Eagle1993

I’m not a lawyer but my read based on articles and some good analysis from various legal feeds. Even though it is a different circuit, if McMahon is correct in terms of Bankruptcy law, it would seem to be applicable. Don’t forget another judge (Novak 4th circuit) is questioning non debtor releases in district courts. We may be seeing district courts across the board enforce bankruptcy courts to stay in their lane. Silverstein really wants to know where the claimants are in terms of this plan. If this plan sees >95% yes, then I expect she will want to find a way forward. She will need to find a legal argument to include LCs and COs. I could imagine her excluding COs while still keeping in LCs. If the vote goes south, the following must be decided: 1) Can non debtor releases be included in the plan 2) Are LCs separate from National or should their assets merge based on legal arrangements 3) Is the JP Morgan secured debt legitimate or are high adventure bases not secured. If the debt is questionable then JP Morgan may need to take a hit. 4) Depending on above, how should votes be counted be LC, CO, etc.

Voting is hours away from closing out. (If you are a voting entity ... get your votes in!). So, there is an updated schedule likely to be approved very soon. I found it interesting that in this case, the Debtors (BSA) and the TCC agreed to this update but the Coalition wasn't listed. 52ca7b40-5212-4b83-ba83-bde81e2d737e_7973.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Dec 29 Deadline to serve discovery on voting, settlements Jan 4 Preliminary voting report Jan 5 Rebuttal expert reports due Jan 7 Deadline to serve responses/objections to voting/settlement discovery Jan 14 Document production regarding voting/settlement due Jan 17 Final voting report deadline Jan 28 Deposition of expert witness & fact witnesses due Jan 31 Deadline to identify trial witnesses Feb 4 Plan objection deadline Feb 10 Deadline to exchange depositions designations and file motions Feb 14 Confirmation brief/plan reply deadline Feb 15 Deadline to exchange deposition couter-designations Feb 17 Deadline to submit joint pretial order, witness/exhibit lists, options to motions, etc Feb 18 Final pretrial conference Feb 22 Confirmation hearing Note that in other cases, there have been big changes between the preliminary voting report & final report. There shouldn't be ... but this was mentioned in court that it has been seen in the past. I really think January 4 is the key date here. Option 1 - Claimants massively approve this deal (95%+ yes votes). Based on what I have seen from other cases, I would expect this to go forward. Yes, there will be a confirmation battle. BSA, LCs, COs and insurance may kick in a few hundred million more combined to try to get TCC and remaining lawfirms on board. There may be tweaks but overall, I think the judge will try and make this plan work. Purdue is a big question, but that is a different circuit and not yet through all appeals so she may ignore it for now. Option 2 - Claimants approve, but not overwhelmingly (66% - 90%). The BSA, FCR, UMC/LDS, Coalition and insurance companies will fight hard to get the plan confirmed. TCC, Zalkin, Catholic Church and remaining insurance fights against the plan. Months of fighting & negotiations. Chaos. Option 3 - Claimants reject the plan (<66%). The Coalition will blame TCC/Kosnoff's email. Perhaps a bit of fighting, but BSA will admit defeat. I hope in all options, the judge keeps these hearings going. There are a TON of questions that must be answered and ruled on by the judge. Before a new plan takes shape (assuming Option 2/3) she needs to make rulings to help frame the plan (and future voting).

It seems clear that Patterson (I believe representing Zalkin) dug deep into the Coalition confusion and especially the eBallot and voting. I expect this could come up again when reviewing voting results from coalition law firms. Century (Tanc) asked a ton of wide ranging questions. I still have an hour left but so far, most of the interest was in the signing/vetting of claims. He also identified a case where Kosnoff lost where a judge indicated that charted orgs have the primary liability not BSA. We are less than 24 hours until voting closes out. If I were to bet, I don’t expect this plan will receive enough yea votes. We may actually see more than 66%, but given the non debtors involved I think the judge will need to see 95% or more. I think we get official info next year.

Kosnoff uploaded his full deposition. I’m listening while working on my bathroom remodel. Interesting background on the formation of AIS and the Coalition. The coalition apparently started with a plan to litigate the separation of LCs vs National (they were planning to argue that it was one big entity). That switches when tort lawyers joined in whose goal was fast settlements. Also, per Kosnoff, Rothweiler took out loans to pay for litigation, spent more than their line of credit then signed over some of their settlement proceeds to Wall Street. Kosnoff indicated he was asked by these firms to sign on and he refused. Only 30 mins in…

@melissabjacoby tweeted that the BSA ballot (22 pages) is not fitting in the supplied envelope. 5 non-consecutive pages require signatures. Note that other forms of voting are allowed but this issue may come up later if ballots are not received.

Locking this for Christmas. Merry Christmas and hope you have a wonderful day.

I think there are multiple types of lawyers involved. I have seen lawyers who seem to know their claimants well, understand their case, vetted their claim, kept them updated and are fighting for them in all aspects. I respect those lawyers and have no issue with them. Then there are lawyers who trolled the internet to build a large group of claimants, have no clue and likely don’t care about their claims and are simply trying to get a settlement so they can charge their large fees while doing minimal work for individual claimants. I wish those lawyers never got involved in this case. What is sad about bankruptcy is that each claim doesn’t get it’s time in court. Some may be false. Some may not be the fault of BSA at all. Others the BSA is to blame or LCs or COs. Bankruptcy just lumps them together and says here is a check. It would have been if this could have remained outside bankruptcy but unfortunately BSA didn’t have the money to defend the onslaught. Hopefully we are closer to the end than the beginning for all involved.

If I were voting, I would cast my vote with Omni. I would then check to see how my final vote was recorded. If my lawyer switched my vote, I would complain to the court, complain to the bar and look for lawyers who sue other lawyers. What is being alleged in these letters is just wrong.

Great story about a scout not earning Eagle. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2021/12/08/proof-that-earning-eagle-isnt-the-only-sign-of-a-successful-scouting-experience

This is what she did in a similar case. It was felony rape, sexual assaults, etc. https://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-47796-542878--,00.html

I believe it. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9156e828-9e46-448c-bdd0-ae41eab0683b_Chartered_Organization_Notice.pdf I found the charter org voting information here. Charter organizations votes will be counted under the claim they filed ... it looks like most would be under Indirect Abuse Claims.

Based on my understanding - Each voting group is counted separately. It is up to the plan to balance out these groups while also creating a 5 year plan that is viable. Note that one topic that is coming up. Should all direct abuse claims be lumped together, or should they be treated separately if they take the lump sum or are inside/outside SOL.

They are in a different claimant class. Each claimant class has to vote yes, by at least 66%. UMC churches votes would not be counted with the sex abuse survivor votes. I believe they would fall under general unsecured claims, but perhaps convenience. They will definitely not fall under direct abuse claims which will likely decide the path of this bankruptcy. 2010 Credit Facility Claims 2019 RCF Claims 2010 Bond Claims 2012 Bond Claims Convenience Claims General Unsecured Claims Non-Abuse Litigation Claims Direct Abuse Claims Indirect Abuse Claims

This topic is to discuss the legal bankruptcy case against the BSA. The 2nd amended, 5th plan is currently going through voting of all parties. The current plan can be found here: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/b69d49f8-8dab-4023-9ab9-ba341c6340d2_7832.pdf Voting is currently underway by each of the claimant classes below. The expectation is that each class must approve the plan (>66% of votes cast must say yes) for it to be considered. Most of the focus will be the "direct abuse claims" which total around 84,000 and the primary focus of the bankruptcy plan. 2010 Credit Facility Claims Impaired 2019 RCF Claims Impaired 2010 Bond Claims Impaired 2012 Bond Claims Impaired Convenience Claims Impaired General Unsecured Claims Impaired Non-Abuse Litigation Claims Impaired Direct Abuse Claims Impaired Indirect Abuse Claims Impaired Once voting is complete, the court will review the vote, go through various objections and if still ok, start plan confirmation hearings. Current timing indicated plan confirmation hearings would start February 22. For an overall guide to various bankruptcy topics, go here: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32827-bankruptcy-topic-guide-stop-here-first/

Ok .. I'm going to freeze this topic and create a new one. 130 pages is more than enough. Here is the new thread.

FYI ... I moved a few comments to the other thread to keep this one focused on the legal aspects of the bankruptcy. Link below.

This is venturing far from bankruptcy so we may need to move some comments. This is a very limited screen shot. Who knows. Perhaps by pervert they mean gay. Perhaps the first incident BSA became aware of, they put him on this list. Would need more info to truly know.

The judge has been very reluctant to delay this hearing … I also think it’s interesting she wants to see the vote. My guess… if it is not near 95% approval she kills this version of the plan. Every case I am seeing with large claimant classes seem to get to at least 95% and even then sometimes the plan is rejected/changed. Judge indicated she read Purdue ruling and corrected the Hartford lawyer who quoted the judge incorrectly (about a prior ruling). Sounds like she didn’t tip her hand based on what I am reading. BSA says the plan is completely dependent on non debtor releases … no surprise and they are correct. Patterson a lawyer for Zalkin who sounds like specialized in bankruptcy said this is now becoming or is the most complex bankruptcy ever and the channeling releases go farther than Purdue. Insurance companies indicated they won’t release payments unless they have releases for LCs and COs.

What do you mean by this? The $100M does not go to BSA it goes to claimants. What does productive use mean to you? Checking to see how claimants spend their money? Just a bit confused. I doubt anyone contributes much to a claimant fund. I have very high doubts they come close to $5M. People interested in BSA will more likely donate to the BSA not the fund. Fundraising would get reallly messy.

Nothing.

UMC just offered $30M. They also agree to work on YPT and help fundraising with councils to hit $100M more to the settlement. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/72e4dc04-9e45-4184-abc7-cd8c5c6595b3_7884.pdf

Unless they charge Scout Executives I doubt it. In the past, with respect to the Catholic Church, and the Mich AG has targeted the actual individuals not leadership. In addition, this is a small number vs the claims.

Purdue Pharma now officially being brought up on the Docket. Note that there will likely be a new case to reference soon as another District Court blasted nonconsensual non debtor releases (calling them nonsense). 00ea8d61-4406-4e26-8710-51a7af2d0ee0_7863.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) The TCC is asking the judge to not delay confirmation, other than allowing 1 more week for discovery. ... Note that if the TCC thought this was headed to an approval, I bet they would want to delay confirmation hearings. This may be a sign ... The TCC is asking the judge to have a two step Confirmation. The first step is to review the bankruptcy court's ability to issue protection to non debtors. They reference various cases including Purdue Pharma. Basically, the TCC would like to court to rule on this first as if the court decides they cannot issue 3rd party releases (either at all OR without major modifications) then there is no point to continue the confirmation hearing.

Bankruptcy court is supposed to find that balance. I would argue, if this was a National BSA bankruptcy only, and the settlement stayed within those bounds, we would see that scale more clearly. 1) BSA must be allowed to exit bankruptcy with a 5 year business plan that is achievable. 2) Claimants must approve the plan. I expect it would be much easier for all sides to find that balance. Now, by including LCs and COs and then their insurance coverage ... that scale becomes a 9-dimensional array and likely requires a degree in high energy physics to figure out. If there wasn't a major impact on camps, this would be much easier to take at the unit level. However, part of me believes if councils really wanted to save their camps they could. Most seem happy with the direction we are headed (online MB classes and Cub Scout day camps)

Exactly. Another topic going around the lawyer/legal professor Twitter universe is how BSA's LC contributions are structured. Specifically, a Georgetown Legal Professor is questioning how LC funds are being comingled. He is saying this is actually a case that isn't messy and they (BSA) should easily be able to divert funds from a LC to their specific claimants. The professor is also questioning the insurance settlements. The insurance, as written, has a per incident cap (many times $1M) but no aggregate cap. However, now through their settlement they have an aggregate cap which will require claimants to take much less than the incident camp. He states that the insurers have enough money to pay out the per incident cap. He is questioning how claimants who approve the plan could bind the claimants who reject the plan with respect to insurance coverage. I lot of questions remain...