Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 9 - Confirmation Hearing


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Agreed.  I had flashbacks to Wilmington where Survivors gathered when the TCC was being selected and she walked out, said "The BSA is sorry, we'll give Survivors 90 days to get their claims in, and wrap this up quickly."  NO BSA professionals spoke, NO understanding of how difficult it would be for Survivors to come forward, let alone do it in 90 days.

How in gods name could she possibly think this process would only take 90 days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 319
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dr. Doug Kennedy made an impassioned speech to the court and asked the Judge to keep her focus on the survivors as she makes her decision(s).  Jessica Lauria thanks the court for the time devoted.   A

Annnnd....Judge has now said that she will give this another 45 minutes and pick things up in the morning.  Thus far the only clear winner in all of this is "Billable Hours."  

Missed this morning so far. Yesterday ... my takeaways. Bankruptcy US Trustee's path is clear .... go after the fact that some releases are being given with no contribution.  One o

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

How in gods name could she possibly think this process would only take 90 days. 

The original attorneys (I believe that Lauria was one of them) told the BSA that it would be only 90 days.   They indicated the same in front of a few thousand at the National Annual Meeting.  The attorneys and the BSA believed based upon history and the ineligible volunteer files that there would be 8,000 to may as high as 12,000 claims.   This whole process has been a nightmare for all involved.   That is not to in any manner compare the nightmare from child sexual abuse to the financial nightmare for the BSA but to say what the BSA expected and what the claimants expected have all been seriously different. 
 

I certainly hope that those of you who were abused can find some solace and a degree of closure. 

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

How in gods name could she possibly think this process would only take 90 days. 

Perhaps she underestimated there being a TCC that would have immediately demanded a longer claim period.  One of many miscalculations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The original attorneys (I believe that Lauria was one of them) told the BSA that it would be only 90 days.   They indicated the same in front of a few thousand at the National Annual Meeting.  The attorneys and the BSA believed based upon history and the ineligible volunteer files that there would be 8,000 to may as high as 12,000 claims.   This whole process has been a nightmare for all involved.

These attorneys/firms, the leads having switched firms in the midst, have been on this case since 2019. Anyone have an estimate of the income stream of 2019-2020 vs 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and surely well into 2023? We used to call cases and deals like this "lawyers' full employment acts."

Conversely, when will we know the amount PSZJ will be contributing to the Settlement Trust? They've committed to return 10% of their overall fee and sticking it in the piggy bank, which pink piggy is not nearly as large as she should be.

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just logged into the hearing.  Judge is asking a lot of questions about various aspects of the TDP, specifically why is there language in there that simply restates law.  Her point ... if there is no change to a contract term, then why restate it and make her rule on it. Let another judge deal with it later as needed.

Why are the TDPs (matrix, scaling factor) a "settlement".  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like debate around the TDP legal language.  Questions if these are considered a "settlement".  Sounds like we are already behind schedule (or soon will be).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to drop off for a bit and just joined during a break.  Judge focused on settlement language and part of bankruptcy code to use.  The judge keeps going back to the fact that not one single claim is being settled in this plan.  The trust will then settle the claims.  The lawyer with Brown Rudnick is pushing back hard.

It would be interesting to know why this is a battle and the impact if the judge covers this as not a settlement of claims.

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

It would be interesting to know why this is a battle and the impact if the judge covers this as not a settlement of claims.

To the former, I don't think it's a battle.  This judge said that she was going to have a lot of questions, the objectors certainly will take issue with supporter testimony, and at the end of the day it's up to each to make the right arguments that give her rationale for her decisions.  There will be moments when observers will think "OH, she supports this...." and a minute later "UH, not so fast with that thinking, might have been wrong about that...."  What will be interesting will be to see the "cumulative" nature of her comments and questions by the time this wraps up.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Sounds like we are already behind schedule (or soon will be).

Well behind. Pretty soon we will have chewed up the entire allocated block with just the supporters. If they take 4 hours, the objectors are entitled to equal time, righto? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThenNow said:

Well behind. Pretty soon we will have chewed up the entire allocated block with just the supporters. If they take 4 hours, the objectors are entitled to equal time, righto? 

I believe that is true.  However, the judge seemed clear the timeline was nice, but not anything she plans to hold to.  She is going to allow the sides to argue their point.  I do expect if she sees no value and it is beyond time limits, she may use them.  

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

I believe that is true.  However, the judge seemed clear the timeline was nice, but not anything she plans to hold to.  She is going to allow the sides to argue their point.  I do expect if she sees no value and it is beyond time limits, she may use them.  

Well, we have a wedding Friday so that overflow option will be walking down the aisle. Patterson, Kornfeld, Brady and Round 2 of Pachulski up after lunch. Far from over with the supporters. Mr. Pachulksi said he will take a long time on the STAC.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge just gave up attempting to keep this on schedule.  Taking a break for lunch (she was hoping to get through proponents before lunch).  She said ... we are behind.  Part of that is on me, part is not.  1 hour break for lunch.  Way off schedule per judge ... but it's where we are.

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

the objectors are entitled to equal time, righto?

Sort of from an "appearance" and not "time" aspect.  If the judge spoke up and said "I agree with you and don't have any questions" they'd be happy to shut up and yield any time!  The bigger issue is that this was doomed from the start when it came to only taking two days.  The Judge's face said that when Lauria laid out the pre-wedding plan.  Let's look at it another way.  We're all tired of waiting but now more than ever is the time for the Judge to take ALL the time she needs.  This case is unusual and historic in many ways.  She may need to carve out new territory to suit this case best.  Regardless, whatever side you're on I think we all want this confirmation hearing portion to take as long as it needs to at this point.   Puchalski now indicating that they are trying to massage the schedule to be logical. 

Well, maybe it's best to expect it to take a VERY long time and maybe get pleasingly surprised when it doesn't!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pachulski covers for the Judge that the TCC, BSA, FCR and Coalition sat down to address certain insurers' objections regarding Trust operation.  This included STAC does not need to approve neutral in IRP, or approve claims professionals (Trustee may make this decision.  Trustee will get $125K a month.  (Nice work if you can get it but in reality the Trust WILL BE a multi-billion dollar entity so that's probably the going price for a CEO.  I'm still jealous).  Trustee won't have a financial interest with any non-settling insurers.  There were a host of other changes to "clean up" operations that allow the Trustee to act independently.    Today's filing is Docket #9595 and the Trust may be set up as an LLC.  Any disputes between the Trustee, STAC and FCR will take place via ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) instead of going back to bankruptcy court all the time. 

This was a LONG presentation of "Courthouse steps" changes addressing concerns before the insurers raise them.  I'll be in my car so I'll leave it up to someone else to post the Judge's reaction.

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