Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

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. 

Many are on master ballots.   So my guess on those is that the law firm was not able to confirm how the claimant wants to vote but still includes their claim on their overall master ballot.  The direct ballots don’t make sense… I agree anyone directly voting would likely have wanted a vote to count.  Who knows … I’m sure will come out with discovery and further review. 

  • 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

4 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

73% is a solid D grade in school. Is a D good enough? I was surprised it is this high.

 

You have to remember many of these survivors either just did what ”Mr Corrupt Lawyer told me to do” or let the lawyer vote their ballot anyway.  The real attorneys (the ones actually filing and prosecuting valid claims that have been thoroughly vetted in state court like Zuckerman Spaeder) have all collectively voted to reject and it came down to a numbers game.  Even if the survivor class rejected, the court could issue a cramdown.  With Class 9 outright rejecting in Class 8’s place, it’s the exact same outcome where a cramdown would be required which is impossible to legally issue in a case this large.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

73% is a solid D grade in school. Is a D good enough? I was surprised it is this high.

 

I doubt it, but not too surprised it hit that level.

 It was mentioned earlier about Judge Silverstein.  I would argue since the RSA, she has been pushing hard to get a plan out for a vote.  She agreed/pushed all controversial/tough decisions to plan confirmation (vs Disclosure/Plan solicitation) because she wanted voting to start.  She pushed out plan confirmation to Feb 22, but kept the voting report earlier.  Why?  She said she wants to see where the claimants are.

What BSA is asking is for thousands of organizations to be cleared of any liability of child sex abuse related to scouting (that term is even questioned).  I think the judge clearly wants to see if the claimants are on board.  They are not.  I question even the 75% target for what is being asked.

Now, as I mentioned, anything could happen including a cramdown/approval.  However, if I were to make a bet (which I won't as I am horrible at betting) I would lean to the other side (this plan is dead).  I could imagine her saying something like ... TCC/BSA/etc.  ... you have 1 month to come to agreement.  If no agreement, this becomes a BSA national only bankruptcy.

Again, just a hunch.  She has seen this go on multiple years.  After that, the vote is underwhelming (I think we could agree on that).  This is an incredibly complex case.  She wants BSA to survive.  ... That could take a major change in direction.

Regardless, if this plan fails, the BSA needs to start working with the TCC again and not only the Coalition.  White & Case messed up when they went all in on the Coalition.  I hope they can now all work together quickly to come to an agreement.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now, as I mentioned, anything could happen including a cramdown/approval.  However, if I were to make a bet (which I won't as I am horrible at betting) I would lean to the other side (this plan is dead).  I could imagine her saying something like ... TCC/BSA/etc.  ... you have 1 month to come to agreement.  If no agreement, this becomes a BSA national only bankruptcy.

Yeah I think this is pretty spot on.  Probably the worst-case scenario BSA could be put in.  Honestly, at this point I would just prefer a BSA-only bankruptcy so my lawsuit can proceed in state court and I can reach a real settlement myself.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

...

Now, as I mentioned, anything could happen including a cramdown/approval.  However, if I were to make a bet (which I won't as I am horrible at betting) I would lean to the other side (this plan is dead).  I could imagine her saying something like ... TCC/BSA/etc.  ... you have 1 month to come to agreement.  If no agreement, this becomes a BSA national only bankruptcy.

Again, just a hunch.  She has seen this go on multiple years.  After that, the vote is underwhelming (I think we could agree on that).  This is an incredibly complex case.  She wants BSA to survive.  ... That could take a major change in direction.

Regardless, if this plan fails, the BSA needs to start working with the TCC again and not only the Coalition.  White & Case messed up when they went all in on the Coalition.  I hope they can now all work together quickly to come to an agreement.

In the last month, has the judge commented on ending the Debtor's exclusivity period?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For months, the approval has been set at ~2/3 and that has now been achieved.  Seems to me that the BSA through mediation met the standard.  Clearly, the judge is the final word but Omni confirms that it was accepted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 100thEagleScout said:

Third Party releases.  

I guess what is the impact of those that vote to "opt out"?  My understanding of the situation is that if this plan goes forward, no one can "opt out".  That 3rd parties (chartered org and LCs) are granted release of liability and it is funneled into the settlement trust.  Therefore, I wonder what it means if someone "opts out".  Does that mean they could sue the LC/CO even if this plan is approved?  I don't think so.

Why am I questioning the "opt out"?  One example ... someone wrote to Omni (posted in the docket) saying they vote to accept the plan for BSA but also said they "opt out" as they don't want to release their CO.  I don't think that is how it works.  I see 21,172 selected "opt out".  That is far greater than the 14,487 reject votes.  Assuming all reject votes were also opt out, that leaves 6,685 Accept votes that also selected "opt out".  That is an odd combination to me.

It would be great if someone could explain why someone would Accept and then "opt out".  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm taking a look at the votes that were not counted.  I found several issues in Omni's table.

Claimants 17518, 73211, 95439, 93065 listed either "Accept or Reject" under the vote heading; however, the Reason(s) for exclusion is that "Holder did not indicate vote to accept or reject the plan".  These are all AIS claimants.  Something is off on those.

Also note, I took a quick look at the first several pages of AIS claimants who submitted a direct ballot to Omni that was not counted.  Most of these were not counted as their votes were superseded by a master ballot submitted by AIS.  Now, it is unclear if the vote changed between the direct ballot and master ballot ... that would be interesting info.  The direct votes that did not count (from the first several pages ... of the report)

  • 26 Accept
  • 18 Reject
  • 16 Abstain (why would there be any abstain votes when voting directly)

In any case, just counting reject vs accept ... that is a 59% acceptance rate.  Now the question is ... what are these votes in the master ballot and did that rate change?  I think it also leads into the question into Omni if they swapped Master/Direct in their summary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how the insurance companies are feeling this morning?  The TCC has made it known they do not want the insurance companies to be part of the settlement unless they come up with a much more substantial offer.

Tomorrows TCC Town Hall is going to be must see TV (Zoom).

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

by Randall Chase , AP

https://www.theintelligencer.com/news/article/BSA-bankruptcy-plan-misses-mark-in-vote-by-abuse-16751195.php

Debtors in bankruptcy typically need two-thirds approval from creditors for a reorganization plan, but cases involving mass tort liabilities, whether stemming from asbestos or child sexual claims, generally need a greater level of support...

A final voting report is due Jan. 17 ...Meanwhile, attorneys continue to gather information and take depositions from opposing parties in advance of a hearing to begin Feb. 22 to determine whether Judge Laura Selber Silverstein should confirm the plan.

“We are encouraged by these preliminary results and are actively engaging key parties in our case with the hope of reaching additional agreements, which could potentially garner further support for the plan before confirmation,” the Boy Scouts said in a statement.

More in above  link.

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

We are encouraged by these preliminary results and are actively engaging key parties in our case with the hope of reaching additional agreements, which could potentially garner further support for the plan before confirmation,” the Boy Scouts said in a statement.

I wonder if they are now referring to the TCC who they essentially have ignored for the past 6 months?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

“We are encouraged by these preliminary results and are actively engaging key parties in our case with the hope of reaching additional agreements, which could potentially garner further support for the plan before confirmation,” the Boy Scouts said in a statement.

If the judge is not satisfied with 73%, I don't think she will take a wink/nod that the changes are enough without seeing a vote take place.  The DOJ already was upset that the plan was changing during the voting process, but she let it play out just to see where the claimants currently are.  It seemed clear that any further changes would likely require a new vote. 

Before a new vote takes place, the BSA must have the TCC on board.  We are talking ~5 months each time a plan goes out to vote.  They can't just keep making minor tweaks and sending the update out with crossed fingers.  They tried the crossed fingers once and it likely  failed.

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I wonder if they are now referring to the TCC who they essentially have ignored for the past 6 months?

I doubt it.  I think they are tied to the coalition.  That could change after January 10th hearing.

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