Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

For direct abuse claims, 55,888 votes.  A bit surprising but the bulk of the rejects came through master ballots.  About 1/3 of approvals requested the $3500.

I doubt this will be enough yes votes to get accepted but it will be enough to go through months of hearings.  I expect we are in limbo. 
 

Indirect abuse claims are likely charted orgs that rejected the deal. 

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

Vote is in. 73.12% accept.

Yup.  The way it was tabulated was weird.  Said Coalition votes weren’t by Master Ballot and Non-Coalition ones were.  Get ready for civil war and oh also this plan is dead on arrival, Coalition is finished, BSA just wasted two years and the executives might as well fire their attorneys now.

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

Yup.  The way it was tabulated was weird.  Said Coalition votes weren’t by Master Ballot and Non-Coalition ones were.  Get ready for civil war and oh also this plan is dead on arrival, Coalition is finished, BSA just wasted two years and the executives might as well fire their attorneys now.

To me that 73% was right in the middle of limbo land.  It meets the minimum threshold; however, not the 95% you saw from talc/Purdue or 100% from USA Gymnastics.  January 10 will tell us where this is headed.  I expect Silverstein to weigh in if this is good enough or if it is a non starter for her. Personally, I hope she tells parties to sharpen their pencils and work on mediation and keeps the confirmation hearing going.  There are a ton of rulings she needs to make and they could be helpful even if it likely this plan isn’t approved.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's remember that the Judge was VERY interested in knowing the numbers that elected the $3500.  If you take those accepts/rejects out the total lowers even more to 70% accept and 30% reject.  I have to suspect this is NOT what the BSA needed/wanted to demonstrate widespread support at a level that would make the judge remotely consider overwhelming creditor support for a plan that included third-party releases, partial insurance settlements and other issues.  Two years and how much has been spent "voluntarily" by the BSA to solve its past sexual abuse problems?  Keep in mind that beyond this disappointing vote and the fact that a judge has NEVER forced a cramdown in a sexual abuse-related bankruptcy there are significant hurdles now to releases for non-debtors, the DOJ waiting to make that clear in this case like it did in Purdue AND that a confirmation hearing is going to really dig into BSA and LC assets as well as the expert reports from Claro on Survivor claim value.  NONE of this is good news for the BSA.  If something's to be salvaged it's going to come from mediation at this point and the BSA and Coalition working WITH the TCC and Insurers to get a deal done.  This vote didn't do it.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One final note before I sign off.  Nothing is guaranteed.  The judge could look at this and say it’s the best deal possible and allow it to go through.  This is a complex case and I’m not sure there will ever be 95% approval.  That said, I hope BSA sits down with TCC and finds a path closer to that 95% mark. 

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

What was the opt out question?  Over 21,000 selected the opt out. 

Third Party releases.  Also, I don’t think this was mentioned but there’s speculation Omni either switched the master ballot or there’s been massive voter manipulation by the Coalition because this eBallot should have been tabulated as a master ballot unless a survivor requested his own physical ballot.

Currently, my group is speculating what had gone wrong.

 

On another note, Tim Kosnoff just declared a Reject movement victory on Twitter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge said she wanted to hear from the survivors.  A master ballot is from "lawyers."  The survivors voted in favor by a large margin if the OMNI data is correct.  It appears that the vast majority of "no" votes came via master ballot. 

Of the 14,000 reject votes nearly 8,000 were done via master ballot. 

Of the 39,000 Accept votes only 2,000 were from master ballot.

It is pretty clear from the data (unless OMNI is wrong), that a group of lawyers voted no via master ballot.  

OMNI made mistakes before, so this could be obviously incorrect.

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

Third Party releases.  Also, I don’t think this was mentioned but there’s speculation Omni either switched the master ballot or there’s been massive voter manipulation by the Coalition because this eBallot should have been tabulated as a master ballot unless a survivor requested his own physical ballot.

Currently, my group is speculating what had gone wrong.

 

On another note, Tim Kosnoff just declared a Reject movement victory on Twitter.

The 80% he is referencing appears to be the Class 8 Summary (p. 10 of 92) the Direct Abuse Claim section and referencing those who submitted a master ballot.  There seems to be a very strong message being sent by that group that utilized the master ballot.  Interesting days ahead.  We shall see what the Judge reads in her tea leaves.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, acema606 said:

The 80% he is referencing appears to be the Class 8 Summary (p. 10 of 92) the Direct Abuse Claim section and referencing those who submitted a master ballot.  There seems to be a very strong message being sent by that group that utilized the master ballot.  Interesting days ahead.  We shall see what the Judge reads in her tea leaves.  

They have it flipped around.  I don’t think they used the master ballot.  That amount of votes versus those that vote individually seems widely off.  I think Omni got that wrong.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

They have it flipped around.  I don’t think they used the master ballot.  That amount of votes versus those that vote individually seems widely off.  I think Omni got that wrong.

Totally agree. How much has OMNI billed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, scoutesquire said:

It is pretty clear from the data (unless OMNI is wrong), that a group of lawyers voted no via master ballot.  

I do believe master ballots will be questioned; however, they are allowed by the judge and they do (should) reflect the input of the claimants (either directly or via POA).  I wouldn’t e surprised to hear Omni flipped them with direct.  
 

Also note there are a large number of ballots rejected.  They are listed along with how they voted and why they were rejected.  That could be cleaned up before the final total.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understand why there were so many abstentions. Those ballots that did not check accept or reject. Why would a claimant go to the trouble of casting a ballot if he had no opinion? Do abstentions count? This suggests to me what I feared which is the eBallot caused massive confusion or else it did not function properly. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...