Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[RememberSchiff]

class action lawsuit vs Chapter 11

As I understand, the University of Michigan (public non-profit, taxpayer funded) sexual assault settlement is a result of a class action suit filed in federal district court and not a bankruptcy.

[ThenNow]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now, the one aspect where U of Michigan may be more liable is that he was a repeat abuser.  Many of the BSA abusers were only identified once (Bates indicated repeat abusers are where the bigger payouts occur).  

I would very much like to see a deep dive into how this oft-repeated statistic breaks out. How many is "many" and are there any patterns to be seen between the multiple victim abusers and the single victim abusers? Patterns could include timeframe, geogrpahy, the source of the claim, as in law firm or aggregator, and etc. (I fear we will never know what really happened in this case, both as to the abuse and the mess this has become. I digress.)

I don't know that many BSA CSA survivors, but the majority were abused by someone who abused other Scouts. In my case, as I've said, I wouldn't be surprised if 10 claims name my SM. 5 is a gimmie. I could name more than 5, but have no idea if they filed a POC. Also, "identified" only means as to POCs filed in this case. History and studies tell us there are likely other victims. I know, we have to stick to the record. Just sayin...

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I'm sure this settlement will be utilized in the BSA mediation/negotiations when calculating value of the claims.  Insurance companies will likely be the ones going back to see if they can write a bigger check.

Ima thinkin' you're on to somethin' here, mister.

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Ima thinkin' you're on to somethin' here, mister.

We've often debated why LC/CO protection in another companies bankruptcy.  I finally saw in another thread something that I've probably asked before (and forgot the answer).  It's BSA's bankruptcy being used to settle a lawsuit.  Why would insurance companies receive protection?  The insurance company is not going bankrupt.  It really seems the scope of the bankruptcy must really be shrunk.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Why would insurance companies receive protection?

I'll hazard an amateur comment. Even in an auto accident, insurance companies don't give up money without a release. There's nothing saying they have to "contribute," especially when BSA's liability has not been adjudicated. All third-party non-debtors are simply trying to buy their ticket to freedom from this mess, ala the Sacklers. BSA can lay CSA claims at the carriers' doors all day long, but as with any other insurance claim, they ain't payin until they're either made to through litigation or they deem it to their best calculated advantage. Right now, we're in the latter scenario. In this case, we peons don't even know their overall exposure, in the aggregate, or the market value of the claims. Ah, mediation privilege. 

[fred8033]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I'll hazard an amateur comment. Even in an auto accident, insurance companies don't give up money without a release. There's nothing saying they have to "contribute," especially when BSA's liability has not been adjudicated. All third-party non-debtors are simply trying to buy their ticket to freedom from this mess, ala the Sacklers. BSA can lay CSA claims at the carriers' doors all day long, but as with any other insurance claim, they ain't payin until they're either made to through litigation or they deem it to their best calculated advantage. Right now, we're in the latter scenario. In this case, we peons don't even know their overall exposure, in the aggregate, or the market value of the claims. Ah, mediation privilege. 

Well understood.  I agree.   Perhaps I think of it wrongly.  I think of it more as ... how much money does BSA have to contribute?.  Even to the extreme pain level.  Let's separate that cash, protect it to pay debts including victim claims and move on.  The CSA claims should be against that protected trust ... and also the insurance companies.  

[ThenNow]

 

16 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The CSA claims should be against that protected trust ... and also the insurance companies.  

The claims are/will be against the Settlement Trust, that's why we all have to repeat a proof of claim process and then even more extensive and intensive. This time, we will be subject to examination by the Trustee and other manner of litigation-style poking and prodding. 

[ThenNow]

Many moons, hundreds of pages and thousands of posts ago someone VolScouter (?) noted that BSA worked with top experts and consultants to develop it’s program for YP over a number of years. Is anyone willing and able to post the names of those individuals and organizations? I’m very curious and grateful in advance.

Edited January 22, 2022 by ThenNow
Oops.

[johnsch322]

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Here is the Kosnoff order.  It was about the live tweeting when the TCC was deposing BSA counsel.  It sounds like Kosnoff probably shouldn't have been on that call, but the bigger issue was that he was tweeting protected info.  Note that 7 days after deposition, the material could be released if not determined confidential (or other privileged, etc.).  

They stopped the deposition to get Kosnoff to stop the live tweeting.  

e0809104-fbda-40e1-9c69-7c79ef65e400_8480.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

As I have said before I find him to be the most fascinating personality in all of this.  I am sure he was fully aware of the consequences of his tweeting so he must have a reason behind it.  The fact that it was about the coalitions e-ballot i think is very telling.  I do wonder why the coalition showed it to the BSA and neither BSA nor the Coalition sought approval for its use.

[Eagle1993]

Don’t Let This Happen to You: Milwaukee Archdiocese Bankruptcy – Part Three, The In-Court “Slugfest” – MEDIATBANKRY

I figure this post belongs here.  This article is about the fight between the Milwaukee Archdiocese & official committee (represented by Stang's firm).  Basically, it resulted in a 4+ year court battle.  

Now, as you see news and updates from the bankruptcy (including hearing in late Feb/early March) remember this article.  I highly doubt the current plan will be approved given legal issues mentioned earlier & the vote.

However, the "slugfest" we will likely see in bankruptcy court over the next 2 months may end up brining the parties together in mediation.  I certainly hope they are already there ... but if they are not, hopefully the next two months gets them there.

 

Quote

 

According to James I. Stang, it is the Seventh Circuit’s ruling on March 9, 2015, that finally ends the “slugfest” and brings the parties together in mediation to construct a consensual plan of reorganization. Until such ruling, the parties are far apart in their positions.  Prior to such time, any hopes of an agreed resolution are unfounded.

The “slugfest” simply had to occur. It is unfortunate. In hindsight, it should have been avoided.

But when occurring, the “slugfest” seemed to be a pre-condition for the disputes to become ripe for mediation.

The “slugfest” and its results serve as a hard-lesson-learned for subsequent cases to avoid.

 

 

[skeptic]

Fascinating is an odd word for him.  But my words for him are not acceptable.  Suffice it to say, he certainly reflects much of the worst that causes the legal profession to be seen in such a negative light much of the time.  

 

[Muttsy]

Moderator, why do you allow this BSA troll self-named skeptic to continue here. He should be banished. He exists here only to suppress open honest expression. You are allowing him to destroy this forum. Last post from me if he remains. 

[fred8033]

58 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Moderator, why do you allow this BSA troll self-named skeptic to continue here. He should be banished. He exists here only to suppress open honest expression. You are allowing him to destroy this forum. Last post from me if he remains. 

There is no need to take a cheap shot at another forum member.  I have not always agreed with him, but Skeptic has been a meaningful contributor on many different subjects for 15 years.  

Though his post baits the edge of lawyer bashing, it is relevant to the topic of a judge reviewing questionable conduct by those in this case.

[johnsch322]

10 hours ago, skeptic said:

Fascinating is an odd word for him.  But my words for him are not acceptable.  Suffice it to say, he certainly reflects much of the worst that causes the legal profession to be seen in such a negative light much of the time.  

 

fascinating

[ˈfasəˌnādiNG]

 

ADJECTIVE

1. extremely interesting.

   "fascinating facts"

   synonyms:

   engrossing · captivating · absorbing · interesting · enchanting · 

   [more]

   I use this word for Tim Kosnoff because he has passion for what he does and it shows in his actions. He cares about survivors in a way that someone who has not been abused will never know.  He is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in and willing to take the consequences for his actions. He does not hide behind anonymity and throw stones.  He is a fascinating and remarkable human being. One day after all this is over I would love to have a beer with him,

Edited January 25, 2022 by johnsch322

[ThenNow]

11 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

As I have said before I find him to be the most fascinating personality in all of this.  I am sure he was fully aware of the consequences of his tweeting so he must have a reason behind it.  

We need to remember the context and circumstances here: 

1) This is a man I truly believe is passionate about representing child sexual abuse survivors. I am open to being accused of wearing VR goggles while stuck in a fantasy game;

2) This is a man who retired from practicing law and was off enjoying the fruits of his labors. Boredom can be a problem in retirement;

3) This is a man who “came off his yacht” to get involved in this case for survivors and, critically, AGAINST BSA. He has dual passions and one is to annoy, needle, inflame, harass...BSA, the Coalition, the TCC, insurers and anyone else he thinks is getting in the way of survivors’ rights, as HE perceives them;

4) This is a man who made his living as a career litigator. He knows what happens when one runs afoul of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and/or the Court;

5) This is a man who has the money to pay for sanctions, if imposed. I think he would gladly pay them after he fought like hell not to while creating additional distraction, diversion and chaos. (Art of War); 

6) This is a man who had already placed his shingle on the shelf in his Bluewater, so if the judge wants it he might be willing to give it up following another battle (See #5, above.); and 

7) This is a man who is LOVE, LOVE, LOVIN’ playing El Pequeno Toro in the china shop of JLSS’s courtroom. Did I say, he’s “LOVI’N IT”? (Nod to Mickey D’s jingle in Jim Gaffigan’s whisper voice.)

I am not blessing any of the above, but when you have little to lose you can give a lot in pursuit of your endgame. He can afford whatever might be imposed as sanctions and he already gave up his law license once. So, meh. Whatever. He’s all in and isn’t afraid of losing what he’s put on the line. My take.

Edited January 25, 2022 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

10 hours ago, skeptic said:

Fascinating is an odd word for him.  But my words for him are not acceptable.  Suffice it to say, he certainly reflects much of the worst that causes the legal profession to be seen in such a negative light much of the time.  

 

I have a lot of issues with Kosnoff's statements about the BSA, especially comments about men who like to take little boys into the woods.  I have never seen an instance or heard of any instance of any abuse in my district let alone any unit I have been involved in or even been close to.  I disagree with BSA and even various scouters on a variety of topics, but I have never seen anything that makes me think they have good intentions.

That said, I don't think Kosnoff is the worst of the legal profession.  In fact, I think he is probably one of the good claimant lawyers.  He advocates for his side, is willing to take personal hits and truly hears and advocates for them.  I wouldn't say he is the top lawyer (I think Zalkin is probably the best firm) and also believe many of his actions don't help ... however, he is far from the worst.

From this case, the worst group of lawyers I have seen are those who:

• Obtained large loans from Wall Street to fund operations 
• Trolled the fields of FB, night time TV, etc. to get a bunch of claimants
• Used questionable means to vet claims
• Turned over some of their fees to Wall Street 
• Negotiated a quick settlement
• Didn't answer calls from Claimants, didn't look at each claimant to determine their best path (approval/reject)
• Badgered claimants to approve plan ... not simply to vote
• Oh, and asked for $18M+ of fees directly to them (on top of their 40%) and to get more fees for running the trust.

Outside of the initial trolling for claims and linked to some of the questionable vetting, Kosnoff wasn't involved in the above.  He dropped out of the formation of the Coalition when he saw mass tort & some of the Wall Street connections.  

So, not perfect (far from), but I do think he fights for his clients and they are his primary focus (vs bankers and a fast resolution to maximize his return on investment).