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

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Justice is not well served if it has a constant dollar sign on it.

I’ve been doing a goodly amount of research on mass torts, including non-bankruptcy. At or very near the heart of the controversy is the inherent conflict present for attorneys representing more than one client who could - and very often do - end up having conflicting interests in the case. The bankruptcy context is recognized as an utter mess of conflicted representation and unsuitable forum for such cases.  (This is a perfectly suited forum, however. I digress...) Then there’s the issue of third party funding and aggregators. Ack. The BSA Chapter 11, with AIS and the Coalition featured in the starring roles, will provide years of fodder for law review and other scholarly articles. I predict it will be studied long after I go down for a pedolithic night-night. 

[ThenNow]

37 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

 

Second ... ER sounds like he is very concerned if this is released ... I wonder what he is hiding.  

From the limited amount I know, evidence of:

1) Repeated, unrelenting browbeating about the Plan, including unwillingness to take “I’m voting ‘NO!’ for an answer, plus serial texts and emails;

2) Failure to communicate and/or be available;

3) BOLD “VOTE YES!” message on the face page of the e-ballot; 

4) Failure to address direct questions about voting procedures and specific elements, like the opt-out and $3500 off ramp; and

5) In stark contrast, TK being readily available and supportive live via text and cellular telephonic device.

[RememberSchiff]

51 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The judge is trying to do everything possible to eliminate arguments at confirmation.  So, this deletes "we didn't have enough time."

But wasn't the U.S. Trustee against sending this plan out for a vote and confirmation?

[MYCVAStory]

23 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

But wasn't the U.S. Trustee against sending this plan out for a vote and confirmation?

The Judge and Trustee are two entirely different entities.  Remember, a hearing or two ago the Trustee suggested a solution was for teh three AIS firms to stop contacting their clients entirely!  

[RememberSchiff]

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

The Judge and Trustee are two entirely different entities.  Remember, a hearing or two ago the Trustee suggested a solution was for teh three AIS firms to stop contacting their clients entirely!  

Yes. My point was, if there are confirmation arguments,  IMHO the U.S. Trustee will be near the front of the line.

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

But wasn't the U.S. Trustee against sending this plan out for a vote and confirmation?

I think the U.S. Trustee objected to the plan, but didn't object to the vote.  His main objection was against electronic communication only (he demanded paper be mailed).

I expect the U.S. Trustee has decided the plan (or at least aspects of the plan) is not acceptable and is ready to argue about it during confirmation.  Now, since the judge sent the plan for vote, I expect she is ready to accept this plan (or at least the structure of it) if it gets a major yes vote even over the U.S. Trustee's objections.

[SiouxRanger]

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

the heart of the controversy is the inherent conflict present for attorneys representing more than one client who could - and very often do - end up having conflicting interests in the case.

Bingo.

Double BINGO!!

That is precisely the problem, and as I can't afford the time to follow this micron by micron, maybe someone in the case has raised the issue, but as near as I can tell, no one seems to care (Judge, U.S. Trustee...)

At its simplest case, any attorney who represents a client from a state with an open statute of limitations and a client from a closed state who does not have a legally enforceable claim, is in an inherent and obvious conflict of interest.  An irreconcilable, ethically fatal conflict of interest. Period.

[Eagle1993]

Judge ruling on AVA & KR request to keep their communication sealed.  Judge ruled against them.  Tim Kosnoff's deposition will not be sealed.  

The client waived privilege she said and Kosnoff had clear evidence of them waving privilege.  She believes the clients gave informed consent.    Kosnoff specifically asked the clients to waive privilege.  This does not mean it is waived in other documents that could be found in future discovery.

This means we will see the emails referenced.  No claw back.  Others can now use this as they need.

There could be legal/ethics issues ... but that is for the future.

[Eagle1993]

Plan supplement filed Nov 30, Exhibit I ... identifies initial special reviewer.  That was never part of any discussion.

Kevin J Carey ... one of the mediators.  NOPE ... she is rejecting that selection.

Mediation neutrality is under question by the judge.  Carey now as a stake on the outcome of the mediation.

Uh Oh.

[Eagle1993]

Kevin J Carey ... was appointed was approved instead of Mr. Green.  Judges MUST disqualify themselves if their impartiality is in question.

Judge is NOT HAPPY with Mr. Carey.

Having him as the initial special reviewer, she thought about terminating mediation.

There is 1 mediator left.  Parties can continue outside of mediation.  Mr. Carey is OUT>

Good for the judge.

[Eagle1993]

Hearing is done.  Silence.

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This means we will see the emails referenced.  No claw back.  Others can now use this as they need.

Bam. Cancel tonight’s yacht party with “rich friends.” Whoops. “Failed to brief” is not something a movant wants to hear when the ruling is against them, potentially on the basis of that sin of omission.

[MYCVAStory]

Good day for Survivors in court.  The Judge said that the appointment of Kevin Cary, as a part of any trust, is a "non-starter" and now places the impartiality of the mediation in doubt.  The selection of Carey made her think about cancelling mediation!  But, because one is left, Gallagher, mediation may continue.  Carey is no longer a mediator!!  So the only mediator left is one who specializes in insurance mediation.  The judge is completely amazed that the BSA and Coalition would try this.

 

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

Good day for Survivors in court.  The Judge said that the appointment of Kevin Cary, as a part of any trust, is a "non-starter" and now places the impartiality of the mediation in doubt.  The selection of Carey made her think about cancelling mediation!  But, because one is left, Gallagher, mediation may continue.  Carey is no longer a mediator!!  So the only mediator left is one who specializes in insurance mediation.  The judge is completely amazed that the BSA and Coalition would try this.

 

She was clearly upset.  Note that NO ONE brought this up ... she found it and ruled on her own.  It wasn't even on the agenda.  It seemed to be a clear shot across the bow of BSA & Coalition.  They probably need to relook at who is leading the Trust right now.  That will cause some questions later on.

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

She was clearly upset.  Note that NO ONE brought this up ... she found it and ruled on her own.  It wasn't even on the agenda.  It seemed to be a clear shot across the bow of BSA & Coalition.  They probably need to relook at who is leading the Trust right now.  That will cause some questions later on.

So, remember the Kosnoff/TCC email thing? Me either. I just had a “flashy thing” *poofed* before me and that is no longer in my memory bank as of...NOW. This day, I shall not forget. (Nod to Men In Black.) WOWZERS!!