Eagle1993

To me this is 100% fair. I think Century lawyer pointed out the big issue. The largest group of claimants which the Coalition claims comes from AIS. AIS is really 3 law firms, and they are NOT aligned. Some are on board with the deal, others are not. Without AIS, the coalition's power fades greatly. I would not be surprised if many claimants from AIS have multiple and inconsistent votes submitted on their behalf. If that happens, it will be a giant disaster. The judge really needs to step in regarding the AIS claimants. We were likely in 2022 anyway, but this seems to make it official.

So ... they cannot assume a YES vote if they don't hear from the client. Which lawyer will represent AIS clients? Could we see three different firms submit those clients votes and what happens if the votes don't match?

I think to put this in perspective ... wasn't the vote from Imerys back in April roughly? They are still debating the results of the vote now (5 months later). We could be in a situation where the vote occurs in October and we are debating the results in March 2022.... and that isn't even talking about confirmation of the plan.

WOW ... US Trustee ... if the BSA cannot afford to follow the US Bankruptcy rules, they should reconsider the chapter they are in.

Another interesting point ... $1 per vote right now. However, at confirmation, she will be open to argument that the weighting can be changed post vote. Confirmation appears to be the big battle.

The Ad Hoc committee lawyer for the councils raised a concern about this path, so it will be a post vote confirmation battle. A plaintiff lawyer made it clear that this bankruptcy is different than others as there are individual non debtors that have their separate claims each attempting to get their claims settled. The court decided to leave council names off the ballot, but said that is because they will know who voted and could later determine outcome of the vote by council, by CO, etc. All of that will be available by discovery.

Interesting point in court ... for the vote, the TCC wants to know votes for/against for BSA, LC and by CO. For example, what % of Greater St. Louis Council votes in favor of the deal. Same with LDS, Methodist, etc. So those who are non LDS cannot release LDS. Those who were not in St. Louis Council cannot release St. Louis Council. Right now, they are talking about the ballot as it may be needed at confirmation (for example, there is a chance releases would be by council depending on council by council vote). Judge wants to make sure there is the ability to know voting by council at confirmation (and CO).

Then don’t include COs and LCs in the deal and it can close. The issue is COs and LCs are asking to wash their sins by paying a sum of money …. So who determines that sum? That is the issue.

If you vote yes, I can buy that vacation home in Cabo and you can afford a partial year of therapy. If you vote no, I'll have to work more on this project and my wall street backers may increase my interest rate. Please vote yes. I think I heard a yes. Ok, then, we agree ... yes. Thanks! Yeah ... good luck controlling the vote if the Coalition lawyers get the ballots. As much as I love the BSA and I think this deal works out well for them, I really dislike the Coalition lawyers. Those few hours I spent listening to court was enough to see who they represent. BSA lawyers are great ... they represent BSA well. The insurance lawyers are great defenders of their employer (one reminds me a a mob lawyer, but that's fine.) The TCC lawyers ... also well spoken, clearly defending their position. The claimant lawyers who are sex abuse lawyers have been stellar ... frequently objecting, telling us why it doesn't represent their client interests. The one time I heard from the Coalition lawyer it was about themselves more than their clients. It made me sick thinking that there is a group of people in this process so poorly represented. It also makes me concerned, as a BSA supporter, that this could end bad ... because a group is so poorly represented. I would rather have all sides represented well as the outcome is less likely to be appealed and when the plan is approved we are done. I'm not convinced we are headed to that resolution.

@CynicalScouter Do you have the link to register for this Zoom? May be too late, but some may be interested.

Given the disaster of her other case that involves voting of large number of claims she better be careful to avoid a repeat. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/imerys-talc-reorg-plan-vote-changes-prompt-confusion-contention-bankruptcy-2021-06-23/

This is probably not the case to get your feet wet... WOW. If she is not careful, this case will end up in appeals hell.

I think the September 20th date made a lot of sense if the thought was the pretty much final plan was to be reviewed at the hearing September 21. I didn't follow the hearing today but the several hours I had it on yesterday ... it seems like we may be weeks away from closing out a plan that will go to a vote. Even then, it sounds like post vote, the plan could change a bit. So ... there is still time for a CO deal with the UMC.

Who is Green?

Talks primarily to LC disclosures and the judge encouraging the TCC to share the information they have. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-plaintiffs-lawyers-call-breakdown-local-council-abuse-claims-2021-09-21/

Just a quick notice. There were several comments hidden and others that drifted from the legal aspects of bankruptcy. Those comments were moved to our other thread. Given that we will have several hearings this week, it made sense to move those to keep the topics separate and manageable.

I don't think the court got through all of the Plan Disclosure objections. When will those be covered? It seems like we have days and days of hearings left just on that.

I see a chance to get 67% Only positive statements about the plan are included in the voting package More claims than we thought are either fraudulent or submitted with minimal care ... claims just looking to get a quick payout of anything. All claims get the same vote. I actually think those most impacted will be the non time barred claims that are looking to pursue the issue in state court. If they get a bigger vote, I see this deal dying. Coalition lawyers have letters allowing them to vote for their claimants So, I think it is a done deal yet. It is definitely risky and I would love the TCC to be on board before it goes out to a vote. Note that even if a vote approves the deal, it could die (for example, if the Purdue Pharma deal is blowing up in appeal courts, the judge in this case may rethink where this is headed). I really think BSA should have a negotiated BSA only settlement ready if the grand bargain dies. I have no idea of the odds of this, but I don't have a good feeling unless the TCC backs the deal.

Perhaps I am confused, but BSA isn't offering $1.3B for time barred claims. They are offering ~$2B for ALL claims. Given that the non time barred claims are going to be given a much higher payout than time barred claims, I believe the BSA offer for time barred claims will end up being <<<$1.3B. I think it is too early to really see where this is headed as there are complexities with LDS & LC payouts, but I expect all claims will get much less than any average settlement they would have seen in state court.

I dropped off the call and was primarily focused on work today, but a few things points I took away: The delays are done. We are now at the start of the beginning of the end. Current focus is the disclosure. Expect this to take most of the week. The judge has been clear that disclosure is separate from discovery which is separate from plan confirmation. There are some pretty big questions. Does the LC, LDS & Hartford money go to all (an LDS attorney wasn't sure and it could impact the vote)? What amount of detail is required in the disclosure ... sounds like more than what there is now, but it must be useful for claimants AND reasonable to obtain. The judge is VERY concerned about parts of the plan. She has a lot of questions. Tons of focus over insurance liability. Some LCs may back away if COs are not included. That was a shock. The LC contributions are not necessarily locked and loaded. If COs don't sign on, the BSA lawyer indicated some LCs may back away. That was a surprise to me. COs ... tons of talk about COs and if COs join, what disclosure they need to provide. For example, now that the LDS contributed $250M, should they have to disclosure details on their assets, liabilities, etc. Essentially, the same disclosure as LCs? Discovery, discovery, discovery .... while the disclosure hearing will be long ... discovery may be bigger. The judge emphasized this. Basically, if I put everything in disclosure, would you stop discovery. Stang said no. So, her point ... lets keep disclosure reasonable as you will have the opportunity to get the info through discovery.

What you are missing is: SOL ... many of these claims are probably really $0 since they are outside SOL False claims ... BSA must be assuming some are false That said ... even then I expect the math doesn't add up.

One debate right now... insurance company is stating that they have a big deductible per claim. Given that BSA is saying average claims are $6K or something, then insurance should have to pay NOTHING. The insurance companies are saying the disclosure is not clear as claimants may think there is substantial insurance when there will be none. Now, if you believe the other numbers ($600K - $2M) then there could be insurance coverage; however, BSA is not being consistent in disclosure.

Even the LDS issue is going to be debated. I don't think we know for sure. Right now, it is all 1 big pot per the plan ... unless CynicalScouter found something different in the plan.

One very interesting point that may have been missed. The FCR stated that with the LDS contribution, there is now a "framework" for CO contributions. I wonder if the FCR is agreeing to the plan as they think eventually many COs will come in with offers at similar multipliers as the LDS. Shortly after this, the lawyer for the Catholic/Methodist committee denied there is a framework or even a CO agreement. Them emphasized that there is an LDS agreement and no other CO has agreed. They lawyer was asking to delay the hearing to buy more time (but as you know that was denied). The Coalition & FCR seemed to be really emphasizing that more deals are coming and the pot of money will grow large. The TCC seems to be questioning if that is really true, given the LC, LDS and Hartford deals haven't really grown that pot of money nearly as fast as some thought ... and the number of players with large sums to negotiate with are dwindling.

For everyone ... sorry for so many posts today but for once we are starting to see more movement in this case (vs talking mostly theory).