CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 1 minute ago, fred8033 said: Can lawyers submit the votes for the clients they represent? Or do they need signatures of the actual clients? If the claimant gives permission in writing that they allow their attorney to vote on their behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: If the claimant gives permission in writing that they allow their attorney to vote on their behalf. Jim Stang referenced the need to see those held by the Coalition. No idea about the statutory requirements, but seems critical for the court and parties to have confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Jim Stang referenced the need to see those held by the Coalition. No idea about the statutory requirements, but seems critical for the court and parties to have confirmation. It's the Master Ballot system. There are three related questions: 1) Are there agreements by claimants and attorneys that the attorneys have been hired to represent their interests? 2) Are there agreements by claimants to allow attorneys to vote on their behalf? 3) Are these documents one in the same? Courts have said they want very, very specific language that the attorney is authorized to vote. The rule is Rule 3018(c) Quote (c) Form of Acceptance or Rejection. An acceptance or rejection shall be in writing, identify the plan or plans accepted or rejected, be signed by the creditor or equity security holder or an authorized agent, and conform to the appropriate Official Form. If more than one plan is transmitted pursuant to Rule 3017, an acceptance or rejection may be filed by each creditor or equity security holder for any number of plans transmitted and if acceptances are filed for more than one plan, the creditor or equity security holder may indicate a preference or preferences among the plans so accepted. “[w]here the voting process is managed almost entirely by proxy, it is reasonable to require a valid power of attorney for each ballot to ensure claimants are properly informed about the plan and that their votes are valid.” -Combustion Engineering, 391 F.3d at 245 n.66. Century Insurance will likely throw an objection to the Master Ballot system. They have in the past in Catholic sexual abuse cases https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=bankruptcy Quote The Court should only permit representative voting under Rule 3018(c) if the lawyer claiming authority submits an instrument establishing that he has been specifically authorized to vote on the client’s behalf on this particular Plan. Edited September 21, 2021 by CynicalScouter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) Stang has major objections to the LC contributions (or lack thereof). The problem with the LC disclosure is that survivor with a claim against say the Greater NY Council cannot figure out how much the LC has and how much they are giving without going through 3 tables. (This by the way is what I tried to do with my computations.) There is also the complaint of book value vs. fair market value. What is restricted or unrestricted? The TCC has provided each council what that TCC thinks each LC needs and the numbers are much different. "This [the BSA disclosure] doesn't cut it". Edited September 21, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) Stang is really, really hammering the LCs about how much the LCs are giving in terms of a) how much per victim and b) how much the LCs contributions are as compared to LC assets. The judge wants "illustrative examples" included. $2.4-$7 billion is what BSA wants to have printed/produced. That's it. Edited September 21, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 This is going to take FOREVER. This is herding cats. The Guam lawyer is all over the place. She should have read our threads on scouter.com ... I think she would know more than she appears to know in court. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 Just now, Eagle1993 said: This is going to take FOREVER. This is herding cats. The Guam lawyer is all over the place. She should have read our threads on scouter.com ... I think she would know more than she appears to know in court. No kidding, I mean 80% of the things coming up in this hearing are things we've already hashed out here in these forums. I'm not saying we've gotten ANSWERS, but we've already talked about almost all of this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Stang is really, really hammering the LCs about how much the LCs are giving in terms of a) how much per victim and b) how much the LCs contributions are as compared to LC assets. The judge wants "illustrative examples" included. $2.4-$7 billion is what BSA wants to have printed/produced. That's it. BSA is very concerned here. Why? Because both they and Stang knows that when a claimant sees a valuation of their claim being $1.5M and if they vote yes on this deal, they can expect $15,000 ... guess how they will vote? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 Just now, CynicalScouter said: No kidding, I mean 80% of the things coming up in this hearing are things we've already hashed out here in these forums. I'm not saying we've gotten ANSWERS, but we've already talked about almost all of this. I think the judge should tell everyone to spend the next few days, ready our 6 threads on the bankruptcy and only then can they talk in court. I'm serious ... some of these people are either intentionally lost OR they have no clue what is going on. For example, the Guam lawyer was surprised to hear that if this deal goes through no one can sue their local council for CSA prior to Feb 2020 (she may not even know that date). She had no clue about the first Hartford settlement. Come on people ... at least get up to speed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said: some of these people are either intentionally lost OR they have no clue what is going on. No clue what is going on and the judge mentioned that maybe the BSA needs to footnote what "barred" and "unique" mean, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 For everyone ... sorry for so many posts today but for once we are starting to see more movement in this case (vs talking mostly theory). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: Because both they and Stang knows that when a claimant sees a valuation of their claim being $1.5M and if they vote yes on this deal, they can expect $15,000 ... guess how they will vote? Or it will be "$15,000 + additional recovery from insurance companies, maybe, someday in the future." Yeah, they aren't going to approve. You never get to 66% of most victims, who were lead to believe there was billions to be had and that they would be getting amounts closer to hunderds of thousands if not $1 million+ (USA Gymnastics, Catholic Dioceses, etc.) are instead looking at $15,000 and a pinky-promise of maybe more money some day. Edited September 21, 2021 by CynicalScouter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred8033 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Yeah, they aren't going to approve. ... This really feels like it needs to simplify down to BSA's bankruptcy. Get rid of the external distractions. Remove LC contributions and protections. Remove insurance company contributions and protections. Get this back to the original topic; BSA bankruptcy. How much can BSA contribute and keep running as an on-going concern. There are just too many tangents to coordinate well to any sort of closure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYCVAStory Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: I think the judge should tell everyone to spend the next few days, ready our 6 threads on the bankruptcy and only then can they talk in court. I'm serious ... some of these people are either intentionally lost OR they have no clue what is going on. The reality is that this is for the benefit of the JUDGE. No one is assuming (correctly) that she is abreast of the issues. As well, she had a 12-hour hearing yesterday. So, this is the "sausage-making" part of bankruptcy. The devil is in the details and when a plan is going to get considered it is ALL details. We need to remember as well that there are professionals representing groups like the TCC and Coalition as well as members of those groups. Some of the members have precious little experience in bankruptcy court and unfortunately like to prove it sometimes! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttsy Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 35 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: eah, they aren't going to approve. You never get to 66% of most victims, who were lead to believe there was billions to be had and that they would be getting amounts closer to hunderds of thousands if not $1 million+ (USA Gymnastics, Catholic Dioceses, etc.) are instead looking at $15,000 and a pinky-promise of maybe more money some day. Agree. The Hartford settlement put the lie to there being billions more from carriers. Century Chubb will never pay more one an exposure basis than Hartford. Maybe a billion but that’s it. The Coalition is only in this for their own personal gain. The claimants aren’t stupid. Get BSA out of the equation and take aim at the others in state court where the balance of leverage shifts. It’s the only way to extract fair value which is on a state by state, council by council, CO by CO basis. 5.0 has no chance. If BSA was smart it would immediately revert to the toggle. Going forward like this is suicidal. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts