Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[SiouxRanger]

Given what is on the table tomorrow before the Judge, a lot will be learned about the likely course of this proceeding.

[SiouxRanger]

10 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Have to say I am surprised that the media has not run this story yet. Even the bankruptcy focused media has been from what I can see silent.

For some strange reason, the BSA continues to enjoy a high level of deference.  (Maybe it will all work out OK.)  My best guess.

 

(OK in the sense of "good news to report" as measured by the media.  I doubt that any resolution will be seen as good news by the survivors.)

However, on that note, would any survivor care to express their hopes for this procedure?

[SiouxRanger]

11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Nice. This is just epic level trolling.

The insurance companies have now filed a supplement to their Rule 2019 motion that consists of nothing but Kosnoff's tweets mocking the judge and indicating that he (Kosnoff) is the one truly in charge of the 17000 clients.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/861e377e-a772-42e9-8779-1b90257e5fab_5804.pdf

The Judge could be evaluating her options between civil and criminal, direct and indirect contempt of court. Perhaps that attorney will manage this case to conclusion from a jail cell.

[SiouxRanger]

A word about court and law firm mechanics.

All I'll say is that Federal court deadlines, filing dates, and turn-around dates are much shorter than state courts.  What would be 30-60-90 days in state court can be only a week or less in Federal Court.

Cases in Federal court typically involve huge sums and the firms involved devote a dozen or more partners and associates to document drafting and revisions, but that the RSA 2.0 appeared within 24 hours of RSA 1.0's imminent expiration is impressive.  It may have been in the drafting stage for some time, perhaps even being negotiated and revised as the parties were debating RSA 1.0 before the Judge.

"We win on RSA 1.0-trash RSA 2.0."

"Lose on RSA 1.0-Presto! Voila! RSA 2.0."

That drafts of the almost certain many versions of RSA 2.0 had to routed past attorneys for all the parties, and approved, or changes made, and THOSE changes then re-routed around. A formidable accomplishment.

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

However, on that note, would any survivor care to express their hopes for this procedure?

Which procedure? Should I repost my surgery warning? (I couldn’t resist.) Happy to lend thoughts if you clarify a bit. Thanks.

[CynicalScouter]

I am going to sit in on today's Zoom if I can. While the thrust of the hearing is suppose to be the Rule 2019 motion, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the RSA 2.0 deal will be brought up.

One more point: The Coalition/Brown Rudnick this morning just applied to have another one of its attorneys admitted to the court pro hac vice (i.e. for this case only) so that may come up first thing.

Gerard T. Cicero pro hac vice

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6c24908b-1e2e-49f2-89e3-ba500803aeca_5816.pdf

 

[ThenNow]

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Gerard T. Cicero pro hac vice

”Gerard Cicero is an Associate in the Firm's Bankruptcy & Corporate Restructuring Practice Group. He represents tort victims, bondholders, foreign representatives, official and ad hoc committees of creditors and equity interest holders and post-confirmation trustees in both Chapter 11 and 15 cases.

Gerard is recognized by The Legal 500 US for Restructuring (including Bankruptcy): Corporate.

Prior to joining Brown Rudnick, Gerard served as an intern in the Employment Litigation Department at the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.”

[Eagle1993]

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?

[CynicalScouter]

Lauria: RSA 2.0 discussion. Issues related to the COs have come to the fore about this whole process. Amendments give both sides ability to walk away if the CO agreement reached is not acceptable.

Thanks to Coalition, state court counsel representing 70,000 out of 82,500 claims now onboard.

Lauria wants RSA hearing motion on August 12/13 (the dates when the disclosure hearing is suppose to happen). Lauria wants to try and do BOTH the RSA and Disclosure on those two days. Admits that is aggressive. Unlikely to conclude both issues in 2 days, likely need overflow dates.

Judge: Sure, August 12/13, but have to check about overflow days and schedule.

Anker: Worried that RSA is a "gating" issue. If the Hartford settlement is in or out determines whether there is a disclosure statement to even discuss. BSA literally filed today to allow reopened deposition and discovery.

Lauria: There is no reason to not agree to disclosure statement since some of it has nothing to do with the RSA (such as Local Council assets and contributions). The major elements of the deal (aside from Hartford) are going to be in the plan, regardless of the RSA, such as recovery charts, disclosures of insurance programs, assets, contributions, etc. Those will NOT change regardless of the RSA. There's progress that can be made, even if the RSA fails. Let's schedule the disclosure statement hearing to have the non-Hartford materials discussed first and settled and save Hartford for last. Objection deadlines is August 2, that is enough time.

Anker: Lauria said "scheduled I am today proposing". That's the point. This is new. That resets or should reset the objection deadlines. RSA is gating, BSA admitted it. There has been no disclosure deposition or discovery. Fairness calls for RSA first, THEN disclosure statement later if RSA approved (he doesn't think it will be approved).

Buchbinder: Today is 114th anniversary of founding of scouting. Let's pause and reflect on that.

Schiavoni: BSA said RSA was a gating issue. Hard to see how you severe the RSA from the reorg plan. The RSA ties the debtor to positions on a host of issues on claims. The disclosure statement objections and the RSA objections are key and overlapping. Facing a moving target. This is a waste of time and money.

Judge: I'm frankly skeptical that we'll be through RSA hearing in 2 days to discuss disclosure statement. I understand BSA's position. My calendar has been shuffled more than once for BSA to get out of bankruptcy early. I am skeptical that even if there is time on August 12/13 we'll get far on disclosure statement. I'll have to find time for that hearing. In terms of deadline, I did not suspend the deadlines on disclosure statement objections. Judge will later today what time can be carved out of disclosure statement hearing and new objection deadlines. Anker, given Hartford's unique position, can file whatever you want. Doubt that BSA will object to Anker's filing addressing multiple issues/objecting to RSA.

Kurtz: Discovery on RSA update. Went back and reviewed documents that were previously redacted. Plan to be done by end of weekend. Objectors will be allowed to depose ALL witnesses (including Mosby) again. Will put forth scheduling order.

Schiavoni: BSA plans to produce documents on Sunday night? There are the judge's rulings.

Judge: Yes, meet and confer.

Abbott: First item on agenda is Rule 2019 for Kosnoff/AIS/Coalition (FYI Kosnoff is present on Zoom)

Ruggeri: Motion more important than ever. Included in RSA 2.0 is a list of the scheduled attorneys that IDs the lawfirms and guess what? Kosnoff isn't there. And the number of claimants listed are attributed to Eisenberg's firm, NOT Kosnoff. What is going on?

We know Kosnoff does NOT represent these people, but he claims it. And he's tweets insult other counsel. We need to know: who really represents these 17000?

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

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?

Also, please add, do any of you understand how/why either of the firms purport to represent the comprehensive group of AIS clients? I have friends from other AIS firms I know for sure have a goodly batch of clients. It’s been my assumption that those firms have “nominated” someone to speak on behalf of those firms and clients. That said, I’ve not asked them to clarify. We try not to get into any details of their representation, more so general impressions of the circus de jour. 

[johnsch322]

Hypothetically what if Kosnoff legally represents no one?  Could he just have been used as a figurehead for AIS and the actual representation is Eisenberg? It appears that he was trying to avoid paying his ex-wife alimony.  Could he just have had a verbal agreement for monies?  

[MYCVAStory]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Buchbinder: Today is 114th anniversary of founding of scouting. Let's pause and reflect on that.

Apparently someone's office got a call to suggest the BSA could use a shout-out.  Every victim can now reflect on what anniversary it is of their abuse.  It's time for the court to be reminded of that before this hearing ends.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

 

Hypothetically what if Kosnoff legally represents no one?  Could he just have been used as a figurehead for AIS and the actual representation is Eisenberg? It appears that he was trying to avoid paying his ex-wife alimony.  Could he just have had a verbal agreement for monies?  

 

Worth noting he no longer has a law license, per reports and the insurers digging. He is now putting himself forward as a “consultant.”

[CynicalScouter]

Ruggeri: They want to know how AIS was founded, they want the names of the creditors they represent. Etc. We want to see the engagement letters for the claimants. There must be documents. Their own claimants are confused who their lawyer is. Document 5671: I don't know who my lawyer is. Claimant is asking court to identify his lawyer for him. Kosnoff was tweeting as much as this morning.

NOTE: I have to stop and do actual work, but I'll listen to people and try to brief this out later.

Edited July 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Apparently someone's office got a call to suggest the BSA could use a shout-out.  Every victim can now reflect on what anniversary it is of their abuse.  It's time for the court to be reminded of that before this hearing ends.

Yeah. Right?!?! WHAT in the H-E double hockey sticks was THAT about. I almost spit out my coffee all over my MacBook. It’s old and I need a new, but knock that off Mr. Buchbinder. I love ya, but ack.