Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

Just now, ThenNow said:

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.

In fact, I might email Philip Anker and ask him to raise his hand and enter my digits into the record. 

[ThenNow]

David Wilks has some serious Gregory Hines level tap chops. Or not! I am enjoying this drowning effort to fight the Kosnoff Law/AIS 2019 disclosures. Finally, legit comic relief during these hearings. Love, love, love it! 

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

David Wilks has some serious Gregory Hines level tap chops. Or not! I am enjoying this drowning effort to fight the Kosnoff Law/AIS 2019 disclosures.

I had to step away, but I saw the first part where the judge was saying that while AIS may have been a dysfunctional organization, it was nevertheless an organization that could be subject to Rule 2019.

It is still absolutely unclear what, where, and when there is any kind of understanding of AIS.

And the Coalition/Molton: making the argument that the motion for today is focused ONLY on Kosnoff/AIS, NOT the other motion.

Judge: Yes, this was focused on Kosnoff/AIS, not the Coalition.

Judge: Mr. Kosnoff "has now involved himself in this case through AIS and through the letters filed in this court and is now subject to 2019." "We need to know who represents these parties."

Wilks trying to clean this up. He's failing.

Edited July 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I had to step away, but I saw the first part where the judge was saying that while AIS may have been a dysfunctional organization, it was nevertheless an organization that could be bubject to Rule 2019.

The punchline was, “Why are you fighting this so hard?” Which she repeated as he cut her off to do a child’s “But, but, but…MOM!!” She actually ruled for disclosure, but it kind of went wide and now circling with Eisenberg and Coalition.  

Just said Kosnoff is fully subject to 2019 because “he involved himself in this case.” Confirmed he’s not subject to depo, however.

Edited July 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

Buchbinder reminding people that the statement Kosnoff files under 2019 be "verified" which means "under oath" or "under penalties of perjury".

So, Kosnoff's on notice this is not something his can fib even a little bit

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

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.

This is Document 5671 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a3c50bee-30c0-49f5-ae80-862a511fd66d_5671.pdf

 

[CynicalScouter]

So, the big takeaways are

The RSA is set for August 12/13. The disclosure statement hearing is getting pushed back to some date to be determined. Remember several things here.

1. If the RSA blows up/gets rejected by the judge the odds of a disclosure statement drop to zero. The TCC/FCR/Coalition have said they'll never agree to a plan with the Hartford settlement. BSA is on record saying the RSA was a "gating" issue, meaning its acceptance or rejection sets the stage for any disclosure statement.
2. From disclosure statement hearing through a vote and a confirmation hearing is at least 45 days and more likely 60-90. If this goes on too much longer, BSA's not out of bankruptcy until 2022.
3. BSA has squawked continuously about how it is running out of cash and needs to be out of bankruptcy ASAP.
4. Rechartering happens in November/December. If this isn't resolved and quickly, Methodist churches are being told to not recharter units past 12/31/2021.
5. The judge mentioned in the hearing she has already had to juggle her schedule numerous times for BSA and that she has a very full fall schedule.

Kosnoff's going to be forced to disclose along with AIS (the non-entity entity) Rule 2019 information. Perhaps even more critically is the question of who, really, is counsel to those 17,000 claimants and what those claimants understand the relationship to be between them and these lawyers.

Edited July 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[SiouxRanger]

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

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

The final result of National' bankruptcy.  Just wondering what survivors would consider a "good result." (Considering the inherent infirmity of the legal system to undo the damage that has been done.) I'm not looking for a dollar amount-that will be whatever it ends up being.

[CynicalScouter]

So, what would a Rule 2019 look like?

Well the Coalition had to be forced by the court to file a full (with some redactions) versions last year.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf

It should lay out, in detail, the legal and financial arrangements between Kosnoff (or his law firm), AVA Law, Einseberg's law firm, etc. It should also spell out the financial interests in the case and while not by name (victims names will be filed under seal) identify which lawyers are representing which claimants.

While a prudent person would perhaps lay of Twitter for awhile, I suspect Kosnoff will chime in on this shortly.

If I had to guess, Kosnoff will file something completely inadequate and non-responsive (or barely responsive) as a Rule 2019 and we'll be right back to this on August 12.

Edited July 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

38 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

The final result of National' bankruptcy.  Just wondering what survivors would consider a "good result." (Considering the inherent infirmity of the legal system to undo the damage that has been done.) I'm not looking for a dollar amount-that will be whatever it ends up being.

Yeah. Thanks for the direction. I’m not going to be at all technical, which I guess I never am.

Honestly, I don’t see a “good” personal result for many/most of us. Emotionally, this has been a “terrible, horrible, no good and very bad”...year and counting. “Chainsaws and backhoes and nail guns, oh my!” Consolation would be money, BSA exposure and full disclosure, investigations and the non-monetary YPT demands seriously implemented. Oh. And some money. Did I mention money? Little or no money would totally blow. For me, I can’t overstate that for reasons I explained back when. 

Now that someone mentioned coinage, 50,000+ from closed states will be bitterly fought, IF we have no clear path around the SoL defense. Add to that the questionable ability to force on the insurers all that’s proposed in the RSA/Plan etc. and you end up with that protracted surgery I’ve spoken of so eloquently. My wife has been in the insurance and high level risk management industry for 36 years and she is very dubious about what she’s read and heard via her husband’s attorney and the WSJ. The entire thing is on very shaky legs, in my opinion. Those who came in with a clear shot at the recovery target in state court will fair the best financially, assuming the money is there and the insurers can be made to pay. It’s a bloody mess and you can’t get blood stains out of the carpet. 

A very important value will be whatever can be done to improve youth protection and the elimination/significant reduction of future abuse. I do not pretend a goose egg is achievable on that ledger. I just don’t. Aim for it, but don’t count on it. Bad people are often very smart people. Good people are often trusting and gullible people. The combination will always yield some measure of unfortunate results. I think what the TCC, Coalition and FCR are trying to do on that score is noble. If it “works” and is implemented longterm, it will be heartening. I also think it could be a model for other organizations. Time will tell. I hope it will be good, have legs and be a template, but my confidence in implementation and/or longevity is not overflowing. I do also like the idea of widespread AG investigations. They are overdue and appropriate. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[skeptic]

" I do also like the idea of widespread AG investigations. They are overdue and appropriate."  Would that apply beyond the BSA?  If not, then it is simply ignoring the elephant in the room, IMHO.   

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

" I do also like the idea of widespread AG investigations. They are overdue and appropriate."  Would that apply beyond the BSA?  If not, then it is simply ignoring the elephant in the room, IMHO.   

Um. How do you eat an elephant, class? Let’s all answer in unison, please. On the count of three. 1, 2, 3:

One. Bite. At. A. Time.

[SiouxRanger]

Thanks, ThenNow.  I think you are very realistic. I, too, hope for the things you do.

[skeptic]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Um. How do you eat an elephant, class? Let’s all answer in unison, please. On the count of three. 1, 2, 3:

One. Bite. At. A. Time.

Cute; but it really dodges the question.  The issue with BSA is far larger than just the BSA.  It is a massive problem in most youth serving groups, and even more so in the governmental oversight agencies.  That is to what I refer.  

[100thEagleScout]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

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?

I have Kosnoff.  He’s been more representative than Eisenberg, but is more or less making the big decisions.  I have had pretty much zero contact with Eisenberg.  Mostly I’ve spoken to my attorneys in ZS and Kosnoff.