Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

just a waste of money and time. 

Sounds like par for the course from my seat.

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

It would be much better to restart negotiations then try and see a few percentage points swing in a failing outcome.

Perhaps, but how many times has “better” been attempted so far? I think I just need my hunt and peck typing fingers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 563
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As the time that a vote total approaches, I encourage everyone to repeat the Scout Oath and Law several times to remind us how to treat one another.  There are victims here who wish for the plan

I just finished reading Bates' report.  Now I have a headache.  It's well-written, but a bunch of spin.  So we're too old to deserve a decent settlement?  While I get the sol issue, if a suit is valid

66% is the threshold for a bankruptcy.  However, WSJ was reporting even BSA admitted they needed 75% which they didn't reach.  There are two issues that the 73% causes. One will be with Silverste

Posted Images

Missouri House, last week, brought forward a bill that includes elimination/lengthening of the civil child sex abuse sol.  It appears to be moving along.  If the settlement is voted down,  can the Grey 3 be adjusted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole scaling thing needs to be tossed in to the garbage can. It was the creation of lawyers that didn’t know boo about the reality of statutes of limitations. There has been massive misunderstanding of it on this forum as well. 
 

If MO passes it will influence neighboring states. I hear OK will pass one soon. Add those to two other states I never thought would pass windows AR and LA. The landscape is changing rapidly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

The whole scaling thing needs to be tossed in to the garbage can. It was the creation of lawyers that didn’t know boo about the reality of statutes of limitations. There has been massive misunderstanding of it on this forum as well. 
 

If MO passes it will influence neighboring states. I hear OK will pass one soon. Add those to two other states I never thought would pass windows AR and LA. The landscape is changing rapidly. 

I just saw the LA change in a New Orleans online article.  Many states will change it.  But this leaves me in the position of voting down any plan if scaling is in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

Why is that a problem? don’t believe in SOL scaling period. If a majority of voting survivors agree, then there won’t be. 

I trust that the majority of voting survivors would agree, as the majority of survivors are scaled.  I'm ready for the vote.  Let's get on with it.  Problem is that nobody ever asked before it was inserted into the plan.

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

The Coalition plans to hold a meeting this evening.

Well, I guess that tells us the results will be posted prior.  Or, they're prepared to walk a fine line without divulging anything.  Or, they'll just want to ignore them and spin whatever spin they want people to believe.  Look for winks and coded language but beware anyone holding a gold pocket watch and slowly swinging it back and forth....back and forth....  Sorry, sometimes the sad absurdity of all of this is too much to ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

TCC has withdrawn notice of deposition to Omni. Any thoughts?

and now they want to depose the BSA. 

The way I read it is they cancelled their first request and created a new request both with the BSA.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

The results are DUE tonight.  Not tomorrow, not next week, TONIGHT.  So unless there’s a very good excuse as to why they’re being delayed it’s expected Omni does their part and releases the preliminary voting tabulation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and by the way I keep seeing this <75% stuff.

Technically only 66.67% (or 2/3) of the vote is needed to approve this plan as a class.  If it fails to reach THIS threshold it is presumed that the class voted no on the plan.  So even though <75% and the plan will still likely fail miserably, in that instance the class is still considered to have preliminarily accepted the plan pending potential vote disqualifications for various reasons.

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

Oh and by the way I keep seeing this <75% stuff.

Technically only 66.67% (or 2/3) of the vote is needed to approve this plan as a class.  If it fails to reach THIS threshold it is presumed that the class voted no on the plan.  So even though <75% and the plan will still likely fail miserably, in that instance the class is still considered to have preliminarily accepted the plan pending potential vote disqualifications for various reasons.

If this was a National only bankruptcy yes.  However, there are non debtors involved and non consensual claimants.  This is the same issue Purdue Pharma ran into.  Some circuits do not allow this while others (currently) do in rare cases.  See below from an article about these releases including iv.  There it talks to claimants having overwhelming accepted the plan.  Purdue that was 95%. Talc that was 95%. It sound like some cases it dropped into the 80s. <75% likely won’t cut it unless this judge wants to see the plan thrown out by a district court 2 months later.
 

In the circuits where non-consensual third party releases are permitted, a debtor must satisfy a high evidentiary bar to obtain approval of such releases.  The factors a bankruptcy court must consider in such circuits include (i) the identity of interests between the debtor and the third party, such that a suit against the non-debtor is akin to a suit against the debtor due to, for example, an indemnity obligation that may deplete the debtor’s assets; (ii) whether the non-debtor has contributed substantial assets to the reorganization; (iii) whether the release is essential to reorganization; (iv) whether the impacted classes of claims have overwhelmingly accepted the plan in question; and (v) whether the bankruptcy court has made a record of specific factual findings to support such releases.

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