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

[fred8033]

10 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

My rebuttal is that this is a bankruptcy issue and one of the responsibilities of the court is to make BSA a viable  entity (as a corporation) post bankruptcy.  It could not be viable in financial sense if they are left with with potential lawsuits from prebankruptcy in the post bankruptcy period.  There was a deadline to file a claim and if you did according to the judge (all claims prima facie) then they have legal standing.  If you have legal standing you have the right to vote.

Just because you filed does not mean you have legal standing.  It means the paperwork has not been resolved and decided.  One decision can be that you don't have legal standing.  There will definitely be cases thrown out for many reasons and probably including standing.  Perhaps some were already settled once and lack standing to sue again.  

[johnsch322]

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

There will definitely be cases thrown out for many reasons and probably including standing.  Perhaps some were already settled once and lack standing to sue again.  

And that will be the responsibility of the trustee and that happens post bankruptcy.

[CynicalScouter]

Official agenda for September 21. This is going to take days.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/4f52d21d-78cf-439e-8095-b3773e04d777_6258.pdf

I would expect Item #8 (TCC efforts to delay hearing at least 2 weeks) to be first.

Then, if the motion is rejected, jump to Item #1 which is Plan 5.0.

BSA does not plan to call witnesses. HOWEVER, Century will, including Mosby and at least 6 people associated with the claimed fraud in the collection of proofs of claim including Kosnoff.

1. Roger  Mosby,  President  and  CEO-  Boy  Scouts  of  America

Pretty clear why they want him. What did you know, and when did you know it.

1. Erich  Speckin,  President  of  Speckin  Forensic  Laboratories
2. Charles  Fox,  Vice  President  of  Operations  and  Special Investigations Unit at CoventBridge Group
3. Larry F. Stewart, Chief Forensic Scientist and President/Owner of Global Forensic Services, LLC
4. Paul  Hinton, Principal of The Brattle Group in New York City
5. David McKnight, Senior Associate in  the  Litigation  and  Finance  Practice  of  The  Brattle  Group

These are forensics, signature and claims experts who will testify that the lawyers signatures were mass-stamped or outright duplicated on these forms (and therefore the attorneys failed to do their due diligence) AND that in some cases the signatures of victims appear forged

1. Veronica Stenulson, Former employee  of  Reciprocity  Industries  LLC  (August  2020  through  November  2020) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e6463ebf-5761-47e7-9e21-2a9358c45549_3857.pdf

Will testify that she was part of the mass aggregation of claims and that unsavory/unethical/illegal means were used to get proofs of claim

1. Tim  Kosnoff,  Licensed  attorney that established Kosnoff Law PLLC

Will be called regarding a statement he made in his Rule 2019 disclosure that https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f26f9981-f41d-42bd-adbd-d7996d12f44f_5924.pdf

Quote

In one instance, a law firm that had associated with the three law firms on some cases, asked if it could affix Mr. Kosnoff’s signature to a single proof of claim. After Mr. Kosnoff agreed, that firm digitally signed his name to dozens more proofs of claim, without Mr. Kosnoff’s knowledge or permission. (emphasis added)

So, clearly in addition to any legal arguments against Plan 5.0, the insurers are going to be going full bore into "the claims are fraudulent" route.

Edited September 17, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

 

Quote

1. Veronica Stenulson, Former employee  of  Reciprocity  Industries  LLC  (August  2020  through  November  2020) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e6463ebf-5761-47e7-9e21-2a9358c45549_3857.pdf

Will testify that she was part of the mass aggregation of claims and that unsavory/unethical/illegal means were used to get proofs of claim

Stenulson's declaration.  This is going to be devastating.

1. Details about the claims were made up: "Sometimes we were told to change the details of a caller's story in order to make their claims see more viable, but I was not comfortable with that directive."
2. Blank claims had the signatures of claimants forged. Specifically, the signature that the claimant used ON THEIR CONTRACT WITH AIS OR OTHER LAWFIRMS were then cut-and-pasted onto the Proof of Claim.
3. Claimants who had changed their minds were told their claims would be removed. They weren't.
4. Duplicate claims were filed.
5. Claimants were told the law firms were shooting for at least $100,000 per claim.
6. Claimants were told their claims would be anonymous (not true, the court was clear they would be confidential, not anonymous).

And she's already signed a document under perjury and is apparently prepared to testify to this on September 21.

Edited September 17, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

If they don't have legal standing to sue, then no they are not as invested even if they went thru something incredibly ugly and hurtful.

From a non-litigator with only two such cases under his stretched belt, the issue is being raised incorrectly. The SoL is a defense to a lawsuit, not a bar from filing. Again, any one any time for any thing. This is what Muttsy was referring to more than once back when. As he explained better than I and maybe he’ll do it again, the immense cost and hassle for insurers and/or other BSA, LC and CO defendants, to potentially “defend” innumerable state lawsuits in which they may very well have a viable defense of time-bar, is no small matter. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. I promise to take the digital tongue lashing gracefully. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Stenulson's declaration.  This is going to be devastating.

Lovely. And so the dark cloud of suspicion and disdain circles the pool of claimants like a pack of Harris’s Hawks. (Look it up. They hunt in cooperative groups and can take down larger prey. They go so far as to stand on the back of another in a stack to maximize spotting range. Fascinating raptors. I’ve enjoyed being with them in Falconry. Parabuteo unicinctus.)

[fred8033]

19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

From a non-litigator with only two such cases under his stretched belt, the issue is being raised incorrectly. The SoL is a defense to a lawsuit, not a bar from filing. Again, any one any time for any thing. This is what Muttsy was referring to more than once back when. As he explained better than I and maybe he’ll do it again, the immense cost and hassle for insurers and/or other BSA, LC and CO defendants, to potentially “defend” innumerable state lawsuits in which they may very well have a viable defense of time-bar, is no small matter. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. I promise to take the digital tongue lashing gracefully. 

Agreed.  Anyone can file.  It does not mean you have standing or you are invested in the result.  I was trying to differentiate the "as invested" and voting on a settlement.  ... To be honest, it's incredibly weird to me that those voting on the result would not be already determined to be rightfully invested.  

[CynicalScouter]

27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

the immense cost and hassle for insurers and/or other BSA, LC and CO defendants, to potentially “defend” innumerable state lawsuits in which they may very well have a viable defense of time-bar, is no small matter

But much of this is speculative. Out of the 51,000 or so time barred claims, how many would be filed/convert to state lawsuits? We have one data point: NY, where 5,100 claims turned into 1300 or so lawsuits, around 25%.

Threatening insurance companies with "I'll see you in court" is somewhat of an idle threat. Insurance companies LIVE in court.

But let's plot this out. 51,000 claims and 1% (510) turn into lawsuits? Do you know how much civil litigation there is nationwide each year in state courts? 15 million annually. Tort cases? At least 490,000 cases (likely more)

https://www.courtstatistics.org/csp-stat-nav-cards-first-row/csp-stat-civil

But let's bump that up to 5100: 10% of all time barred cases turn into lawsuits.

5,100*100,000 for settlements= $5.1 billion or roughly what BSA says is owed all victims (they put it as $4-$7 billion).

So, the insurers have a choice:

Pay out $5 billion

Pay out nothing, dare the plaintiffs to back into state courts and, against ALL odds, get the statute of limitations waived or otherwise overcome.

THOUSANDS of times.

It ain't happening.

In other words, if the threat is "we will just go back to state court" I suspect the answer is going to be "Be our guest".

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Lovely. And so the dark cloud of suspicion and disdain circles the pool of claimants like a pack of Harris’s Hawks. (Look it up. They hunt in cooperative groups and can take down larger prey. They go so far as to stand on the back of another in a stack to maximize spotting range. Fascinating raptors. I’ve enjoyed being with them in Falconry. Parabuteo unicinctus.)

How dark and wide does the cloud need to be before the judge issues an order asking for ALL claims to be vetted now? This is the conundrum. The insurers attempted an "omnibus objection" to ALL claims and at the time she said she didn't even think she could do that.

But what might happen if, say, she was convinced that claims coming from particular aggregators were no longer prima facie valid? Now, instead of 82,500 claims, we have 10-15 thousand? That may be something I can see her chewing on.

[fred8033]

43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Stenulson's declaration.  This is going to be devastating.

1. Details about the claims were made up: "Sometimes we were told to change the details of a caller's story in order to make their claims see more viable, but I was not comfortable with that directive."
2. Blank claims had the signatures of claimants forged. Specifically, the signature that the claimant used ON THEIR CONTRACT WITH AIS OR OTHER LAWFIRMS were then cut-and-pasted onto the Proof of Claim.
3. Claimants who had changed their minds were told their claims would be removed. They weren't.
4. Duplicate claims were filed.
5. Claimants were told the law firms were shooting for at least $100,000 per claim.
6. Claimants were told their claims would be anonymous (not true, the court was clear they would be confidential, not anonymous).

And she's already signed a document under perjury and is apparently prepared to testify to this on September 21.

I realize accusations are often more harsh than final findings.  From the above, it really feels professional discipline should happen; at minimum some type of chastisement / penalty.  

Even "blank claims had signatures" seems like explicitly wrong.  Exactly how many corners can be cut before someone is disciplined.  Seems shallow to defend it with time pressure to get in under the deadline.  

Is there any chance this will result in professional discipline?  Heck, if I was an insurance agent, I'd really want to force that to hammer down future legal shenanigans. 

[ThenNow]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But much of this is speculative.

Of course it is. That’s the major game we play on this entire VI Episode thread, save for the factual reporting and some of the analysis. And, my main point was skipped in your refutation. SoL is a defense, not a preemption to file. Correct? We’re glossing over terms and I think your response, though accurate and well-taken, shines the gloss a tad. I was answering a specific post.

12 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It does not mean you have standing or you are invested in the result.  I was trying to differentiate the "as invested" and voting on a settlement.

I’m not sure, but my brain was telling me he meant vested as opposed to invested. Happy to be wrong, again. I’m keeping a poop sheet and I need more hash marks to finish a row.

[CynicalScouter]

 

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Seems shallow to defend it with time pressure to get in under the deadline

Which is absolutely their defense: we were running out of time so we have to make a decision: to NOT get a claim in or to mass sign. They admit they mass signed.

[CynicalScouter]

Let's be clear: the Coalition has already admitted to some of the practices the insurers are alleging, they are just claiming they had a good reason/were justified.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872931_2043.pdf

"8.  As  the  bar  date  deadline  approached,  law  firms  were  left  with  a  choice:    file  the
attorney-signed form based on the information gathered to date or file nothing and put the client
at  risk  of  being  denied  compensation  for  his  or  her  injuries.    This  timing  is  made  clear  by  the
Insurers’ own Motion.  Of the 15 attorneys the Insurers seek to depose for allegedly signing too
many proofs of claim in a day, those proofs of claim were executed in the final week leading up
to  the  bar  date.    See  Motion  at  5.    Certain  of  these  attorneys’  law  firms  filed  several  thousand
claims, only a small percentage of which were attorney signed.3

9.  But putting this aside, a reasonable decision under the circumstances was  for the
attorney  to  file  the  attorney-signed  claim  form,  as  permitted  by  the  Bankruptcy  Rules  and  this
Court’s  order.    See  Docket  No.  1551;  FED.  RULE.  BANKR.  P.  3001(b);  FED.  RULE.  BANKR.  P.
9009(a).    The  alternative—miss  the  bar  date  and  place  the  client  in  a  position  where  he  or  she
could be denied compensation—was not a viable option.

10.  The fact that many attorneys—well over 15— when faced with this choice, filed
attorney-signed  forms—in  some  instances  all  at  once  and  in  a  single  day—does  not  indicate
“outright fraud,” violations of “Rule 11,” a failure to conduct a “pre-complaint investigation,” or  
that lawyers sat at a desk and signed claims “every 32 seconds.”  Motion at 2, 15, 25.  It suggests
that attorneys made a proper decision under the circumstances to protect their clients’ rights."

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

SoL is a defense, not a preemption to file. Correct? We’re glossing over terms and I think your response, though accurate and well-taken, shines the gloss a tad. I was answering a specific post.

Correct, anyone can file anything. But the motion to dismiss will appear based on the SoL.

[fred8033]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

... It suggests that attorneys made a proper decision under the circumstances to protect their clients’ rights."

I'm sure it will be used to mitigate penalties.  Mass signing.  Cutting and pasting signatures.  no penalty because of time pressure.

... but ... "changing details"? ... submitting for claimants that had changed their minds?  ... duplicate? (depending why?  to get numbers up?) ... saying claims would be anonymous?  

At what point does it change from time pressure to a violation?  When does circumventing clearly understood expectations become willful fraud?