Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 4 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said: 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. No questions/comments from the judge. She said she will wait for the insurers. Given that this trust will last 10+ years, that means at least $15M of the trust is just going to the Trustee. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 6.5 hours of argument in support of plan, was suppose to be 2 hours. Certain insurers questioning if they should even start today. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 Girl Scout lawyer just jumped in and want to go now. Attempt to close out some 1 off issues. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 Wolff with good faith objection & DOJ independent review process fee objection to close out the day. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 Wolff arguing venue ... judge not agreeing ... we are 2+ years in. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 I believe Lujan Wolff said she would take 10 minutes. She is now 30 minutes in with almost no questions from the judge ... only the quick point that she isn't changing venue. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 No questions from the judge ... probably not a good sign. BSA is ready with responses but Judge now going to Buchbinder (DOJ) about the $20K fee. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 DOJ done (about 3-4 mins). Now Lauria responding. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 6, 2022 Author Share Posted April 6, 2022 Lauria done & court done for today. Judge had no questions. Now Patterson defending $20K fee. Many arguments including the fact the trustee can waive the fee. No questions from judge. 11AM tomorrow Done ... this is going to go well into next week. Link to post Share on other sites
ThenNow 1373 Posted April 6, 2022 Share Posted April 6, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, MYCVAStory said: 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. "Needs to" being the fudge factor. Mr. Patterson's interpretive "needs to" dance and Ms. Wolff's will look very different when performed live on stage. I won't even mention certain pro se parties. This here block-o-issues is slated for three hours, 1.5 to each side. Say wha? Third Party Releases and Channeling Injunction (Including Definition of Abuse Claims, Jurisdiction and Authority, Substantial Contribution Arguments, Contribution of Insurance Rights to Trust, Direct Action Rights, and Due Process) Edited April 6, 2022 by ThenNow Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 7, 2022 Author Share Posted April 7, 2022 My thoughts from what I saw from the 1st day (I didn't listen in all day so may have missed key updates). Bad faith ... I expect that objection will fail. Judge almost said as much. Venue location ... objection will fail Is TDP a settlement ... my understanding is this is mildly important to help provide more power over insurance companies. ... tough to say, judge pushed back on this; however, it seemed like Dr. Patterson (sp?) made some progress arguing this later on. Fee for independent review ... judge didn't ask many questions, but she may when someone argues in favor of it TCC lawyer went on a while about how important this case is to resolve the claims and that tort is a bad substitute ... the judge responded I understand your non technical summary of this case. Seemed to be a bit of a shot. Those who want the whole case thrown out or the plan blown up are not winning any arguments. I think this is more about details within the plan structure. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 7, 2022 Author Share Posted April 7, 2022 Just joined and heard a Pro Se claimant indicate John Roberts (yes the supreme court's John Roberts) has accused him of Treason? Sounds like he has a very interesting story. 1972 John Roberts moved into his house, intercepted a communication from the Pope ... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 7, 2022 Author Share Posted April 7, 2022 The certain insurer lawyer finished up on big aspect of their objection, that the deal wasn't negotiated in good faith. The ending was interesting. Doren, the lawyer, talked about being a boy scout from 10 - 18 and one of his proudest moments was earning Eagle Scout. He and the certain insurers do not want BSA to fold. They want BSA to exit bankruptcy, but with an appropriate plan. (per them, this plan isn't acceptable). I only listened to 15 mins or so, and there were almost no questions from the judge. Would be interesting if she asked about any aspect of his presentation. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
MYCVAStory 687 Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: The certain insurer lawyer finished up on big aspect of their objection, that the deal wasn't negotiated in good faith. The ending was interesting. Doren, the lawyer, talked about being a boy scout from 10 - 18 and one of his proudest moments was earning Eagle Scout. He and the certain insurers do not want BSA to fold. They want BSA to exit bankruptcy, but with an appropriate plan. (per them, this plan isn't acceptable). I only listened to 15 mins or so, and there were almost no questions from the judge. Would be interesting if she asked about any aspect of his presentation. It appeared that she wanted to get to the break and knows that there are other objectors so she's probably holding off on questions. He was effective and did a great job of illustrating his points graphically. His "appropriate plan" is pretty comical. The insurers love the status quo. They get to ignore all the claims that are out-of-statute and fight the rest one-by-one using time and delay to their advantage. It'll be interesting to see if she's loading up questions to ask but she also commented that she wants to address today the schedule for the rest of the confirmation. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1993 2161 Posted April 7, 2022 Author Share Posted April 7, 2022 Ok .. it looks like a lawyer clarified why the settlement term is so important. They want the ability to fight claims from the trust in state court. They don't want the settlement and fair determination to come in now as it could limit their defense in the future. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts