MYCVAStory

Realistically, a confirmation hearing in mid to late January. That will take 3-5 days.

Collecting date, like voting, is best done when you have VERY specific and logical methodology. The worst data always is produced when you collect it first and then say "Okay, now let's figure out what it means."

Theme of the day for the Judge: "We'll let this go and deal with it another time if we have to." Possibility of this creating a mess at another time: 100%. I suggested that she would learn from her Imerys mistakes. It appears I was wrong.

The parties should be able to develop a mechanism where claimants can "opt-out" of a home mailing. Might make some attorneys actually speak to their clients.

David Buchbinder is to be thanked by every single Survivor. He just forcefully convinced the judge that EVERY survivor deserves to get the paper documents and NOT required to request the full package as the BSA wanted. Shame on the BSA after ALL the expenses it has incurred to suggest that the SINGLE most piece of information for survivors would be too expensive to do. I should have added that this is the US Trustee.

Public as a court document.

But, because it came out of mediation it requires a "meet and confer" with the BSA before any LC dashboards are released. If the BSA doesn't agree then the TCC must file a motion to have the court agree to its release and this of course would allow the BSA to object. Let's hope that the BSA doesn't try to delay so that those interested in the financial picture of their LC might be able to learn a bit more, and victims will get a better idea of their LC's ability to pay. This is critical to an informed vote and transparent reorganization.

I really think this is good news in the BSA bankruptcy proceedings. Imerys was her first mass tort bankruptcy and she learned what NOT to do with voting. Let's hope she's given thought to what TO do.

She's VERY concerned about the voting procedures because it has become a mess in Imerys where she is presiding. That may be a good thing in this case.

But here's the rub. People on this forum are not typical. We'll probably all vote personally. However, tomorrow she's going to start addressing the "master ballot" issue. Essentially, this means that attorneys will be voting on behalf of their clients. The issue then is whether there is agreement to do so and what robustness the judge requires. So, must attorneys certify that they have discussed with their clients the plan and their wishes and received authorization to vote on their behalf (and have proof of that authorization) or can attorneys just send out an email that says "If we don't hear from you we'll assume it's a 'Yes' vote and take care of that."

To be accurate, she is the Judge in the Imerys (Talc) bankruptcy and that is mass tort. So perhaps she meant this was her first "abuse bankruptcy." Still....

When I asked my bankruptcy folks I was told "This is pretty typical."

I think it's important for everyone to understand that it isn't a case where a class of claimants approves a plan, or even a judge crams down a plan, and everyone heads home since it's a done deal. The reality is that a lot of deal-making can still occur in anticipation of the judge saying "here are the flaws" and parties serving notice what they will object to. Yes, it's completely illogical that a flawed plan would go out to vote but bankruptcy works that way and sees the plan not as a final agreement but a framework for hammering out a deal pre-confirmation. It's why she keeps saying "This isn't a disclosure issue, it's a confirmation issue." Another coming attraction: Multiply the number of professionals on this call times the number of hours times the average hourly rate.... This month's request for compensation from the parties should be jaw-dropping.

It also points to the fact that she isn't going to break any new ground and will stay extremely close to precedent while seeking to minimize conflict-of-interest and other issues that I agree will see this appealed. A lot of what is happening today are attorneys having their say so that they can lay that groundwork for later. It's also why a LOT of bankruptcy gets hammered home well after a vote....when the real deal-making happens.

His comments were wrapped around the issue, and he challenged the debtor attorney on this, exactly what can survivors expect in the way of settlements? The judge seems unwilling to have a disclosure statement that lays this out?! Of note....the judge commenting earlier that she is "new to mass tort bankruptcy." Wow. That should really make victims feel comfortable.

Hand-picked by the Coalition. So...control the Trust...pick the Trustee in charge of distributing the money.....

Yep. But if you're the coalition it's all part of the game plan. Collect as many clients as you can. Fight strict validation. Control the trust. Don't communicate with your clients because you don't want to answer the tough questions, and settle QUICKLY. Why? Because for every billion in an award fund the coalition attorneys stand to earn before paying off their funders 400 MILLION DOLLARS. Oh, and the last part of the plan....move on to the next mass tort and repeat. This isn't an anti-lawyer post. It's a "how the game is played" post.

That won't happen. The TCC will include its recommendation in any packet.

The Judge's fixation on the Local Council's was unexpected. Third-party releases are quite the concern nowadays. We should all remember that this was a DISCLOSURE hearing and nothing more. Can a judge approve disclosure for a faulty plan that has legal issues? Yes. THOSE are decided at a later date. I know. Illogical.

The reality is that this is for the benefit of the JUDGE. No one is assuming (correctly) that she is abreast of the issues. As well, she had a 12-hour hearing yesterday. So, this is the "sausage-making" part of bankruptcy. The devil is in the details and when a plan is going to get considered it is ALL details. We need to remember as well that there are professionals representing groups like the TCC and Coalition as well as members of those groups. Some of the members have precious little experience in bankruptcy court and unfortunately like to prove it sometimes!

Well, between that argument and the fact that a mediator didn't sign the last mediation report it tells you a lot about how well mediation went and how the Coalition and BSA have become strange bedfellows.

That number is self-proclaimed by the Coalition and the BSA uses it to its benefit. Stang just went there...the Coalition wants this over because it stands to gain $400 million plus from settlements.

Well, it just might be closer to 13.8% and explain why the TCC is saying "enough is enough" and coming out swinging. OK, for the data-geeks, a VERY deep dive on this gives additional perspective from a friendly accountant looking over my shoulder. His comment: The percentages in the summary appear to be mathematically correct based on the amounts reported by the BSA; however, it is important to remember that amounts reported in Exhibit 1 for “Land Buildings & Equipment” are book value. As a result, in most (if not all) cases the percentages calculated in the summary you shared are artificially high / inflated because book value is generally lower than current market value / appraised value. For instance, in the case of Greater New York Council (#640) (which admittedly is likely the most extreme example), the calculated percentage of “contribution to total net assets” is 43.05% ($9,000,000 / $20,904,468). However, the balance sheet information for GNYC in Exhibit 1 reports “Land Buildings & Equipment” at $5,630,537. This amount is obviously well below the appraised values for the three primary GNYC camps and results in an artificially high percentage of 43.05%. 640 GREATER NEW YORK 20,904,468 43.05% As a result, the summary is informative but also somewhat misleading because it gives more credit to the Local Councils than they deserve. I understand that the conclusion of whoever prepared the summary was that Local Councils were only contributing 17% of their total net assets (which is offensive), but that percentage is still too high. In order to make a quick and dirty adjustment for appraised values, we can use the Local Council liquidation analysis (Disclosure Statement PDF Page 306), which uses appraised values for those properties that were valued by CBRE, JLL and Keen. If you take total assets of $4,011,716,000 reported in the Local Council liquidation analysis and back off liabilities of $234,198,591 (PDF Page 333), you get total net assets of $3,777,517,409. Using total Local Council Contributions of $519,588,542 as reported on Exhibit C, you get a total percentage of 13.8% ($519,588,542 / $3,777,517,409). While the overall difference between 17% and 13.8% is not massive, certain individual local councils (e.g. GNYC) come off looking much better than they should. One additional thing to keep in mind. Exhibit 1 shows total net assets of $3,303,228,450 as of February 2021 (PDF Page 333). Based on a review of June 2021 balance sheet data, total Local Council net assets have increased by approximately $80 million to $3,382,300,795. In other words, Local Councils certainly appear to be in an even better position in June 2021 than they were in February 2021.

No, the TCC has said that officially it is "agnostic" regarding the future of the BSA. What it wants is what's best for victims. If that means the BSA survives because it has restructured its finances and operations appropriately, or not, is secondary to the goal of getting the maximum compensation for victims.

Link?