Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD

[MYCVAStory]

10 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I'd prefer the current plan as it has pain for everyone and people can move on.  BUT, I doubt it's future for many reasons.   If the current plan is adopted, great.  The sooner we can move past legal cases the better.

I want to say this with all due respect if you are a Survivor, and respect for your personal wishes.  But, for many Survivors there is a realization that "moving on" isn't as easy as seeing this bankruptcy resolved for the BSA first and foremost.  Remember, this is the BSA'S VOLUNTARY bankruptcy and Survivors were dragged into it.  For many that had "good" claims working their way through the legal system this will forever deny them their day if a permanent injunction is granted.  For those hoping for a change in SOL it also dashes thoses hopes.  I TOTALLY understand any Survivor wanting resolution.  But after waiting decades for most we ALL have to think about the day after a bankruptcy is resolved or a check comes in the mail.  Then what?  How much "moving on" will there be?  I suspect that will be a fleeting feeling and there's teh great possibility that a horrible settlement will only amplify the feeling of being victimized, again.  I respect the feelings f any Survivor who wants this over and completely understand why anyone in the BSA would feel that way.  But for most Survivors the next step for "moving on" comes with NOT feeling like the only groups that benefitted were the professionals and BSA, at the unreasonable expense of the Survivors.

[johnsch322]

9 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I want to say this with all due respect if you are a Survivor, and respect for your personal wishes.  But, for many Survivors there is a realization that "moving on" isn't as easy as seeing this bankruptcy resolved for the BSA first and foremost.  Remember, this is the BSA'S VOLUNTARY bankruptcy and Survivors were dragged into it.  For many that had "good" claims working their way through the legal system this will forever deny them their day if a permanent injunction is granted.  For those hoping for a change in SOL it also dashes thoses hopes.  I TOTALLY understand any Survivor wanting resolution.  But after waiting decades for most we ALL have to think about the day after a bankruptcy is resolved or a check comes in the mail.  Then what?  How much "moving on" will there be?  I suspect that will be a fleeting feeling and there's teh great possibility that a horrible settlement will only amplify the feeling of being victimized, again.  I respect the feelings f any Survivor who wants this over and completely understand why anyone in the BSA would feel that way.  But for most Survivors the next step for "moving on" comes with NOT feeling like the only groups that benefitted were the professionals and BSA, at the unreasonable expense of the Survivors.

AS a survivor I would like to say that in my opinion the abused to the BSA are like a swarm of gnats that they just want to get rid of.  There can be no clearer evidence of this than the fact that they struck a deal with the coalition lawyers rather than with actual survivors the TCC.  They would rather pay the coalition 15 million plus than treat abusers in a fair and equitable manner.

[fred8033]

22 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I want to say this with all due respect if you are a Survivor, and respect for your personal wishes.  But, for many Survivors there is a realization that "moving on" isn't as easy as seeing this bankruptcy resolved for the BSA first and foremost.  Remember, this is the BSA'S VOLUNTARY bankruptcy and Survivors were dragged into it.  For many that had "good" claims working their way through the legal system this will forever deny them their day if a permanent injunction is granted.  For those hoping for a change in SOL it also dashes thoses hopes.  I TOTALLY understand any Survivor wanting resolution.  But after waiting decades for most we ALL have to think about the day after a bankruptcy is resolved or a check comes in the mail.  Then what?  How much "moving on" will there be?  I suspect that will be a fleeting feeling and there's teh great possibility that a horrible settlement will only amplify the feeling of being victimized, again.  I respect the feelings f any Survivor who wants this over and completely understand why anyone in the BSA would feel that way.  But for most Survivors the next step for "moving on" comes with NOT feeling like the only groups that benefitted were the professionals and BSA, at the unreasonable expense of the Survivors.

I understand and sympathize. 

"Voluntary" / "involuntary" is who filed the bankruptcy.  It says debt can't be paid.   It is not an easy or arbitrary business strategy.  ... The current mess is a chicken and egg thing.  Lawsuits pulled BSA into bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy pulled more victims in.  It's a mess.  

The trouble is viewing it as denying a day in court.  BSA is speeding into a financial wreck, but others are asking to be heard before the course is changed.  It doesn't work that way.   

The goal is to get cash into a trust for victim's benefit.  I'm not sure another six months of spending on a different plan will increase the cash pool or just guarantee a worse wreck.

Edited October 19, 2021 by fred8033

[johnsch322]

9 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I understand and sympathize. 

"Voluntary" / "involuntary" is who filed the bankruptcy.  It says debt can't be paid.   It is not an easy or arbitrary business strategy.  ... The current mess is a chicken and egg thing.  Lawsuits pulled BSA into bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy pulled more victims in.  It's a mess.  

The trouble is viewing it as denying a day in court.  BSA is speeding into a financial wreck, but others are asking to be heard before the course is changed.  It doesn't work that way.   

The goal is to get cash into a trust for victim's benefit.  I'm not sure another six months of spending on a different plan will increase the cash pool or just guarantee a worse wreck.

CSA generated lawsuits.  Lawsuits created a perceived financial issue. Perceived financial issue caused the bankruptcy. Bankruptcy brought in more claimants.

Yes the goal of victims is to get a sufficient of cash and assets into a trust. The only goal of BSA is to get out of the bankruptcy and at this point to bring the LC's CO's and insurance companies along with them for pennies on the dollar.  If BSA had not cut deals with LDS and Hartford they would be that much closer to exiting bankruptcy.

If 6 more months of spending cash is not what BSA wants then they should have never cut deals with the parties that they have. 

[johnsch322]

Has anyone wondered why BSA was and is so willing to cut a sweetheart deal with the insurance companies?  Is it because they are afraid of not being able to get insurance once they exit? Do you think they might have a side deal where if the insurance companies are off the hook for tens of billions then they have agreed to insure BSA going forward?

[MYCVAStory]

12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Has anyone wondered why BSA was and is so willing to cut a sweetheart deal with the insurance companies?  Is it because they are afraid of not being able to get insurance once they exit? Do you think they might have a side deal where if the insurance companies are off the hook for tens of billions then they have agreed to insure BSA going forward?

The BSA couldn't care less about the insurance companies as long as it has a "coalition" helping them out to accept insurance deals.  Remember, the old saying is "you need friends in bankruptcy."  The BSA's goal is to give away ALL insurance policies or settlements to a trust and move on.  As far as the future, here's another reality, insurers LOVE companies post-bankruptcy because there's a clean slate and no surprises.  So, there's no reason to think thatthe BSA has back romm deals going on.  Their goal is to NEVER be a defendant for anything that happened in the past.  That's the work of the Trust taking on the insurers.

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The BSA couldn't care less about the insurance companies as long as it has a "coalition" helping them out to accept insurance deals.  Remember, the old saying is "you need friends in bankruptcy."  The BSA's goal is to give away ALL insurance policies or settlements to a trust and move on.  As far as the future, here's another reality, insurers LOVE companies post-bankruptcy because there's a clean slate and no surprises.  So, there's no reason to think thatthe BSA has back romm deals going on.  Their goal is to NEVER be a defendant for anything that happened in the past.  That's the work of the Trust taking on the insurers.

Then why cut deals with them?  Why not leave them out of the plan (Hartford) assign the policies to the trust and let the trustee deal with them? That is what the TCC wants or wanted.

[MYCVAStory]

47 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The trouble is viewing it as denying a day in court.  BSA is speeding into a financial wreck, but others are asking to be heard before the course is changed.  It doesn't work that way.   

I don't follow this argument.  Consider the Survivors who DID have cases in court and those who were working tirelessly to change SOLs.  A permanent injunction ELIMINATES those cases and imposes awards on Survivors that are pennies of what they would have gotten in court.  Those awards....paid by the insurers.  The same ones that will now rush to settle for pennies as The Hartford did.

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Has anyone wondered why BSA was and is so willing to cut a sweetheart deal with the insurance companies?  Is it because they are afraid of not being able to get insurance once they exit? Do you think they might have a side deal where if the insurance companies are off the hook for tens of billions then they have agreed to insure BSA going forward?

At first I was baffled, but I think it is clearer now.  I think there was 0% chance any  plan would go to a vote with an LC payment of just 20% of their assets without more, immediate, money coming in.  So, where to go for more money?  Hartford.  Harford probably realizes they owe billions but are willing to settle quickly for much less if given the chance.  That allowed BSA to offer a bigger immediate number, allowing enough law firms to get their quick profit and move the plan to a vote.  

If the BSA didn't get the Hartford deal, I really think they faced two options.  Greatly increase the LC contribution (probably by $600M+) or go with a BSA only exit.  

Now BSA messed up the first deal with Hartford by allowing it to be tied to other insurance settlements.  That was a mistake that was corrected.

 

[MYCVAStory]

Just now, johnsch322 said:

Then why cut deals with them?  Why not leave them out of the plan (Hartford) assign the policies to the trust and let the trustee deal with them? That is what the TCC wants or wanted.

Because they need friends.  Because it lets the coalition crow about a historic trust amount when what's historic will be the low amount of awards.  What the TCC wants is settlements but NOT what the coalition is willing to take.  Remember...right now teh Coalition firms are already splitting 425 MILLION dollars.....anc ounting.

[MYCVAStory]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now BSA messed up the first deal with Hartford by allowing it to be tied to other insurance settlements.  That was a mistake that was corrected.

Yes...but NOT corrected and now the BSA is on the hook for an administrative charge in teh tens of millions if they tried to get out of teh Deal.  So, they screwed up TWICE.

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

At first I was baffled, but I think it is clearer now.  I think there was 0% chance any  plan would go to a vote with an LC payment of just 20% of their assets without more, immediate, money coming in.  So, where to go for more money?  Hartford.  Harford probably realizes they owe billions but are willing to settle quickly for much less if given the chance.  That allowed BSA to offer a bigger immediate number, allowing enough law firms to get their quick profit and move the plan to a vote.  

If the BSA didn't get the Hartford deal, I really think they faced two options.  Greatly increase the LC contribution (probably by $600M+) or go with a BSA only exit.  

Now BSA messed up the first deal with Hartford by allowing it to be tied to other insurance settlements.  That was a mistake that was corrected.

 

The original RSA was endorsed by the TCC if the Hartford deal was left out.  The latest is not endorsed by TCC with the revised Hartford deal.  Hartford deal is a "Hoover".

[johnsch322]

6 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Because they need friends.  Because it lets the coalition crow about a historic trust amount when what's historic will be the low amount of awards.  What the TCC wants is settlements but NOT what the coalition is willing to take.  Remember...right now teh Coalition firms are already splitting 425 MILLION dollars.....anc ounting.

My hope is that BSA has hitched their horses to the wrong wagon.

[Eagle1993]

7 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Yes...but NOT corrected and now the BSA is on the hook for an administrative charge in teh tens of millions if they tried to get out of teh Deal.  So, they screwed up TWICE.

That is true.  BSA went all in with Hartford to get this latest deal.  

[Eagle1993]

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The original RSA was endorsed by the TCC if the Hartford deal was left out.  The latest is not endorsed by TCC with the revised Hartford deal.  Hartford deal is a "Hoover".

Actually, if I remember correctly, there was a time before the RSA where the case was headed back to a hearing.  BSA asked for a delay to work on mediation, the TCC objected but the Coalition concurred.  I think that was the first sign of a break between the TCC/Coalition.  I expect if it was the TCC alone, they wouldn't have signed onto the RSA.  Again, these are just guesses watching the info I have.

I think the Hartford deal was a mistake.  It came in April of this year, I believe.  Around the same time the council contribution was increased to $425M.  Before that date, councils I think were going to contribute $300M.  

I doubt the TCC will support the RSA with Hartford removed any longer.  I would expect they will reject the TCJC as well plus look for more from LCs (and do the LC by LC release just like COs).  

So, when the BSA knew they had to pump up the offer, they got $125M more from LCs and a headline number of $650M from Hartford.  Yes, a bad deal, but just like increasing the immediate payout from $1,500 to $3,500, it was about getting enough attorneys onboard to get a vote to hopefully get the plan approved.