Eagle1993

I think the judge should tell everyone to spend the next few days, ready our 6 threads on the bankruptcy and only then can they talk in court. I'm serious ... some of these people are either intentionally lost OR they have no clue what is going on. For example, the Guam lawyer was surprised to hear that if this deal goes through no one can sue their local council for CSA prior to Feb 2020 (she may not even know that date). She had no clue about the first Hartford settlement. Come on people ... at least get up to speed.

BSA is very concerned here. Why? Because both they and Stang knows that when a claimant sees a valuation of their claim being $1.5M and if they vote yes on this deal, they can expect $15,000 ... guess how they will vote?

This is going to take FOREVER. This is herding cats. The Guam lawyer is all over the place. She should have read our threads on scouter.com ... I think she would know more than she appears to know in court.

Discovery must start and that can only start if she starts hearing on the plan. She doesn't see a benefit in a delay. More info isn't always better. She has some questions about the plan that she hopes to get answered this week. Another couple of weeks simply push this off, discussions must start now.

Judge denying request, but will start on the 4th amended plan objections which will give time to object to the 5th amended plan.

Feb 2021/June 2021 .... LC assets increased $80M.

It sounds like that will be a upcoming focus of discussion by the TCC.

What if the LDS settlement goes ONLY to LDS victims (and their lawyers). What if the Hartford settlement only go to the 40,000 Hartford victims (and their lawyers). Same question came up about Local Councils (will each Local Council settlement only go to their own victims). That is a major question not answered. National BSA is clear ... $250M for all ... but the rest?

Yes ... AND ... does that prevent them from suing the LDS if the CSA occurred during a non scouting activity.

For those not on the call, as expected, the debate over delaying the disclosure review by 2 weeks is underway. Stang kicked it off and now supporting lawyers are joining in.

Stang is saying ... be careful rushing this through. BSA attnys are saying 81% will approve. However, when someone who was raped as a child sees that their payment will be very low with this deal, will they really vote for the plan? There is a big difference from some attorneys saying they are good (as they are going to get $400M+ and actually getting the votes of the claimants. Stang also said they are the only group with actual victims in the discussions and they are not on board.

Nothing coming from the Methodist, Catholic, etc. ... only LDS per Stang.

Stang said real number may be closer to 18,000 ... what was that about?

When does voting start/end?

Reading these filings, it really looks like the claim is: National BSA is running out of time. If they don't have a plan approved with a vote soon, they will likely liquidate. If they liquidate, the pension board will take most of their money, leaving little to claimants. Claimants will have to pursue LCs & COs in state court and they will start declaring bankruptcy

Ad Hoc Committee objecting to the TCC's request to delay: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/18922731-7312-4a0e-b52b-68cb33ecfe65_6307.pdf

That is a high hurdle. That means every non vote is essentially a no vote. So, with 84,000 voters, they need 55,440 yes votes. I think if the judge forces this through it will be very risky. The TCC and many law firms are on the other side plus 12,000+ of that 55,000 are questionable (many may listen to Kosnoff). What a mess.

Everything right now seems to be based on the belief that the Coalition can delivery the needed 55,440 votes (or more) for the plan to pass. In terms of voting... Do we know the number of claimants to coalition represents? What number of these are questionable due to AIS? Did the coalition already get letters from 100% of these claimants that their lawyers can vote for them, or is there risk that some of the claimants won't vote or will vote no even through their lawyers would recommend voting the other way? How will voting work .. is it 66% of those who voted or do they need 55,440 yes votes? It seems like BSA is putting all of their eggs into the Coalition basket. With the TCC on the other side, in addition to many other law firms, there appears to have no room for error. I'm curious how risky this strategy would be as a no vote could put BSA's survival at risk.

This is why I think the judge will deny the request and push Plan 5.0 to a vote. I completely understand the Hartford deal was not part of the RSA and that is likely a major issue. I just think the Judge may be thinking ... lets get this out for a vote. If approved, great, wrap it up. If rejected, then give up and go with a BSA only exit (no COs, no LCs).

I have a hard time seeing the judge make any changes to voting or pushing out claimants who don't meet the SOL window. She is all about speed to resolution now and these could cause major delays. I expect she will include SOL claims in the vote and let the trustee adjust payments. I expect she will say there is likely some fraud, but not enough to stop this process. I think the SOL/claimant debate will fall on death ears. If she was concerned she could have prioritized the hearing for that a while ago (I believe these issues have been brought up many time). Clearly I could be wrong, I just think she will lean on the trustee to sort it out during the payment cycle. Now ... she will be worried about anything that could either result in a rejected vote (TCC objections) or appeals (US Trustee). I think those are much bigger deals than the SOL/claimant debate. She may be upset with the TCC as she will say you approved the RSA, now what's wrong? I understand the Hartford deal was supposed to be excluded ... we will see if she is ok with that answer. She has never addressed the US Trustee's objection. I have to think she is watching Purdue Pharma and must be wondering if the DOJ will appeal her rulings. I get the sense that Congress is paying more and more attention to channeling injunctions and the DOJ is getting more upset how the bankruptcy courts are being abused. Based on the RSA hearing, my bet is she rams Plan 5 through to a vote but removes the Coalition payments. She will want to get something to a vote soon. It will look like a short term win. She will take the risk of the US Trustee appeal and a rejected vote (perhaps over 50% but not to 66%). Come Thanksgiving time, we may be looking at a deal that was rejected by claimants and is ready for appeal by a US Trustee.

Interesting status in the Purdue Pharma case. I've been following the journalist from WSJ who covers both this case and the BSA. There are parallels as there are channeling injunctions. In addition, both cases, the US Trustee has been fighting the plans. Now, in the Purdue Pharma case, the US Trustee (DOJ) is attempting to stop the decision. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/sackler-bankruptcy-plan.html Kosnoff tweeted about this as well ... but the US Trustee has been ignored in the BSA case for a long time. He has been consistent that he sees the Plan 4, 3, etc. as not allowed by US Bankruptcy law. What happens if the US Trustee files an objection and halts progress (assuming Judge Silverstein approves the plan)? I don't think this is a minor risk ... this could be an 11th hour delay that could last a LONG time in appeals. I certainly hope BSA has a plan B just in case this happens (or better yet, address the US Trustee's concerns up front). I'm still waiting to see the US Trustee's response to Plan 5.

Locking this thread for now as I think the OP's initial point has completed its discussion.

For the units switching to facility use agreements, who signs off as COR on adult applications?