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

[CynicalScouter]

Judge thinking out loud about the scheduling and time table. Third party releases. Confirmation. Discovery. Lots and lots and lots of discovery.

Lauria wants to come back Tuesday. But Friday is on the table, too. The key is to decide the confirmation hearing date now and work the schedule backwards.

BSA Lawyer: "The debtors are burning cash"

Judge: "And there are more people who want debtor to pay for them"

Edited September 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Judge: I do NOT have 3 days in January. I cannot give BSA 3 days in January today.

BSA's "we are running out of cash" cries. "Debtors, I cannot give you what you want."

Say goodbye to the Methodists. This takes it past December 31.

That makes it official.

And BSA claimed it was out of cash so many times I don't think she buys it anymore.

Edited September 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Coming back in Tuesday and into Wednesday.

Judge is NOT setting a confirmation or other scheduling dates.

Tuesday will start with arguments "Convince me that I should not send this plan out at all."

Then scheduling if she decides to let it go out.

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Judge: "I am really worried about what is going to be in front of me and what parties are going to ask me to decide."

She sees where this is going. We all see where this is going.

Mid-2022 and a LOT of appeals.

At best.

Edited September 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Final report out: Tuesday, 10 am "Parties should use the time well" to turn over documents (I believe she means the voluminous edits that will have to take place for disclosure and solicitation documents)

[CynicalScouter]

"I have no reason at all to believe that what [BSA's attorneys] said was inaccurate [running out of cash]. No reason to believe that."

So she does believe the BSA is going to run out of cash in 1Q 2022.

Is she going to slam the accelerator now? Took her long enough.

Edited September 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Let's game this out knowing the following:

1) The absolute fastest the solicitation and disclosure can be finalized is next Tuesday.

2) The judge has said she wants 60 days of solicitation.

And assuming

3) Somehow the BSA gets its way for 4-day-turn-around-for-discovery (this is sheer madness, but let's map that out).

Disclosure Statement Hearing = September 28

Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices 8 days later = October 6

60 days to vote = December 6 (December 5, but that is a Sunday)
Preliminary Voting Report Deadline 5 days later = December 11
Plan Objection Deadline = December 12
Final Voting Report Deadline = December 15
Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline = December 20
Confirmation Hearing = December 31 (I think December 29 was mentioned in the hearing today)

In other words, sheer insanity.

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Let's game this out knowing the following:

1) The absolute fastest the solicitation and disclosure can be finalized is next Tuesday.

2) The judge has said she wants 60 days of solicitation.

And assuming

3) Somehow the BSA gets its way for 4-day-turn-around-for-discovery (this is sheer madness, but let's map that out).

Disclosure Statement Hearing = September 28

Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices 8 days later = October 6

60 days to vote = December 6 (December 5, but that is a Sunday)
Preliminary Voting Report Deadline 5 days later = December 11
Plan Objection Deadline = December 12
Final Voting Report Deadline = December 15
Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline = December 20
Confirmation Hearing = December 31 (I think December 29 was mentioned in the hearing today)

In other words, sheer insanity.

Realistically, a confirmation hearing in mid to late January.  That will take 3-5 days.  

[Eagle1970]

19 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Interesting point in court ... for the vote, the TCC wants to know votes for/against for BSA, LC and by CO.  For example, what % of Greater St. Louis Council votes in favor of the deal.  Same with LDS, Methodist, etc.  So those who are non LDS cannot release LDS.  Those who were not in St. Louis Council cannot release St. Louis Council.  Right now, they are talking about the ballot as it may be needed at confirmation (for example, there is a chance releases would be by council depending on council by council vote).  Judge wants to make sure there is the ability to know voting by council at confirmation (and CO).

That happens to be my council, and nobody has asked for my vote.  I have read in this forum that there is paper mail being received at the claimant's home address.  I have checked my omni account and always check my mailbox online and personally, and nothing has been received from Omni or anyone else.  Are others receiving notifications?

Edited September 24, 2021 by Eagle1970
Clarification

[Eagle1993]

32 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

That happens to be my council, and nobody has asked for my vote.  I have read in this forum that there is paper mail being received at the claimant's home address.  I have checked my omni account and always check my mailbox online and personally, and nothing has been received from Omni or anyone else.  Are others receiving notifications?

I would always recommend checking with your lawyer.  This forum is definitely not meant to serve as any sort of official notification.  Many items here are opinion, others are ongoing updates from the court (that may not be final decisions) and we are sometimes wrong.  With that said..

No requests for votes have been sent yet.  There is a hearing Sept 28th.  If everything stays on track, voting requests could go out ~October 6 and the judge has stated (at this point) 60 days to vote.  Again, these dates/times can change, so stay in touch with your lawyer. 

[Eagle1970]

20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I would always recommend checking with your lawyer.  This forum is definitely not meant to serve as any sort of official notification.  Many items here are opinion, others are ongoing updates from the court (that may not be final decisions) and we are sometimes wrong.  With that said..

No requests for votes have been sent yet.  There is a hearing Sept 28th.  If everything stays on track, voting requests could go out ~October 6 and the judge has stated (at this point) 60 days to vote.  Again, these dates/times can change, so stay in touch with your lawyer. 

I filed without a lawyer.  Thanks for the info.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

That happens to be my council, and nobody has asked for my vote.

As I heard it, the way it would/could work is this.

You vote your vote and either a) identify your council or b) your council is identified by your scouting history/claim

The vote is then looked at in two ways:

1) Your vote is one out a national voting system to allow for BSA to be discharged.

2) Your vote is one out a local subset for the LC.

So, for example, if you vote "no" to Plan 5.0.

1) You vote no, but are outvoted as to BSA by the rest of the nation. BSA is discharged out of bankruptcy.

2) You vote no, and a majority (or large minority, not clear) of those with claims against St. Louis Area Council reject the plan. THAT council is NOT discharged.

How on earth that would work (since Plan 5.0 is entirely based on LCs contributing) is beyond me.

[CynicalScouter]

Official agenda for September 28

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2937f369-53f7-4514-a6f6-b9cee21556ac_6358.pdf

1. Debtors’ Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Approving the Disclosure Statement and the
Form and Manner of Notice, (II) Approving Plan Solicitation and Voting Procedures, (III)
Approving Forms of Ballots, (IV) Approving Form, Manner, and Scope of Confirmation
Notices, (V) Establishing Certain Deadlines in Connection with Approval of the Disclosure
Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (VI) Granting Related Relief (D.I. 2295, filed
3/2/21).

2. Debtors’ Motion For Entry of Order (I) Scheduling Certain Dates and Deadlines in
Connection with Confirmation of the Debtors Plan of Reorganization, (II) Establishing
Certain Protocols, and (III) Granting Related Relief (D.I. 2618, filed 4/15/21).

[vol_scouter]

46 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

How on earth that would work (since Plan 5.0 is entirely based on LCs contributing) is beyond me.

My council’s participation is dependent upon being fully released from liability retrospectively.   If the council can be sued anyway, why pay into a trust?   Most if not all councils will have the same requirement and their executive boards will not approve a deal where the councils are not fully released from liability.  The council would need the money to defend itself from non-time barred claims.  The TCC request is nonsensical unless it is just a ploy to make it all fall apart.

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

My council’s participation is dependent upon being fully released from liability retrospectively.   If the council can be sued anyway, why pay into a trust?   Most if not all councils will have the same requirement and their executive boards will not approve a deal where the councils are not fully released from liability.  The council would need the money to defend itself from non-time barred claims.  The TCC request is nonsensical unless it is just a ploy to make it all fall apart.

I don't think it is a ploy, I think it gets at a particular issue: BSA isn't looking to just get out of liability, it is looking to get LCs and COs out as well. BSA is a national entity operating across the nation. Therefore, it makes sense to have all victims vote on whether to approve/reject the BSA plan as it relates to BSA.

BUT let's take St. Louis Area Council (just to pick on them some more) for a second. They have 921 claims against then alone (plus some claims shared with other councils). Let's say the following took place.

50,000 claimants nationwide vote for Plan 5.0 and the vote is OVERWHELMING to approve the plan: 43,000 to 7,000 (86% yes).

BUT looking at 921 St. Louis Area Council claimants, it is the opposite: 121 in favor, 800 opposed, an 86% no vote.

While the argument could be made that sure, it is OK to have the 921 claims against BSA discharged this way, what is the legal basis for claiming that somehow that should translate into the discharge against St. Louis Area Council, especially where there is such an overwhelming vote against?

If St. Louis Area Council wants that kind of discharge, it should be in its own Chapter 11.

Edited September 24, 2021 by CynicalScouter