Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 10 - Post Confirmation Hearing/Judges Ruling


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Tron said:

This boggles me a bit; I know there is the "not wanting to relive the trauma" aspect of giving a detailed verification; however, if many are suspected to just take the $3500 why is the majority of this thread, the case, and the debate about the money instead of all of the other factors of the settlement?

I think you should read all the threads relating to the bankruptcy before you ask this question. I believe all aspects of the bankruptcy has been discussed and debated at some point. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 299
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A friend contacted me privately, concerned I've not been posting. He knows I am on all the hearings and was checking in on me. Honestly, Eagle1993 does such an excellent job I had little to add. My at

Thanks for mentioning that.  Probably a good time for me to pop back up.  I just want to say thanks to everyone who participates on this and other forums (Fora?).  I take my role on the TCC seriously

I hope you find some peace.  For me, the start of the bankruptcy and having to address the abuse again was difficult. But, I went back to therapy and found some other people with similar experien

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I think you should read all the threads relating to the bankruptcy before you ask this question. I believe all aspects of the bankruptcy has been discussed and debated at some point. 

Someone got triggered and scared by a simple question.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Any particular year?

(By legal convention, construction contract completion dates are specified as "Julember, no year stated.)

That was a running joke where I worked years ago.  Work that would never get done had a due-date of April 1st without a year.  Everyone knew the work would never get done.  It was listed that way so people would not try to add the work yet again ... or they could work to get the priority changed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tron said:

This boggles me a bit; I know there is the "not wanting to relive the trauma" aspect of giving a detailed verification; however, if many are suspected to just take the $3500 why is the majority of this thread, the case, and the debate about the money instead of all of the other factors of the settlement?

This case is hugely about money.  Always has been. 

Other factors such as YP improvements started years ago before the bankruptcy and the bankruptcy settlement additional YP expectations are not really that controversial.  

The bankruptcy questions now are wholly about money.  How much is needed?  What is fair?  How can you pay money to SOL time-barred victims while paying less to victims with open, active claims?  How much should each party pay / receive.  How to control manage the legal process spend rate?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tron said:

Someone got triggered and scared by a simple question.

No. Just suggested that you acquaint yourself with the past few years of discussions and debates. Is that to much to ask?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Tron said:

Someone got triggered and scared by a simple question.

No. Every time new folks join the forum there is a lot of ground to cover and it's easier to just ask folks to go back and review the discussions. There is a recap section in Issues and Politics that has a good starting list of everything that can be reviewed. It says Read This First. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Anyone see something ominous or nefarious in the cancellation of the June 17th hearing and rescheduling to July 20th?

Looks like the debtors & settling insurers agreed to the delay.

This came from an objection to the delay of litigation until Sept 12, 2022 (it was a quote from the hearing)

Quote

(“We recommend 90 days. We think that’s a reasonable time period for the settlement trustee to get her bearings, and get organized, and retain coverage counsel, and then, everyone could go forward with that litigation. So that’s our suggestion. Of course, Your Honor, we defer to you on that, but that’s -- we don’t see an issue or a problem with Allianz or any other nonsettling (inaudible) moving forward. We would just like some structure to that, that’s all.

So ... one way I look at this. 

- BSA during the hearing argued that state court cases (primarily with insurance companies) be allowed 90 days after plan approval.

- BSA THEN submitted a request in early May  that the judge delay state court cases until September 12th.

- Insurance companies objected saying, among other things, that BSA argued for 90 days ... why do they need more?  Just give them the 90 days.

- As of today, 90 days is September 11, 2022.  So basically, the request from BSA back in early May is meaningless as we still do not have plan approval.  It is likely plan approval will push the state court cases beyond the September 12th date BSA requested.

Therefore... no point in the hearing.

 

That is my guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SNEScouter said:

 

Also it was the only matter on the judge’s calendar on a Friday before a 3-day weekend.

 Judge would have kept it if either party wanted to proceed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2022 at 11:40 AM, Tron said:

Someone got triggered and scared by a simple question.

Please keep in mind that this forum runs on slightly tighter rules of conduct than some other places. Low value snarky responses such are not acceptable here given the highly emotional nature of the subject-matter.

Please consider this an informal warning.

Edited by elitts
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are now two months after the hearing ended.  I'm shocked it is taking this long.  Articles from early May indicated people thought the judge would be back "soon".

BSA likely has 1 shot at this ... if district or appeals reject the plan, I'm not sure BSA has the cash to withstand the impact.  Plus ... I start wondering the impact on BSA from inflation, higher interest rates, market crash (impacting endowments), etc.  They really need to exit bankruptcy soon and I'm not sure anyone thought it would take more than 2 months for a decision.

This article (not sure if it was posted previously) really summarizes what the judge has to decide.  She knows this plan will have to be approved by district and then likely to be appealed.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2022/04/25/664463.htm

She spent a lot of time on this topic:

Quote

They contend the fund distribution procedures violate their rights and would result in grossly inflated payments of abuse claims, including tens of thousands otherwise barred by the passage of time. Opposing insurers also say the findings plan supporters want the judge to make would bind them and make it difficult to challenge claim decisions. In an email, one attorney for abuse claimants described such binding trust distribution procedures as a “Holy Grail” that mass tort lawyers have been chasing for years. Insurers say approval by the judge would set a dangerous precedent tort lawyers would use to their advantage in future lawsuits.

The way it was left, I have to say it seemed like the non settling insurers made some pretty strong points.  The judge kept asking why she needs to decide this.  I think the TDP/Neutral path language could be the #1 issue holding her up.  I don't know for sure, but she seemed very concerned about this area.

 

The other area that I know externally there is a lot of focus is third party releases.

Quote

Perhaps the most contentious issue in the bankruptcy, and the one most fraught with legal difficulty, is whether third parties, including insurers, local BSA councils and troop sponsors, should be allowed to escape future liability by contributing to the victims fund, or at least not objecting to the plan.

While some of the release language may be an issue ... I actually didn't get the sense that she had an issue including COs or councils in the plan.  I wouldn't be surprised if she came back with some minor fix requests, but an all out removal of COs/Councils would shock me.  There is a chance another court could rule otherwise, but for Judge Silverstein, I get the sense she was fine with the total package.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Found these two "Opinion on Confirmation" by Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey (recalled Judge Silberstein fired her mentor). One plan he rejected (49 pages) and one he approved (29 pages).  I have not found previous Judge Silberstein opinions. Given the complexity of the case, I could understand her opinion writing taking longer.

Rejected the Fourth Amended Plan of Exide Batteries in 2002

https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-kevin-j.carey/exide.pdf

Approved reorganization plan of Abengoa in 2016. Note objection of US Trustee objection to third party releases.

http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb16-10790-1033.pdf

image.png.2ba2adf742c130f0657f29219f06d660.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2022 at 9:43 AM, Eagle1970 said:

How these factors are applied could be a huge factor in any individual case or the settlement as a whole.

Agreed and why the Trust administration and communication are so important.  Survivors must have "trust" in a Trust to ensure a level playing field and an understanding of the administration of claims.  It'll be interesting.

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