, 2022 Author Share Posted February 8, 2022 1 hour ago, vol_scouter said: What is the basis of the objection or another place holder? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2160 Posted February 8, 2022 Author Share Posted February 8, 2022 9 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: The US Trustee opened up their objection with a statement that they know this is complex and a difficult situation. They know everyone was working hard on a resolution including debtors and insurance companies. However, they need to object. It reminded me a bit of the ending of Old Yeller ... it was their responsibility to recommend stopping the plan. After reading most of the obection. Overall the DOJ/US Trustee states: Non Debtor releases not allowed by constitution Non debtor releases only allowed for asbestos in bankruptcy law (if they wanted them for other groups, Congress had 27 years to update bankruptcy code) Even if non debtor releases are allowed (they are not) the plan does not comply to the rules set for non debtor releases. For example, most COs contributed $0 and councils are protected even if they gave low amounts to the fund. Many more issues listed here. This isn't a settlement as parties must agree to a settlement and parties do not agree. The releases are too broad and protect too many groups, individuals with too many protections. You cannot pay the Coalition ... stop. Yes, the BSA is a non profit, but it must comply with this section of bankruptcy code. This means they have to show the Ch 7 path vs Ch 11 and they didn't do that correctly. The 1st three are clearly the big question in this bankruptcy. I don't see the coalition fees going forward, so that should be a non issue. The last point could be major and may be why the BSA is now claiming claimants are paid in full. As a non lawyer, many points went above my head so I glanced through some of those sections. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2160 Posted February 8, 2022 Author Share Posted February 8, 2022 The Guam objection was interesting as one of the rules is basically you need the non debtors to be included in the plan as it is critical to the bankruptcy exit plan. They pointed out that the BSA already created a toggle plan that shows they can emerge without any non debtors included so it is not critical and therefore why are non debtors even here? While the TCC may settle, there are many groups with very strong state cases against COs and in some cases LCs. I don't see them accepting anything that allows non debtors to be included (unless they give a ton of money and it is directed to them). They seem to have strong arguments. I'll be interested to see if the updated BSA plan addresses their concerns. Link to post Share on other sites
ThenNow 1373 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: While the TCC may settle, there are many groups with very strong state cases against COs and in some cases LCs. I don't see them accepting anything that allows non debtors to be included (unless they give a ton of money and it is directed to them). They seem to have strong arguments. Reading this last series of posts about objections, I was nudged to dig to the bottom of the satchel where I store all my posts. There, in the dregs, I found some of my early comments and fears about how this could go. I was troubled then, grew less so, and now return again. Admittedly, I knew and still know little about bankruptcy law. (Honestly, it seems even those who know it all don't know it well, since it boils down to advocating for their position in a morphing landscape. Anyway.) One of my deepest concerns revolved around pitting survivors against survivors. I know, I know. The states and their SoL reform or lack thereof did that, not the Chapter 11. I'm not 100% convinced of that, but those who can get big money have the right to pursue it. Still, it will pain me to watch this unravel, if it does, based on that division. Even if I am able to pursue a case and others cannot, I will still be troubled, undone, at sixes and sevens and mightily vexed in my soul. As we know, I am likely in the cannot pile, unless I want to represent myself again. Meh. No matter. It's just a mess. If you'll suffer me, I will quote one of my favorite and reputedly the shortest scripture passages in the modern Christian bible. I keep it in my little brain for such times as this. It is from The Gospel of John, verse 11:35 and states, simply, "Jesus wept." Me too. Edited February 8, 2022 by ThenNow 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1970 210 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 By the time this is finished, we will end up settling for two years of free credit monitoring. smh 3 Link to post Share on other sites
ThenNow 1373 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said: By the time this is finished, we will end up settling for two years of free credit monitoring. smh See? This is the sort of dark, sarcastic humor we so desperately need! It shouldn't be funny, but it is. I am grateful for the smile. Edited February 8, 2022 by ThenNow 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
fred8033 1589 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 50 minutes ago, ThenNow said: ... bankruptcy law. (Honestly, it seems even those who know it all don't know it well, since it boils down to advocating for their position in a morphing landscape. Anyway. ... Well said. That is what I'm learning too. Professor Kingsfield must have an appropriate quote on this. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1970 210 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 22 minutes ago, ThenNow said: See? This is the sort of dark, sarcastic humor we so desperately need! It shouldn't be funny, but it is. I am grateful for the smile. Fresh in my mind, of course, as just last week I received exactly that settlement. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ThenNow 1373 Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 7 minutes ago, fred8033 said: Professor Kingsfield must have an appropriate quote on this. It would be scathing, eviscerating and leave the hearer with singed ear hairs. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts