Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

24 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

The idea of "onslaught" has to be tempered with recognition that filing a case which is outside a statute of limitations is not only pointless (a hollow threat) but probably legally unethical on the lawyer's part.

I think neither is completely the case. The SoLs are not the impenetrable wall(s) they once were or appeared to be and, for that reason and others, not to file may be completely unwise. If an attorney counsels their client against filing, depending on the state and the fact pattern, that could be unethical. Remember, highly experienced state CSA attorneys graded the "closed" states by Gray 1-3. That means something. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

As near as I can tell, BSA has blocked disclosure of Hartford's policies and the amount of liability Hartford may face.

They haven't. The point is that it is not 100% certain how much liability Hartford would face. There were thousands of claims involving Hartford covered entities in states that may or may not have had SoLs facing claims that may or may not have been provable in a court of law decades later, etc. Plus, some of these Hartford policies had liability caps: the policy would max out at say $XX million for all claims in 1972 (I'm just picking numbers as an example here) an after that BSA was on the hook for the rest. Etc.

One of the documents (I forget which) did list every single insurance policy going back to the 1930s

Edited July 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Life]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Yup. Here, here. I think I mentioned rotting fish up yonder and a bunch of material for a melodrama. Adopting the suggested analogy, I'm calling it, "The Chapter 11 Circus Came to Town." I'll shorten it. That's just the working title.

Subtitle: And it Never Left. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

I think that the bankruptcy stay prevents new lawsuits from being filed until the stay is lifted.

Sorta. There was an agreement reached in February and March that lifted the stay ONLY TO THE EXTENT that people could file suit. It was especially key in those instances where the statute of limitations window was about to close (such as NY, NC, and NJ).

Once you file your lawsuit, the state court immediately stays the proceeding pending whatever happens at the end of the bankruptcy.

Edited July 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Official notice for the July 29 hearing along with Zoom link. The judge has already indicated she expects this to take two days.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2033f26f-54f7-4914-bb4f-ba262ed196ab_5786.pdf

With the judge having announced in open court today that the RSA hearing set for July 29 is cancelled, the question now is whether they will proceed with the Rule 2019 motion(s) or simply set everything back.

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Remember, highly experienced state CSA attorneys graded the "closed" states by Gray 1-3. That means something. 

Interestingly, with the RSA now blown up, the Gray 1-3/Open/Closed is now off the table (for now). That means BSA defaults back to its old position/last filed with the court:

1) Open states = 100%

2) All other states = 1%

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Interestingly, with the RSA now blown up, the Gray 1-3/Open/Closed is now off the table (for now).

Yes, but hiding a bone I’ve seen before means I know it’s there. Hope springs eternal. Object permanence can be a beautiful (or horrifying) thing. 

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yes, but hiding a bone I’ve seen before means I know it’s there.

True, but that  Gray plan was part of a larger package. Someone, somewhere, got upset at some part(s) of the RSA.

If they pull whatever offending part of the RSA out, will BSA and others still be OK with the Gray plan? I know during the prior hearing several lawyers for victims in open states said that victims in closed states should get no vote at all, implicitly rejecting the Gray system. And the numerous objections filed by victims attorneys indicate they are upset at the RSA including the idea that victims in closed states should get a vote.

And from an attorney's responsibility perspective, I get it. Each BSA dollar that goes to a victim in a closed state is one less dollar for my client who is in an open state, therefore, BSA shouldn't allow those victims in closed states to get one thin dime. An attorney's supposed to be looking out for the best interests of his/her client and from a pure legal ethics perspective, I'm not surprised that attorneys in an open state like California (the one lawyer I recall in particular was California) are pushing to keep victims from closed states out of this through something like the Gray system.

Edited July 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And from an attorney's responsibility perspective, I get it. Each BSA dollar that goes to a victim in a closed state is one less dollar for my client who is in an open state, therefore, BSA shouldn't allow those victims in closed states to get one thin dime. An attorney's supposed to be looking out for the best interests of his/her client and from a pure legal ethics perspective, I'm not surprised that attorneys in an open state like California (the one lawyer I recall in particular was California) are pushing to keep victims from closed states out of this through something like the Gray system.

If 50,000+ victims of CSA at the hands of volunteers and professionals within the BSA are denied a vote and/or get nothing, there will be fallout. One form I predict, and have been since way back, is SoL reform. There will be hell to pay. Another form? States Attorneys General investigations. Yes. I know, I know. Little likelihood of prosecutions. I couldn’t care less. If it goes down that “closed staters” are SoL SOL and utterly denied a voice, I will have a new reason to stay alive. I will fight to ensure both those forms of fallout happen as widely as possible. I have a long memory. I can be strategically patient. I was abused in three states, lived in seven. I have contacts in each.  I know people. I can raise money. I will fight. 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

If indeed bankruptcy is just business, this one is a corrupt enterprise. Where I was ready to step back and take aim at the Settlement Trustee process and hunkered insurance companies when this “deal” was announced, I’m back to feeling disgusted. Regardless the state of the RSA and whether it revives after the judge’s jolt today, this thing is a disgrace. I realize it’s highly complex. I realize there are a strange mix of layers and players. I realize it’s emotional and I chief among all. I also realize the fees keep getting paid like clockwork, save for an objection from the insurers. I have seen more distasteful lawyering and postering and bloviating in these last 16+ months than I had in the previous 31 since admitted to the bar. Shame. Shame. Shame. 

[CynicalScouter]

Amended notice of July 29 hearing posted.

RSA is officially not on for hearing.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6bc5e503-8c0f-4a0c-9750-e0d11b194949_5796.pdf

 

[CynicalScouter]

Kosnoff is on a tear tonight.

Liquidation remains his only answer

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

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. 

[SiouxRanger]

“This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.”
FRED THOMPSON - as Admiral Painter

 

The fuse has been lit; the die is cast.

I agree with CynicalScouter-there are tons of ways this can go wrong.

Might as well try to control an avalanche with a trowel.

 

[ThenNow]

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

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. 

Someone among the RSA parties won’t agree to extend the expiration date, which is tomorrow. I heard no indication during the hearing as to which party or parties. If they won’t agree to extend, they don’t want to be in the deal, as cut. That’s my take.