Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[SiouxRanger]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Not sure I follow. The claim was that that Hartford deal was perfectly sound use of business judgement and perfectly valid. The judge did NOT rule the Hartford deal was fine, and in fact may LATER rule it is a problem for other reasons. All that she indicated during the last hearing was that the RSA hearing and the RSA was not the time/place/forum to make that argument.

A "preference," at least in a Chapter 7 case,  is a transaction that provides a benefit to a particular creditor to the exclusion of other creditors in the same class and it prejudices those other creditors.

At one time, (and maybe still) preferences were defined as occurring within a certain time window preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition, or was entered into with certain other classes of individuals, such as, principals, owners, spouses of principals/owners, and such, which had a longer time window.  The Trustee in bankruptcy could void those transactions and pull the assets bestowed on the privileged/ortunate creditor back into the bankruptcy estate to be divided amongst ALL the creditors of that class.

I've seen no discussion of this, so it must not be applicable-statutory, or time-barred. I don't know.

Conceivably, the business judgment rule may be an exception to the preference rule, that is, "Normally, this would look like a preference, but we had a sound business reason to make this deal, and here is why it is sound..."  If this is the case, then until the Judge rules on this, Hartford is still on the hot seat.

One would think that National has no reason to cut a sweet deal with Hartford, because National's liability will be discharged, whatever that liability is and no matter how much Hartford and the other insurers have to pay, unless the deal provides a benefit to National, which, appears to me to be to obtain Hartford's agreement with the RSA., thereby greasing an easier approval of National's Plan.  Likely, that Hartford was chosen for the sweet deal because its vote would swing RSA approval.

Maybe all this is garbage.  

 

"I did not have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one." Pascal (I think).

 

[SiouxRanger]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Dioceses don’t “answer” to archdioceses for starters.

and no one “answers” to the papal Nuncio. He isn’t the boss of all bishops.

And the vow of obedience obligates clergy to obey those appointed as superior to them. This gets into a ton of complexity I do not want to get into here (e.g. does a Jesuit priest assigned to a university inside a diocese answer to the bishop of his Jesuit superior-general? Etc.)

 

Yes as I explained each bishop (or for an archdiocese an archbishop) gets to decide. Other than a direct appeal to the Holy See, there is no one else “above” a bishop/archbishop. That is again why there will not be ONE answer for all Catholic chartered units in the US. It will be entirety dependent on what that particular bishop wants to do or not do.

Well, then there should be a mosaic of treatment in the Catholic Church.

[ThenNow]

Just now, SiouxRanger said:

Well, then there should be a mosaic of treatment in the Catholic Church.

Okay. I guess it's time to pull out my Hardon's "Modern Catholic Dictionary." I'm rusty, to the chagrin of my Franciscan, Jesuit and Sisters of St. Agnes teachers.

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Well, then there should be a mosaic of treatment in the Catholic Church.

“Mosaic”?

But in the mean time several dioceses have banded together and hired the same law firm to represent their Interests.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

The August 25 hearing is now officially cancelled.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/054bc42a-38fa-439a-9cfa-34e99c75f016_6106.pdf

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/08/23/628273.htm

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/08/23/628273.htm

Yep. I saw a lot of people over inflating the judges decision and how this was the beginning of the end, etc. And many reporters lost the nuance.

if anything that RSA decision was one step forward two steps back.

[SiouxRanger]

20 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Well, then there should be a mosaic of treatment in the Catholic Church.

Possibly parishes and dioceses announcing different rules at different times.  Surely, the guidance or directives will be coordinated at some level, not only to prevent initial confusion, but to avoid having to retract guidance or directives at some point.

[SiouxRanger]

Roughly appears to be about 17,000 Latin Catholic Parishes, 144 Dioceses, and, 32 Archdioceses in the USA.

[ThenNow]

This is an interview with Kathryn Robb, Exec Director of CHILDUSA Advocacy. Aired in February, but worth the five minutes.

https://www.yourerie.com/on-our-air/newsmaker/newsmaker-kathryn-robb/

[ThenNow]

42 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I saw a lot of people over inflating the judges decision and how this was the beginning of the end, etc. And many reporters lost the nuance.

if anything that RSA decision was one step forward two steps back.

Have there been any murmurings from AIS or the Coalition of Disappointed Attorneys for Justifiable Bribery?

[David CO]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

Parishes answer to Dioceses, Dioceses to Archdioceses, and they answer to ?  

A diocese doesn't exactly "answer" to an archdiocese, but they do both exist in the same province.  The Archbishop and bishops of a province will often meet together and decide on issues in unison.  An example of this would be policies on Catholic schools.  All of the schools in my province accept the common core standards and share a common curriculum.

It is not at all unusual for the archbishop and bishops of a province to act together on an issue that effects them all.  It is a real possibility that a province might choose to act jointly on a decision about chartering BSA units.  At the very least,  I should think that they would all discuss it together before any one of them would make a decision.

 

[SiouxRanger]

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

A diocese doesn't exactly "answer" to an archdiocese, but they do both exist in the same province.  The Archbishop and bishops of a province will often meet together and decide on issues in unison.  An example of this would be policies on Catholic schools.  All of the schools in my province accept the common core standards and share a common curriculum.

It is not at all unusual for the archbishop and bishops of a province to act together on an issue that effects them all.  It is a real possibility that a province might choose to act jointly on a decision about chartering BSA units.  At the very least,  I should think that they would all discuss it together before any one of them would make a decision.

 

I do hope decisions are coordinated and sooner than later.  I don't know what our unit would do if we had to find another location.

It only occurred to me the other day how dependent we are on having our meeting room adjoining our storage room.  It would be inconvenient to have to go to, or meet at a different location to prepare for a campout, and then go to the meeting location.

It would be OK to meet at the storage location the night of the campout to load up, but gear is typically returned over several troop meeting nights, and that gear would have to be ferried to the storage location.  Just one more step in the process.

[RandomScouter]

This just in from Patriots' Path Council:

The case is reaching a critical juncture and it is clear that Patriots’ Path Council will be required to make a significant contribution to the settlement trust. It is likely that this settlement contribution will be a blend of cash and property. Our council has been working diligently for almost two years through special committees and our Executive Board to ensure that we are best positioned to continue serving youth, families and communities in northern and central New Jersey. Because of confidentiality requirements, we cannot at this time provide exact details of how we will fund our settlement contribution, but we promise to do so as soon as plans finalize and confidentiality restrictions are lifted.

 

[ThenNow]

36 minutes ago, RandomScouter said:

The case is reaching a critical juncture and it is clear that Patriots’ Path Council will be required to make a significant contribution to the settlement trust. It is likely that this settlement contribution will be a blend of cash and property. Our council has been working diligently for almost two years through special committees and our Executive Board to ensure that we are best positioned to continue serving youth, families and communities in northern and central New Jersey. Because of confidentiality requirements, we cannot at this time provide exact details of how we will fund our settlement contribution, but we promise to do so as soon as plans finalize and confidentiality restrictions are lifted.

Obviously, some LCs saw the ruling in the best possible light pointing to with a reasonably near-term resolution built on the lame duck RSA. Who's communicating that? Also, what's this continuing claim of a confidentiality muzzle when we all know it's been lifted? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Eagle1993]

19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Obviously, some LCs saw the ruling in the best possible light pointing to with a reasonably near-term resolution built on the lame duck RSA. Who's communicating that? Also, what's this continuing claim of a confidentiality muzzle when we all know it's been lifted? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

I would probably take a much more measured response.  Some of these councils are sending out statements as if the negotiations are 100% done and we are now beyond the bankruptcy.  It will be ugly for them if anything goes sideways.