Eagle1993

Yep. I was thinking after this hearing we may have a decision and can start a new thread.

What was the pro/con aspect of the "good faith" decision. It sounds like the RSA parties (BSA, LCs, TCC/Coalition) decided they didn't want the "good faith" decision. I'm confused as it sounded like it would be a benefit for the TCC/Coalition.

So ... she wants to move on and perhaps, I wonder, if this point is moot. The US Trustee objected over this payment saying this is clearly outside what is allowed. She may, in her mind, have already decided she will rule against the payment and would like to avoid the bunny hole of how it was calculated. We will see ... but it sounds like she wasn't concerned about digging into how it was calculated.

I’m guessing the judge is going to be mighty ticked. She wants this over and I don’t see how this issue is now ignored until a later date. Now she has to deal with possible fraud? I tend to agree with the law firms who state the claims must be reviewed first before the vote. You cannot let clear false or time barred claims vote in favor of a deal that the majority of other legal claims want rejected. I’m starting to think that BSA won’t emerge until 2022…

Looking at BSA's financials, I question why they said they would be out of cash by the end of this Month (or perhaps September). At the end of December 2020, they had $52.5M in unrestricted cash and $175M total unrestricted liquidity balance. At the end of June 2021, they have $72.5M in unrestricted cash and $175M total unrestricted liquidity balance. Even their restricted accounts have grown. It appears BSA can last, at least financially, in bankruptcy for much longer than they previously stated.

This thread is just growing a bunch of red arrows. Take the weekend off of this debate. Go out and have fun.

Hmmmm….

I think at least one or two that follow this thread have Kosnoff as their lawyer. Do you have any insights into the Kosnoff v Eisenberg fight? Which one would represent AIS?

Ok …. Very interesting point just came up in FB. The official UMC FB page said the final bankruptcy deal Must include COs to allow COs to continue work in scouting. They also said progress is being made. So…. Perhaps that is the hiccup. The final deal must have COs (as BSA cannot function well at this time without COs) and the CO portion of the deal isn’t finalized.

Options…. 1) Some of these firms lost clients to Kosnoff 2) Kosnoff lost some of clients to these firms 3) Kosnoff is misrepresenting how many clients he has 4) These firms are misrepresenting how many clients they have How can they even vote for a plan if they don’t know which law firm represents each client (and I expect some are not represented). What an absolute mess.

Did Kosnoff sign on? I thought he represented 17,000 and there are 84,000 claims. Something fishy….

Why let the last one expire? I don’t get it…

Just posted to a FB page. Good info.

I don’t understand how the RSA could have expired. Didn’t the main groups just file documents supporting the RSA? I’m struggling to understand what could have changed.

Most COs I know would likely never sign if they were truly expected to meet all of the obligations listed. Ours has no buildings and we struggle to even find a COR to sign every year. I know a few that had their COs drop them and they spent months finding any organization even willing to sign a document (one found a fire station and the other ended up creating a friends of CO as no organization). It’s time for BSA to fully embrace a no CO model as a parallel path. That would mean no CO, no IH, no COR and the CC is given that the voting rights in council activities.

I think this is more about comparing total final number of claims vs current number of claims. There are already 84,000 claims in BSA. While I wouldn't be surprised more would come, I can't imagine a huge increase in the next 20 years (remember, it would have to be claims from 2020 and earlier). In the asbestos case, they are expecting a total of 77,000 claims and 34,000 have been filed after 20 years ...

There is also the future claimants group. People who didn’t sue, perhaps too young or other reasons. But it is a good point that a much higher percentage of claimants have filed in the BSA case up front than those other examples.

Kosnoff expanded ... there is precedent that he is siting in Fuller-Austin case. Honestly ... it reads almost identical to the BSA case. Fuller-Austin went through bankruptcy due to asbestos claims. While they had an agreement with claimants, they did not involve their insurance companies. The plan created a settlement trust. Fuller-Austin received a full release after contributing to the trust. In addition to cash they provided they contributed their insurance policies. .... sound familiar? The plan created a CRP (claims resolution procedure). There is a bunch of details on who gets access to claims and how periodical sums would be paid. Hmmm... There is a ton of detail on insurance companies objecting to the plan and the judge ruled they didn't have standing. (This hasn't happened yet). It goes on, and on. One point ... the appeals court, which ruled in favor of the insurance companies ... was 7 years after the bankruptcy plan was approved. https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20060122/story/100018223/asbestos-trust-cant-force-settlement-on-insurers Now ... eventually the trust must have received some insurance funding ... but, get this ... it is still active. The trust was generated in 1999 and it is still active. Over the last 20 years it has paid out, on overage, $8.5K per person to about 34,000 claims. You can still file claims. The insurance companies fought hard with the asbestos case ... from what I can see, 7+ years post plan approval. So ... its likely the only money in the plan for the foreseeable future is the National/LC settlement. I wonder how these prior cases compare to BSA and impact insurance liabilities. Hopefully the lawyers are reviewing and advising their clients. Finally ... Kosnoff confirmed on Twitter there are only 2 ways the deal can be rejected (there is no other kill switch). The judge can still reject it If the judge approves, the claimants can vote against it, preventing the 2/3 approval

Kosnoff is highlighting some major, new, concerns today: The TDP awards will be non binding The insurance assignments re non-Debtor policies (LCs) might void those policies The insurance assignments re non-Debtor policies might cap the exposure. He is stating that since LCs are only contributing $600M, technically, the combined insurance exposure (based on how the policies are written) will max out the insurance liability to $600M. Moulton (from the Coalition?) apparently has acknowledge the concerns and now claims there is a "kill switch" that will kill the deal if those risks materialize. Kosnoff is stating there is no kill switch if the RSA is accepted. Any idea where this info is coming from? Who is Moulton? Was there an interview recently? Is there really a "kill switch" that would dump LCs out of this plan? -- Looks like he means David Molton, attorney for the Coalition.

At least he didn’t hack into the WOPR. 😀

Looks like the same person. He ended up having all charges dropped. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article158637234.html Under a conditional agreement reached in August, Hanumanthu was placed on 12 months of supervised probation and agreed to pay the school system $5,000 in restitution. He was also required to perform 225 hours of community service, which he was allowed to do outside of North Carolina because he now attends Florida Polytechnic University where he studies cybertechnology. Wake County District Court Judge Keith Gregory dismissed the charges Wednesday after attorneys showed that Hanumanthu not only met all the conditions but performed more community service than required – 281 hours. Steven Saad, Hanumanthu’s attorney, said his client juggled doing the community service at a nursing home while being a full-time college student with a perfect grade-point average.

This guy seems legit. He has a $4 quadrillion plan for China and other countries and is apparently and advisor for Obama and Trump. I hope the judge approves his request.

FYI… The $100M from councils is coming from deferring payments to the pension plan. As the pension plan is well funded, councils will instead make payment on the $100M note.

Not sure if it is the same person. This individual already graduated college after some impressive internships and projects. He currently works as an embedded SW engineer at Qualcomm.

My understanding of some of the complaints from Kosnoff, COs & Insurance companies ... they believe the current plan is to: get a settlement now from BSA and BSA LCs by letting the BSA off easy have the court ignore proof of claim process ... basically assume everything is legit allow the trust to butcher the COs & Insurance Companies long term. Kosnoff seems to think that the insurance payout will not be nearly as large as is being claimed and there is a ton of money left in LCs that is being ignored. I believe he thinks the Coalition is going for the quick settlement because many lawyers took out high interest loans from hedge funds to pay for advertising and other companies to aggregate claims. These loans are starting to come due and/or have high interest rates so law firms that took them out want to pay them off quickly, regardless of the result on their clients. Therefore, the Coalition, driven by a need to close on a settlement to pay off these loans, are agreeing to a lower than desired (by some other firms) payout from LCs. Since the Coalition represent 60,000 claimants, the TCC has to work with them to get the best deal possible. So, a bit odd, but Kosnoff, COs & Insurance companies are all on the same side. Basically, don't approve this quick settlement. I use "quick" as relative. Also, I am not claiming any of this, I am just attempting to summarize my understanding of some of the objections.