Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Can someone help me out understanding what the ramifications would be if true that AIS and other lawyers may have been funded by Wall Street and that the loans are due?

My recollection is that AIS is not under the microscope on that score, rather the Coalition and other firms that generated large numbers rapido y furiouso with few attorneys on their letterhead. I may be wrong. I know some of the AIS guys and they are thoroughly legit and upright law practice citizens. Perhaps there are exceptions within that group, as well. Dunno. I'll let others speak to the ramifications.

[CynicalScouter]

36 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

My recollection is that AIS is not under the microscope on that score, rather the Coalition and other firms that generated large numbers rapido y furiouso with few attorneys on their letterhead. I may be wrong. I know some of the AIS guys and they are thoroughly legit and upright law practice citizens. Perhaps there are exceptions within that group, as well. Dunno. I'll let others speak to the ramifications.

Yeah the Rule 2019 motion that will be up at the July 29 hearing is looking at a variety of issues related to what precisely is the legal and financial status of AIS, Kosnoff, Kosnoff’s law firm, and the Coalition.

https://www.scouter.com/topic/32676-chapter-11-announced-part-4-revised-plan/page/38/

There is a related motion that seeks to review specific lawfirms and lawyers for, in effect, mass forgery, falsification of the proof of claim documents, and/or failure to adequately review the proof of claim  prior to the lawyer signing on behalf of his or her client.

THAT matter is still pending and never brought to a hearing, but it involves many of the same players in the Rule 2019 motion

Edited July 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

52 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

and/or failure to adequately review the proof of claim  prior to the lawyer signing on behalf of his or her client.

In fairness, some of them had several seconds between signature stamping to review and vet. (Please reference, the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading & Memory Training class I took freshman year of high school. I'm sure they're graduates, as well.)

[MYCVAStory]

7 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Kosnoff points out something a little surprising to me. The TCC is not planning to do a town hall until August 12 until AFTER the plan disclosure statement hearing where the statement would be approved (or rejected).

This seems...off.

Always interesting when someone under the gun starts pointing fingers elsewhere.  The TCC said it would hold Town Hall meetings monthly.  It has delayed meetings, and called one on short notice, to provide the best information.  I suspect if the TCC held daily meetings he'd say it was spending too much time on meetings.   #whatever.

[MYCVAStory]

Re the next TCC Town Hall meeting, considering the Bankruptcy court hearing schedule I wouldn't be surprised if their Town Hall gets moved to the best possible time, like the week before, as things crystalize.  Someone please ask Kosnoff for a retraction and "thank you" if that happens.  #wishfulthinking

[ThenNow]

16 hours ago, ThenNow said:

In fairness, some of them had several seconds between signature stamping to review and vet. (Please reference, the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading & Memory Training class I took freshman year of high school. I'm sure they're graduates, as well.)

Right or wrong, misguided or on target I can’t say, but if you’ve not read this, I recommend it. At the least, you’ll understand what is being alleged. I still shake my head when I look through it. Given human nature and the power of gold, I default to there being more than just grains of truth contained therein. Even considering the source of the document and their obvious “Don’t touch my $$$!!!” motives, if it’s true then let the chips ahoy fall where they may.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872620_2022.pdf

[CynicalScouter]

52 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Right or wrong, misguided or on target I can’t say, but if you’ve not read this, I recommend it. At the least, you’ll understand what is being alleged.

Right. There are four key documents in this chain (Insurance Companies Rule 2004 motions)

Document 1972 filed January 22, 2021 in which the insurers allege the proofs of claim on their face appear to be insufficient, fraudulent, or some combination. They ask for discovery and depositions from a sample of claimants ("Rule 2004 motion": https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf

Document 2022 filed February 2, 2021 which re-alleges all the items in Document 1972 AND adds for the first time the document analysis indicating that the documents themselves were prepared fraudulently/not in keeping with Bankruptcy Court rules and statutes: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872620_2022.pdf

Document 2043 in which the Coalition objects to the Document 2022 Insurance Companies Rule 2004 motion: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872931_2043.pdf

Document 2048 in which the Coalition objects to Document 1972: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872981_2048.pdf

This is why I said the Rule 2019 motion (what is the legal and financial relationships of AIS, the Coalition, Kosnoff, and Kosnoff's lawfirm) is overlapping with the fraud accusation (the Rule 2004 motion). It appears (and let me be careful here, APPEARS) that many (not ALL, not MOST, but more than SOME) of these claims were improperly filed, improperly prepared, etc.

The insurance companies point, and one that I noted some other abuse victims lawyers started to mention in the Status Conference, is that before those 82,500 claims each get 1 vote, the court should make sure that those are valid claims/valid voters.

Quote

A forensic document expert’s analysis shows that in many instances someone photocopied a lawyer’s signature page and attached it en masse to the POCs. Some firms had an aggregator submit hundreds of POCs by adding an electronic signature in rapid-fire succession—sometimes only seconds apart—to batches of POCs. One aggregator submitted hundreds of POCs for one of the firms, all bearing the same signature—but purportedly signed on behalf of different claimants. Together with other irregularities, this suggests that plaintiffs’ lawyers bought claims from aggregators and sent signature pages to them to attach to POCs for filing without the signing lawyer—or any lawyer—ever having seen them.

It is evident that these lawyers conducted no pre-complaint investigation: Most of the mass-signed POCs lack critical information, are late, duplicates, or have issues with the alleged state or year of abuse. In fact, it appears that more than three of every four Coalition claims suffer from these facial defects—and that does not even take into account the POCs’ merits. The Motion that Century and Hartford file concurrently with this one seeking discovery from a sample of claimants that this scheme generated, which Insurers incorporate, identifies in more detail examples of fraud and evidence of systemic abuses of this Court’s claims process.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MattR]

@ThenNow, it certainly shines a light on the ugly side of "the good guys." To paraphrase a WWII ace that got into plenty of trouble, "show me an organization that claims virtue and I'll show you the dark side to it." Ironic, no?

That said, this document still only represents, at most, 13k cases out of 82k. Do you think that 16% is the tail wagging the dog, so to speak? 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by MattR
Clear who I'm responding to

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Right or wrong, misguided or on target I can’t say, but if you’ve not read this, I recommend it. At the least, you’ll understand what is being alleged. I still shake my head when I look through it. Given human nature and the power of gold, I default to there being more than just grains of truth contained therein. Even considering the source of the document and their obvious “Don’t touch my $$$!!!” motives, if it’s true then let the chips ahoy fall where they may.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872620_2022.pdf

I just read this document and it is appalling what is alleged.  Previously I have been opposed to rooting out false claims at this stage but I have now changed my mind.  if this process takes a little longer I am personally OK with it.  The unfortunate aspect of this may be that some legitimate claims may be lost because of unscrupulous practices.  My lawyer did sign my final claim (he is not on the lists in the filing) but that was with my blessing and after multiple phone calls developing my claim.  

[johnsch322]

7 minutes ago, MattR said:

hat said, this document still only represents, at most, 13k cases out of 82k. Do you think that 16% is the tail wagging the dog, so to speak? 

If I read the filing correctly the firms that are mentioned represent 65,554 claims.  Not all were signed by the lawyers but it doesn't put the rest of their claims in a good light.

[DavidLeeLambert]

45 minutes ago, MattR said:

That said, this document still only represents, at most, 13k cases out of 82k. Do you think that 16% is the tail wagging the dog, so to speak? 

The insurance companies' implication, and a plausible suspicion, is that the specific claims and lawyers they've highlighted are only the ones who were sloppy enough to get caught.  A lawyer who waited five minutes between cursorily signing claim forms, or who used a VPN when signing, might not have showed up in their first analysis.

And there are still thousands of claimants who didn't specify a CO, and almost 40,000 where the claimant mentioned a CO but the alleged Council (or National, for post-1999 claims) has checked their rosters and finds no record of the claimant ever being registered.

Edited July 16, 2021 by DavidLeeLambert

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

That said, this document still only represents, at most, 13k cases out of 82k. Do you think that 16% is the tail wagging the dog, so to speak? 

Dunno. My fear has been that the insurers want to use this as the camel’s nose to get under the tent and start turning over every shell to find the rotten peanuts. (Do camel’s like peanuts? I digress.) I don’t want that. It’s now the Trustee’s job. The entire thing, if 13+/- or whatever, launches a stink bomb in the room and sours the process. That’s how I feel as a legitimate victim/claimant. Again, I fear a pallor of illegitimacy will be spread over the case, which is/would be very unfortunate. Is there already one? Some would say, “Yup!”

That said, I can’t abide fraud or fast and loose. It goes against my justice and fairness hackles and is disgusting in this context or any like this where someone is riding a money train fulled by truly innocent and badly wronged victims. IF that IS what went on here. I hate the whole mess this represents. Any fraud. Insurers using it as a fulcrum to poke and prod. More delay. Additional grandstanding. “Gag me with a spoon.”

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I don’t want that. It’s now the Trustee’s job.

But the point of the insurers, and I'd point out some of the victims lawyers now, is that it isn't the Trustee's job yet. The Trustee doesn't have a job until 2/3rds of (voting) claimants approve the plan and that at least some (many? most?) of those 82,500 voters shouldn't be voting in the first place.

Some of this is just sloppy lawyering (mass approval of the claims in a frenzy of last minute signing) and some is 100% made up. The Coalition's objection basically agrees with you: challenging the claims is premature, let's just vote and fight it out at either the confirmation stage or through the trustee system.

[Eagle1970]

It reminds me of when I was rear-ended at 45 mph by a lady whose first words to me were: "Sorry, I was adjusting my radio".  There was $60k in property damage/collision and no claim of injury on my part.  Several people told me to just file a claim and they'll send me a decent sum just to close it.  My response was "I wasn't injured so I am not going to claim I was".

On the other hand, there was my friend's wife "slip and fall Jane" (name changed to keep me from being another victim) who literally made her living doing exactly that-and got pain pills to boot.  What a deal!  If she had been a scout, I would have expected her to file a claim regardless of facts.

Point being, there are bound to be many thousands of "victims" who really are only opportunists.  But I wonder if it's worth causing more damage to legitimate claimants by going through the process of weeding out phonies.  Many legitimate cases, at this point, will be anecdotal simply because abusers tend not to leave a lot of evidence of their activity. 

Now knowing that there will be much more detail furnished plus the potential for interview, I suspect many of the opportunists will exit stage left.  

 

[ThenNow]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But the point of the insurers, and I'd point out some of the victims lawyers now, is that it isn't the Trustee's job yet. The Trustee doesn't have a job until 2/3rds of (voting) claimants approve the plan and that at least some (many? most?) of those 82,500 voters shouldn't be voting in the first place.

I didn’t say this current examination of the potential shell game isn’t allowed, appropriate or potentially productive in the hands of the insurers. I said (meant) the eventual validation of “all the peanuts, rotten or otherwise,” once this camel does its thing and reveals what it does or doesn’t, is not the insurers’ b’ness. Yes, I assumed that actual transition to the Trustee phase, but my point is they cannot be allowed to play The Great and Powerful. The actual is waiting in the wing somewhere, or maybe the green room, drinking bourbon and talking Cosmos club speak with his fellow play-yahs.

Edited July 16, 2021 by ThenNow