Chapter 11 announced - Part 14 - Plan Effective

[Tron 66]

On 10/30/2023 at 4:29 PM, SNEScouter said:

To quote another poster:

Equitable mootness is the idea that so much has happened since plan confirmation in reliance on effectiveness of the plan - property being bought and sold, money being spent, claims being processed, paid and settled, etc. - that it would be impossible to unwind it all.  Therefore, the court simply dismisses the appeals and lets the confirmed plan stay in place.

There is a missing aspect here. Equitable Mootness also involves influence of simply ending/moving the bankruptcy forward or toward completion. In relation to this case Equitable Mootness is certainly in use to end the whole process and allow everyone to move forward from a common point in time and from a common standing. 

[RememberSchiff 3488]

Boy Scouts victims may lose out on funds over 'quick pay' deadline

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/boy-scouts-victims-may-lose-out-funds-over-quick-pay-deadline-2023-11-01/

[SiouxRanger 450]

As near as I can tell, “equitable muteness” means the appellate court recognizes that the trial court screwed up horribly, but that so many people believed that the trial court knew what it was doing, and relied on that belief, or even the trial court’s Judgment to proceed with enforcement of the trial court’s Judgment, that the appellate court system does not want to disappoint them at the appellate level.

Which raises another issue.  A trial court could issue a Judgment of doubtful legal propriety, and then authorize immediate implementation of that Judgment, “NOT pending appeal,” thus rendering the court’s judgment “unappealable” due to the doctrine of “equitable muteness.”

Essentially, a lower court can sabotage appeals of its own Judgments by ordering immediate implementation, NOT pending appeals, thus providing the appeals court with the “out” of “we can’t review or reverse the trial court’s judgment because of “equitable mootness.”

Appeals court:  “Even if the trial court is hopelessly wrong, its erroneous judgment has been implemented so extensively, that, per the doctrine of “equitable muteness,” we will not reverse the trial court’s judgment.”

So, the trial court got it all wrong.  The Appeals Court feels its hands are tied and can’t reverse an erroneous trial court judgment, and the wrongs, of a trial court, are not righted.  Hmmm.  American Justice?

This analysis gets really ugly.  So, if the trial court’s Judgment is based on indifference, ignorance, bribe, roll of dice, cab driver’s opinion, barber’s opinion (not to slight landscapers, frog wranglers…), laziness, dumb guess, whatever…per the doctrine of equitable muteness, an appeals court will not change the trial court’s Judgment.  Hmmm.

(Whisper:  if totally incorrect trial court Judgments can be rendered unappealable, do we even need law school educated trial court judges? Perhaps an articulate magpie can do the job, as along as the court clerk adds, “Enforceable not pending appeal” to the court order and the winning parties rush to enforcement.)

So, just who wants to proceed immediately to implement the trial court’s Judgment and thereby effectively make the Judgment unappealable?

Those who believe they got a good deal from the Judgment.  BSA, certain insurers, and any party to this mess opposing the appeals-they figure they got a good deal.

I truly hope that attorneys on this forum with greater knowledge and experience on these matters than me chime in on the whole BSA bankruptcy process we have seen, and on the doctrine of equitable muteness, and my comments here-maybe I’ve got it all out of balance.

[SNEScouter 53]

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

A trial court could issue a Judgment of doubtful legal propriety, and then authorize immediate implementation of that Judgment, “NOT pending appeal,” thus rendering the court’s judgment “unappealable” due to the doctrine of “equitable muteness.”

Essentially, a lower court can sabotage appeals of its own Judgments by ordering immediate implementation, NOT pending appeals, thus providing the appeals court with the “out” of “we can’t review or reverse the trial court’s judgment because of “equitable mootness.”

Appeals court:  “Even if the trial court is hopelessly wrong, its erroneous judgment has been implemented so extensively, that, per the doctrine of “equitable muteness,” we will not reverse the trial court’s judgment.”

So, the trial court got it all wrong.  The Appeals Court feels its hands are tied and can’t reverse an erroneous trial court judgment, and the wrongs, of a trial court, are not righted.  Hmmm.  American Justice?

At least in the BSA case, that is simply not what happened.  Several courts had the opportunity to reject the plan or at least pause its implementation, and did not.  It wasn't just one trial judge.  The bankruptcy court (Judge Silverstein) first had to confirm the plan, which she did in September 2022 after lengthy proceedings.  Then the district court (Judge Andrews) had to affirm the plan which happened in March 2023.  Plan opponents then moved in the district court to stay implementation of the plan pending appeal, which Judge Andrews denied.  Finally, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion to stay implementation of the plan pending appeal on April 19, 2023.  Only then did the plan go into effect.  That's three different courts that looked at the plan before it went into effect.  If any of those courts thought the plan was improper or deficient, they could have paused it or rejected it and they did not.

[Eagle1970 176]

I was unable to attend the town hall and realize it will be posted at some point on the settlement page.  But, was there anything of substance?

[Tron 66]

On 11/2/2023 at 2:20 AM, SiouxRanger said:

 

Those who believe they got a good deal from the Judgment.  BSA, certain insurers, and any party to this mess opposing the appeals-they figure they got a good deal.

 

Didn't 86% of the plaintiffs, the BSA, and almost all of the insurance companies (the insurance companies that voted against the settlement are the ones trying to get out of paying anything IMHO) vote to approve the settlement? Over 250 million has been spent on legal bills so far; that's money that the plaintiffs are not getting; I think part of the equitable mootness are the judges trying to keep the lawyers from bleeding funds away from the victims.

[Eagle1970 176]

Another delay.  Just wondering how you can select a quick-pay option "without understanding its ramifications".  The form was very clear, to me.  And this will stop the quick-pay resolution in its tracks for an unknown period of time, and that will slow the progress of the entire flow of claims.

PER BLOOMBERG:

Hundreds of claimants seek to correct paperwork error

Judge said she will take time to issue ruling

The Boy Scouts of America’s bankruptcy judge asked sex abuse claimants’ lawyers for a legal standard that would allow some claimants to correct potentially costly mistakes they made on paperwork.

Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein said at a Monday hearing she would need time to determine if claimants who opted for a $3,500 payout from the youth organization’s $2.46 billion abuse victims’ trust can change the selection they made. About 500 claimants, or 0.4% of all claimants, have said they selected the quick-pay option without understanding its ramifications—that they would be unable to pursue larger recoveries.

[johnsch322 497]

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

Just wondering how you can select a quick-pay option "without understanding its ramifications".  The form was very clear, to me.

With all of the TCC and Coalition Town Halls explaining everything it seems like it would have been impossible to check that box not knowing the ramifications. 

[Eagle1970 176]

9 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

With all of the TCC and Coalition Town Halls explaining everything it seems like it would have been impossible to check that box not knowing the ramifications. 

And for the sake of the vast majority of the survivors, I hope the judge is a little more swift in her ruling than she indicates.

[JBWest 14]

I would suggest that it was advertised to be as easy as buying a lottery ticket.   Just call the number and see what you win!  Jackpot justice as they say, and the allure to those unemployed during Covid must have been powerful.   Now that the Powerball number has increased, some have buyer's remorse, or wish they had bought the multiplier.

This is not to take anything away from the survivors or claimants.   Rather, it is an argument for sound legal advice.   I am not a lawyer, but everyone should have one.  (Lord knows there are enough of them in this country.)   If you stand to win $3500, it is not unreasonable to spend a tenth of that on a consultation.   Use a free clinic if you must, but you are unlikely to get good service from claims consolidators who are nominally in the employ of a law firm.

[johnsch322 497]

7 minutes ago, JBWest said:

Use a free clinic if you must, but you are unlikely to get good service from claims consolidators who are nominally in the employ of a law firm.

From my understanding the lawyer from the AVA firm says he knew that mistakes had been made before the plan was passed but never spoke up. I say let everything stand as is and have those claimants sue their respective lawyers for malpractice. Might make more from their insurance than they would have from a valid claim.

[skeptic 875]

"quick pay"; how can one NOT understand that?  In a way, that is reflective of too much of society, and of course it appears, those that opted for "the lottery" easy pick.