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

[Eagle1970]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

They actually used, “anonymous,” which was a flat out lie and they (should) know that.

Right.  My brain is fuzzy from spinning around.  "Anonymous" meaning all of my personal information will be sent to my local council and probably involve my troop leaders, with my name, address, phone, email and details of my abuse I almost never share. It is maddening.  

[fred8033]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Ask for the retainer agreement

I intentionally avoided asking.  It makes me ask if it's legal.   Effectively, that "fees" kickback gives one debtor more than other debtors are getting. 

[fred8033]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The TCC lawyers do not get any portion of the awards.

So the TCC lawyers are not members of any law firm that are representing victims on a contingent basis?  Really?  If so, I did not know that.  

[johnsch322]

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

I intentionally avoided asking.  It makes me ask if it's legal.   Effectively, that "fees" kickback gives one debtor more than other debtors are getting. 

Can you explain that please? My understanding is that the 10% is going into the settlement trust. 

[MYCVAStory]

The members of the TCC made it clear that PSZJ, its lead attorneys, offered to pay 10% of its fees to a Survivor's Trust.  This offer was AFTER it was retained and NOT part of the decision.  PSZJ is the TCC's bankruptcy professionals and per bankruptcy rules paid by the debtor (BSA).  That system is in place in all bankrutcies so that the impaired classes (Survivors in this case) have advocacy/representation.  So yes, the BSA is paying its opponents attorneys in this case.  NO part of the PSZJ fees is contingent upon awards.  The Coalition's professionals have written their fees into the settlement agreement.  No percentage was offered to the Survivor's Trust.  The judge previously has made it clear she is not rubber-stamping those fees.  Lastly, the TCC has said that it has a sub-committee of its Survivors that review all of its bills before voting to approve them.

Bad week for the Coalition continues.  Judge just ruled that it can be deposed.  Insurers lining up to do just that.

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

So the TCC lawyers are not members of any law firm that are representing victims on a contingent basis?  Really?  If so, I did not know that.  

They are not representing victims on a contingency basis.  TCC lawyers are Pachulski Stang Ziehl and Jones LLP.  and they were hired by the TCC and paid for by the BSA.

[fred8033]

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Can you explain that please? My understanding is that the 10% is going into the settlement trust. 

Settlement trust is money from BSA's bankruptcy.  The bankruptcy needs to pay debtors in sequence and some justified percent.  ... I am far from an expert ... If I was another plaintiff if this bankruptcy, I'd be saying that the firm's fees are padded to give their client cash out of BSA's bankruptcy.  If the firms were not padding their fees, then there would be more funds to pay all the debtors.

It's raiding the cash to pay the debts.  ... It's the whole problem with kickbacks.

[fred8033]

3 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The members of the TCC made it clear that PSZJ, its lead attorneys, offered to pay 10% of its fees to a Survivor's Trust.  This offer was AFTER it was retained and NOT part of the decision.  PSZJ is the TCC's bankruptcy professionals and per bankruptcy rules paid by the debtor (BSA).  That system is in place in all bankrutcies so that the impaired classes (Survivors in this case) have advocacy/representation.  So yes, the BSA is paying its opponents attorneys in this case.  NO part of the PSZJ fees is contingent upon awards.  The Coalition's professionals have written their fees into the settlement agreement.  No percentage was offered to the Survivor's Trust.  The judge previously has made it clear she is not rubber-stamping those fees.  Lastly, the TCC has said that it has a sub-committee of its Survivors that review all of its bills before voting to approve them.

Bad week for the Coalition continues.  Judge just ruled that it can be deposed.  Insurers lining up to do just that.

So 10% is not in the retainer agreement?  It's a good-will basis?

[johnsch322]

3 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The members of the TCC made it clear that PSZJ, its lead attorneys, offered to pay 10% of its fees to a Survivor's Trust

My bad I meant survivors trust.

[ThenNow]

41 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I really liked the article that an auditor was hired to look at legal fees in this case.  They were able to reduce charges by $200,000 or so.  Then, billed the case $200,000 (or so).

Little Charlie Dickens would be proud, if not aghast, at his fortunetelling abilities. (Nod to Bleak House.)

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Bad week for the Coalition continues.  Judge just ruled that it can be deposed.  Insurers lining up to do just that.

Link to the hearing? Omni’s site is “Under Construction.” A graphic of a little man with a shovel is on the homepage and he seems to be working on piling up a  YUGE number of $100 bills. It’s odd.

Never mind. I just overheard a brief debrief that indicated the hearing about which I heard, and asked, was brief and concluded. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

So the TCC lawyers are not members of any law firm that are representing victims on a contingent basis?  Really?  If so, I did not know that.  

Mysterious, right? And that is no shadow of darkness on any claimant committee’s counsel. This where the web is tightly woven. So, across the spectrum of legal counsel in this case (not including in-house and out-house counsel for the insurers), including those billing the Debtors’ estate, we have at a minimum:

1) Contingent fee state court plaintiff’s counsel who headed the charge in open and window states pre-filing;

2) Debtor’s bankruptcy counsel, and there are several iterations - billed to the estate, at a max hourly of $1700 per;

3) PSZJ, lead counsel for the TCC - billed to the estate with 10% to the Settlement Trust;

4) Pasich, TCC insurance counsel - billed to the estate;

5) All the contingent fee claimant’s counsel that came post-filing;

6) Coalition and AIS counsel - I lost track of how many layers - and, as noted, the Coalition wants their attorneys’ fees paid by the estate. Yes. The contingent fee attorneys have attorneys who also have attorneys and the groups they formed have attorneys or something like that. Seriously, I want a flow chart. When this became apparent to me, I knew (for sure) the wheels had come off and/or I have multiple screws loose. Probably all of the above.

I have not included all of the other asset assessment, accounting and analysis firms billing the estate. Also, in case I wasn’t clear, multiple of the AIS and Coalition attorneys have their own counsel who have been and will be pretty busy for a spell.  I’m sure I missed things, but I can’t think about this any more...

[MattR]

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

So, at least somebody in the media thought to take note of the Elephant.😬

But in most cases, other than this one, the legal fees are small potatoes compared to the value of the company. The example in the article was that for Enron it was 2% and for the BSA it's already 40%. 2% wouldn't have much impact on what survivors get.

I'd like to see that 40% split out by the various groups of lawyers. I have a hunch the BSA was sold a bill of goods by its own lawyers. Their plan has been to drag this out while trying shady deals with whomever told them what they wanted to hear. That doesn't seem to be working very well for anyone but the lawyers.

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, MattR said:

. The example in the article was that for Enron it was 2% and for the BSA it's already 40%. 2% wouldn't have much impact on what survivors get.

I'd like to see that 40% split out by the various groups of lawyers.

As Eagle1993 noted, in fairness, we need to recall the layers of complexity as we’re not dealing with a single monolithic entity, regardless how large. The 250+ LCs, 1000’s of COs and their major affiliated entities, time frame, innumerable properties, desire for non-party releases, 50 states + territories, pages and pages of insurance policies, and claim valuation variables make this a simultaneous code brown in a nursery of 500 babies with only two diapers and one nanny. Also, the way the article bundled the discussion, it appeared the contingent fees were being rolled up into the estate fees conversation. That was not clear and I think it bears clarifying. I won’t be the one to do it, however. My abacus is done busted. Anyone want to help a brother out? I’m tired...

[MattR]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As Eagle1993 noted, in fairness, we need to recall the layers of complexity as we’re not dealing with a single monolithic entity, regardless how large. The 250+ LCs, 1000’s of COs and their major affiliated entities, time frame, innumerable properties, desire for non-party releases, 50 states + territories, pages and pages of insurance policies, and claim valuation variables make this a simultaneous code brown in a nursery of 500 babies with only two diapers and one nanny. Also, the way the article bundled the discussion, it appeared the contingent fees were being rolled up into the estate fees conversation. That was not clear and I think it bears clarifying. I won’t be the one to do it, however. My abacus is done busted. Anyone want to help a brother out? I’m tired...

I completely agree with you how complex this is. I would have thought the BSA's lawyers knew that as well and might have told them the quickest and cheapest way out of this would be an honest discussion with the TCC. I mean, if the biggest chunk of legal fees is from the BSA's lawyers and they have nothing to show after 2 years and 40% of the BSAs total value being wasted ....

The coalition and TCC aren't driving this, yet.