Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[MYCVAStory]

16 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Could someone please explain to this poor mentally challenged soul how this is supposed to work?

It can be confusing.  I'll try to overly simplify it.  A Victims Trust will take possession of the insurance policies.  Basically, the BSA "assigns" them.  Then, the trust allows some small number of "slam dunk" claims to go to court with much coordination.  This will include a negotiated percentage of any award going to the trust so that it doesn't dilute coverage limits for remaining victims.  Theoretically these claims will win in court and the insurers will then be liable for paying.  String together enough of these and the insurers will want to settle to stop the bleeding.  What this judge has displayed doubt on is the ultimate binding nature of the values that have been assigned and forcing the insurers to agree.  Most certainly the insurers will put up a legal fight against ANY of this because they know that time is on their side.  The longer any claimant waits for a settlement the less they tend to accept.  This is also why they will demand a lot of verification and press their "bogus claim" arguments.  This is all nothing new and has been played out in asbestos, airbags and lots of other mass tort issues.  Victims need to understand that the Trust, led by the managing trustee, will take the fight to the insurers.  Couple things....it will take time and the TCC has shared that there will be victim representation on a committee giving input to the committee.  I also suspect that if a plan is approved the TCC will continue its Town Halls to explain in detail how the Trust will work and then the Trust will continue its own communication.  I wish any of this would be settled quickly for us, victim or not.  But, the only way that would happen is if the TCC and Coalition had somehow negotiated for the kind of lowball offer that the insurers would have responded to with "Who should we make teh check out to?"

 

[Muttsy]

Thanks for that but, again, that makes no sense to me. I can’t imagine a “judgment” obtained in a totally collusive way would ever have legitimacy. Would the carrier have the right to defend BSA (the trustee) from the lawsuit? Would it select counsel for the defense? Who is the named defendant? BSA who every juror would probably know went through and got a discharge in bankruptcy?
 

The idea of a judgment means it is the result of a fair process, not some kangaroo court. 

I don’t buy things I don’t understand. 

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Thanks for that but, again, that makes no sense to me. I can’t imagine a “judgment” obtained in a totally collusive way would ever have legitimacy. Would the carrier have the right to defend BSA (the trustee) from the lawsuit? Would it select counsel for the defense? Who is the named defendant? BSA who every juror would probably know went through and got a discharge in bankruptcy?
 

The idea of a judgment means it is the result of a fair process, not some kangaroo court. 

I don’t buy things I don’t understand. 

I am sure that the insurance carrier would be able to defend in court and these would be jury trials. The slam dunks would be cases where the preponderance of evidence would be pretty overwhelming. It would be explained to the jury that the fact that BSA has BK’ed but that fact has no meaning to the facts. If found liable the court/jury would assign damages and whatever portion would be the insurance carriers would have to be paid by them. That is a bit of simplification but it would be a fair process. It is basically what would have happened if BSA did not enter bankruptcy. 

[ThenNow]

12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

am sure that the insurance carrier would be able to defend in court and these would be jury trials. The slam dunks would be cases where the preponderance of evidence would be pretty overwhelming. It would be explained to the jury that the fact that BSA has BK’ed but that fact has no meaning to the facts. If found liable the court/jury would assign damages and whatever portion would be the insurance carriers would have to be paid by them. That is a bit of simplification but it would be a fair process. It is basically what would have happened if BSA did not enter bankruptcy. 

I don’t get it either. If the BSA and LCs are released, who’s the defendant? If the insurance company, they can’t be sued for non-payment of a non-liquidated claim against an insured that can’t be sued because they’re “immune” from a suit based on the underlying cause of action, which is now a non-cause of action, literally. Wouldn’t it be necessary for these test/leverage cases to occur before the channeling injunction gets set in concrete? I’m lost...

[mrjohns2]

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

If the BSA and LCs are released, who’s the defendant?

Is this one of those things where they rename the BSA to something like "BSA Legacy" and then coming out of the bankruptcy they name the new organization BSA? "BSA Legacy" is the one that continues as long as the trust continues. I thought I have seen that before when the car companies went out of business. The pensions etc. stayed with the old GM etc. 

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Then, the trust allows some small number of "slam dunk" claims to go to court with much coordination. 

Just trying to understand this part, while I’m waiting to understand the whole legal logistics of who’s on first and who’s on second. So, some handpicked claims will be released from the injunction to enter state court and pursue jury awards. If that ultimately provides the fulcrum leveraging recover for all other claimants, that’s fantastic. How do the test cases get selected? It would seem that any “test plaintiff” take home award should be capped to the $2.7 limit of a tier one claim. Anything above that should go to the Trust. No? Otherwise, the leverage plaintiffs could get awards of 3-5++ x the max Claims Matrix Value and that doesn’t seem right. Meesa cornfussled. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by ThenNow

[Muttsy]

I once bought a 15 year old BMW from a used car salesman. It kinda went like this. He talked good. The transmission fell out a week later. 

[MYCVAStory]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

It would seem that any “test plaintiff” take home award should be capped to the $2.7 limit of a tier one claim. Anything above that should go to the Trust. No? Otherwise, the leverage plaintiffs could get awards of 3-5++ x the max Claims Matrix Value and that doesn’t seem right. Meesa cornfussled. 

As suggested, there would probably be a pre-arranged negotiation so that the selected case would pay back to the Trust a significant percentage so that it's a win-win.  The claimant if they prevail receives an amount closer to the suggested "value" and other claimants via the trust will share in the trust's "percentage." 

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

 

I once bought a 15 year old BMW from a used car salesman. It kinda went like this. He talked good. The transmission fell out a week later. 

 

I bought a new BMW. Salesman talked real good. Transmission fell out 15 years later. (Actually, 10, but I had to stick with the schtick.)

[johnsch322]

7 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I once bought a 15 year old BMW from a used car salesman. It kinda went like this. He talked good. The transmission fell out a week later. 

I'm sorry Muttsy I didn't know it was you I sold that car to.  But you really liked it when you bought it.

[MYCVAStory]

7 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I once bought a 15 year old BMW from a used car salesman. It kinda went like this. He talked good. The transmission fell out a week later. 

It's good that you're dubious of all of it.  Every claimant should be until they are comfortable.  It should make for a good discussion with your attorney since they're getting paid to represent and interpret.

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Then, the trust allows some small number of "slam dunk" claims to go to court with much coordination

This is the operative part

Quote

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Article X.F of the Plan, the Channeling Injunction shall not enjoin...the rights of the Settlement Trust and Reorganized BSA (to the extent permitted or required under the Plan) to prosecute any action against any Non-Settling Insurance Company based on or arising from Abuse Insurance Policies that are not the subject of an Insurance Settlement Agreement, subject to any Insurance Coverage Defenses.

This is NEW language. It was NOT there before. See page 110 it is in blue, indicating it was added in the latest amendments/Fourth Plan.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7082572a-2eeb-4a35-bc9b-e515925846fd_5486.pdf

That said, there is also a "ARTICLE XII TORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE" still listed where the Trustee acts as the judge and jury.

Edited July 5, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

So the question I will ask is: if there is no way that the insurance company's can be sued then why aren't all the insurance company's endorsing the plan?

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

the Channeling Injunction shall not enjoin...the rights of the Settlement Trust and Reorganized BSA (to the extent permitted or required under the Plan) to prosecute any action against any Non-Settling Insurance Company based on or arising from Abuse Insurance Policies that are not the subject of an Insurance Settlement Agreement, subject to any Insurance Coverage Defenses.

I sued Aetna and won a class action settlement for wrongful denial of specific claims. What is the cause of action here? What have they wrongfully refused to pay or denied? Where’s the there there? Is this subsequent to insurers saying, “Go suck eggs! I ain’t paying that!” once the Trustee makes value calculations and subsequent payment demands? 

[ThenNow]

10 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

So the question I will ask is: if there is no way that the insurance company's can be sued then why aren't all the insurance company's endorsing the plan?

I’d start with, because they didn’t get their crack at whittling down claims and they wanted BSA and the LCs to take up more of the cash slack so they don’t eventually have to, however that comes to pass. Defend, defend, defend.