Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 8 - TCC Term Sheet & Plan Confirmation


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I don’t doubt it.  I believe many of the firms who encouraged people to first vote REJECT and now ACCEPT had many claims from open states.   This IR component is most likely the way they would get their clients to change their vote.  Let’s be honest, attorneys work for money, and I am sure many were not happy with the fact they were losing money to firms representing victims from closed or limited states.  And let’s be even more honest, I am sure some, definitely not all, victims from open states hate the bankruptcy and the previous plan because it took money from them and gave it to victims, according to ridiculous and unfair state laws, that are not “legally” entitled to it.  Shame on the states who refuse to open the SOL window.  So here we are, this is the compromise, sucks as much as it does. 
 

Any plan will be divisive and there definitely are the haves and have nots.   I am black & white, just like the laws of the various states.   I am sorry if I seem cross, but there is no grey for me.  No plan will be approved giving money to only victims of open states, and no plan will be approved giving it out equally to all; that to me is the sad reality.   This plan, as imperfect as it is, will move enough original REJECT votes to ACCEPT. 
 

Honestly in the end there will be nothing of any real value left, appeals and hearings and more appeals will drag this case on for many years.  In the end most will have done nothing but relived the horrors of their childhood.  
 

Again apologies for my crassness and honesty…Living in black and white has its challenges, but for me it’s an easier way to live.  For now we just need to trudge on and pray this nightmare comes to an end. 

Edited by NJScout1980
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 388
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have been reading this blog for months and finally decided to express how I feel about this plan.  I have always and continue to believe there are thousands of fraudulent sexual abuse claims filed i

My bet? We’ll never know. They will quietly sneak off the trail via the $3500 spur and go their merry way. There will be valid survivor claimants that exit stage left, as well, not wanting to deal wit

Not really true. I never bought a ticket I was a victim I had no choice.

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

I don’t doubt it.  I believe many of the firms who encouraged people to first vote REJECT and now ACCEPT had many claims from open states.   This IR component is most likely the way they would get their clients to change their vote.  Let’s be honest, attorneys work for money, and I am sure many were not happy with the fact they were losing money to firms representing victims from closed or limited states.  And let’s be even more honest, I am sure some, definitely not all, victims from open states hate the bankruptcy and the previous plan because it took money from them and gave it to victims, according to ridiculous and unfair state laws, that are not “legally” entitled to it.  Shame on the states who refuse to open the SOL window.  So here we are, this is the compromise, sucks as much as it does. 
 

Any plan will be divisive and there definitely are the haves and have nots.   I am black & white, just like the laws of the various states.   I am sorry if I seem cross, but there is no grey for me.  No plan will be approved giving money to only victims of open states, and no plan will be approved giving it out equally to all; that to me is the sad reality.   This plan, as imperfect as it is, will move enough original REJECT votes to ACCEPT. 
 

Honestly in the end there will be nothing of any real value left, appeals and hearings and more appeals will drag this case on for many years.  In the end most will have done nothing but relived the horrors of their childhood.  
 

Again apologies for my crassness and honesty…Living in black and white has its challenges, but for me it’s an easier way to live.  For now we just need to trudge on and pray this nightmare comes to an end. 

I take no offense. For myself I call them like I see them. I am not always correct. 
The reason I brought up Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers is the third party releases. If the plan is confirmed it appears the DOJ will challenge this upon appeal. So if that happens will the LC’s CO’s and most importantly the insurance companies up their settlement offers?

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

I take no offense. For myself I call them like I see them. I am not always correct. 
The reason I brought up Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers is the third party releases. If the plan is confirmed it appears the DOJ will challenge this upon appeal. So if that happens will the LC’s CO’s and most importantly the insurance companies up their settlement offers?

I think as far as the DOJ is concerned they would not agree to any releases for LC’s and CO’s regardless of whether they up their offers or not.  I think the DOJ attitude is no 3rd party releases ever. I would say the believe of you want protection file bankruptcy yourself.   I totally agree with you that this will drag on in the courts for a long time…perhaps years and years.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From TCC Expert McNally, Claro Consulting. 

Tier Nature of Abuse Claro Mid Base Claim Value Number of Valued BSA Sexual Abuse Claims Total Estimated Damages

1 Penetration $2,641,865 14,936 $39,458,891,957

2 Oral Sex $1,981,399 12,225 $24,222,597,458

3 Masturbation / Groping $1,320,932 17,868 $23,602,419,707

4 Touching-Unclothed $660,466 $653,861,526 990

5 Touching-Clothed / Photography $330,233 $296,219,085 897

6 No Touching $15,411 - $0 Total $1,880,680 $88,233,989,733

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8c09210b-7313-4e19-9236-e8135ed336e5_8842.pdf

Despite its “intention,” the methodology contained therein renders it inappropriate as a source for reasonable valuations for BSA Sexual Abuse Claims for the following reasons: • The TDP Base Matrix Value and Maximum Matrix Value are less than the Historical BSA Settlements; • The application of discounts for legal defenses is inappropriate when using settlement figures as Base Matrix Values; Average Bates White Low Estimate: $2.4B Average Bates White High Estimate: $7.1B Average Historical BSA Settlement. It inconsistently applies discounts for BSA Sexual Abuse Claims alleging abuse by a minor; and • The discounts applied related to the statute of limitations are not supported by Historical BSA Settlements.

Is the TCC planning on throwing their own expert under the wheels of the bus, too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

I think the DOJ attitude is no 3rd party releases ever. I would say the believe of you want protection file bankruptcy yourself.  

This is incorrect. Third part releases are permissible in consensual plans. The Justice Department objection is its application in non-consensual plans. 73.5% accept is not consensual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

All else aside I think we should all keep in mind that this settlement is a long way from being done.

Agreed, but if I don’t understand the details, view of the various advocates and detractors, up/downsides, potential machinations and application to all claimants (as well as my case) the lack of control and grasp is deeply destabilizing to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Agreed, but if I don’t understand the details, view of the various advocates and detractors, up/downsides, potential machinations and application to all claimants (as well as my case) the lack of control and grasp is deeply destabilizing to me.

There definitely is no clearcut answers to anything you have just brought up.  My attorneys are asking for a yes vote and their reasoning sounds like what the coalition was saying 6 months ago.

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

This is incorrect. Third part releases are permissible in consensual plans. The Justice Department objection is its application in non-consensual plans. 73.5% accept is not consensual. 

As per the DOJ in these cases the % approval is meaningless as it relates to Non Debtor Third Party Releases.   The trustee believes and is challenging the releases on the grounds it violates the due process rights of individuals voting against the plan.  There is no clear law prohibiting releases but many circuits are stopping them.   95% of the Purdue Pharma claimants approved the plan and yet the Circuit Judge tossed it.   
 

The approval % is what the judge will use to determine whether or not SHE approves of the plan.  The number is irrelevant to the DOJ as they oppose third party releases.  Keeping in mind the Perdue Pharma case it is safe to assume regardless of the approval % the BSA plan receives it will continue to be challenged in court. 

Again the approval % is irrelevant for the DOJ, they are seeking an end once and for all to third party releases   And in all reality they are right to; why should someone else take away my right to sue a non-debtor third party?  If a third party wants protection it should do it itself.  But that’s a whole other can of worms.

Here are a couple of articles on this issue  

https://www.reuters.com/business/judge-tosses-deal-shielding-purdues-sackler-family-opioid-claims-2021-12-17/

 

https://wtop.com/national/2022/02/bsa-reaches-deal-with-official-abuse-claimants-committee/

 

Edited by NJScout1980
Spelling
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

Again the approval % is irrelevant for the DOJ, they are seeking an end once and for all to third party releases   And in all reality they are right to; why should someone else take away my right to sue a non-debtor third party?  If a third party wants protection it should do it itself.  But that’s a whole other can of worms.

In Millenium, LSS held that non-consensual third party releases do not violate Due Process. Sackler judge ruled  on the absence of authority in the bankruptcy code. 

This case is a long death march to nowhere. If she confirms it, it just prolongs the agony. If she denies confirmation, that is not appealable and the parties go back to the drawing board., BSA converts to toggle plan, Ch. 7 or a new plan. I dunno. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

There definitely is no clearcut answers to anything you have just brought up.

Hm. I watched the faces of every attorney I’ve heard talk about this so far, including Jessic Lauria, Eric Goodman, Ann Andrews, Ken Rothweiler, Rich Puchulski, Jim Stang, Sir David Buchbinder, Mr. Patterson, a TCC insurance professional and several others. Excepting Mr. B, they know what is going on here. He confessed to having spent 7 hours reading 1000+ pages to be ready for the hearing without full understanding of what he read. As he noted, he’s a professional who has been reading stuff like this for a few minutes. Survivor claimants? Not so much.

When attorneys tell claimants (whether their clients in a white collar case or a group of mass tort survivors) “this is really complicated so I’ll give you an overview from 30,000 feet” and “trust us, this is beneficial to all claimants,” they know from whence they speak. I want to know who crafted this new track (all parties), how it was devised and why, what are the breakthrough access points for the towers/excess layers, how many claims are assessed to be “most horrific and most severe.” Someone surely knows — yes, I called you Shirley — the category of claims being discussed or they wouldn’t have decided on the $20,000 number per case. If only ten claims are anticipated to be in that category, the Trust would most like have absorbed the cost. If there at 27,000, not so much.

Are any closed state claims among the “most horrific and severe,” based on the nature of the abuse? You betcha. Based on damages resulting from injury, including factoring in the uptick for eggshell plaintiffs? You bet your sweet bippy. Show me the calculus upon which this model was built. Show me the numbers, the presuppositions and projections, and identify the advocates who crafted it. I realize I am Doofus Magoo, but give me a chance to cipher it out and don’t leave me to to build my own logic tower out of stick matches and model glue. (Nod to the 60’s guys who repeatedly stuck their fingers together building planes and automobiles.)

I’m done. I beg forgiveness for typos. I’m moving in all directions at once today. 

 

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I find you are as far from a Doofus Magoo as one could be.

You’ve not yet seen either my hair on a windy, humid day at the beach or my trifocals. ;) 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For any who are willing, I would appreciate knowing if survivors hearing my 'voice' are pro se in the case, as in you don't have an attorney representing you. I know there are a few of us here. It's estimated there are 4500 overall. Again, as you desire, also like to know open/closed and Shade of Gray if closed. Only for those who care to reply! No pressure. Zero.

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