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

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

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.

To be clear, the proposal was that every ballot would be customized to include the council name or a blank to fill in the council.  The judge denied the request.  The ballots will go out without the council name and without the ability to filli n the council.  The judge was concerned that claimants would get confused, thinking by filling in the council name on the ballot they would think they updated their claim.  In addition, all of this data will be available through Omni, so Omni will be able to report votes by council (and CO) without even including it on the ballot.  Any party could then request that info via discovery.  It seemed like all sides were ok with that (at least they didn't scream and yell).

[Eagle1993]

39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

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.

Note that the Ad Hoc committee for the councils stated they do not agree with this proposal.  Now a very strong and well versed claimant attorney seemed to have some bankruptcy/case law on his side saying it must work this way.  This will be fought over during confirmation.  So basically, the current plan & disclosure will ignore this possibility as will the ballots.  However, during confirmation, the judge may end up siding with the plaintiff lawyers.  That means ... each council could be released individually based upon the votes of the claimants within their council.

What gets messy ... would the councils still have to pay?  Likely not as most have only agreed to pay if they get the injunction.  So basically, councils could fall off the list, state lawyers could sue them and the settlement trust would decrease by that council amount.

I think councils/BSA are likely concerned as those who put in their council names are probably the same claimants that are probably closer to the actual case and may be more likely to vote against the deal.  A very large number of claimants haven't even claimed a council. So the group who's vote would be counted on a council by council basis would be a smaller subset of the overall vote and my guess more likely to reject the deal.

 

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

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).

Will we get to see Mosby & Kosnoff Tuesday?

Quote

Century has indicated that it intends to call the following witnesses: Roger Mosby, President and CEO- Boy Scouts of America; Erich Speckin, President of Speckin Forensic Laboratories; Charles Fox, Vice President of Operations and Special Investigations Unit at CoventBridge Group; Larry F. Stewart, Chief Forensic Scientist and President/Owner of Global Forensic Services, LLC; Veronica Stenulson, Former employee of Reciprocity Industries LLC (August 2020 through November 2020); Paul Hinton, Principal of The Brattle Group in New York City; David McKnight, Senior Associate in the Litigation and Finance Practice of The Brattle Group; and Tim Kosnoff, Licensed attorney that established Kosnoff Law PLLC.

 

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Will we get to see Mosby & Kosnoff Tuesday?

Yesterday the judge indicated that Century's objections will get pushed to confirmation BUT that as for Kosnoff and the other attorneys, Century will be attempting to depose them. So while we do not get a Mosby and Kosnoff witness testimony, I suspect we will see Century attempt to put them into depositions.

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think councils/BSA are likely concerned as those who put in their council names are probably the same claimants that are probably closer to the actual case and may be more likely to vote against the deal.  A very large number of claimants haven't even claimed a council. So the group who's vote would be counted on a council by council basis would be a smaller subset of the overall vote and my guess more likely to reject the deal.

This is just my point.  The overall vote for the BSA is for an amount of money that the BSA, LCs, and others are to contribute.   If the a council is not released then they withdraw and the amount that was voted upon is no longer the same amount.  If several large councils or a large number of councils withdraw, then the total could be significantly smaller that would mean that the vote was for an amount that is far less.  That would seem to me to nullify the vote.   This process seems hopelessly flawed.

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This is just my point.  The overall vote for the BSA is for an amount of money that the BSA, LCs, and others are to contribute.   If the a council is not released then they withdraw and the amount that was voted upon is no longer the same amount.  If several large councils or a large number of councils withdraw, then the total could be significantly smaller that would mean that the vote was for an amount that is far less.  That would seem to me to nullify the vote.   This process seems hopelessly flawed.

Agreed.  There are so many issues that could substantially change the final plan that I question why they are proceeding with the vote first.  I wonder if the judge has to determine if the plan has substantially changed thus requiring a new vote.  One would think:

step 1 - Ensure claims are valid (or at least do some sort of minimal vetting)

step 2 - Discovery to ensure full transparncy of costs, assets, etc.

step 3 - finalize a disclosure statement & plan ... something that is 95 - 99% done and ready

step 4 - vote on said plan

step 5 - agree on vote outcome, minor changes to plan if needed, release from bankruptcy

 

It seems like we are:

step 1 - create a decent outline of a plan/disclosure

step 2 - vote on said plan

step 3 - discovery

step 4 - agree on vote outcome, major changes to plan

step 5 - vet claims

I really don't understand it, but perhaps that is how it is suppose to work.  No wonder bankruptcies seem to take forever.

 

 

[Eagle1993]

12 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This is just my point.  The overall vote for the BSA is for an amount of money that the BSA, LCs, and others are to contribute.   If the a council is not released then they withdraw and the amount that was voted upon is no longer the same amount.  If several large councils or a large number of councils withdraw, then the total could be significantly smaller that would mean that the vote was for an amount that is far less.  That would seem to me to nullify the vote.   This process seems hopelessly flawed.

I guess I'll add my hunch.  If the vote comes back as 95% approval ... I think we exit with the plan as voted on.  It may have minor changes, but I bet the judge will say ... the claimants clearly support the plan, who am I to refuse.  With 95%, it is likely most if not all council and major CO subgroups probably passed the plan.   I think many of these issues will become sticky the lower that vote percentage is. 

 

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

There are so many issues that could substantially change the final plan that I question why they are proceeding with the vote first.

One theory and I just wanna offer this out is that you don’t adjudicate or litigate what doesn’t need to be adjudicated or litigated.

everything you described is true it could impact the final plan.

But if the plan is overwhelmingly rejected we don’t have to worry about it.

if the plan is such that it’s clearly accepted overwhelmingly then we can worry about the edge cases like maybe one or two councils here or there who may not be included.

but I guess the argument is is you get the plan out the door and voted on and then decide how you want to slice the data. Do you want to categorized by local council? By CO? By time barred versus non-time-barred?

in other words from a methodological standpoint collecting the data first as long as you have an understanding of what it is you’re asking “do you approve the plan yes or no?” Then allows you to do what might be called cross tabs.

Once you get the data you can start interpreting it.

The other factor isn’t as much about statistics as much as it is about legal which I’m kind of surprised by but I believe the judge is going to bring up on Tuesday. Put putting aside how many angels dance on the head of a pin is this plan even confirmable? if 99.9% of people vote in favor of it does it still violate due process of victims or chartered organizations or insurance companies?

that’s why I think it’s important that the judge said the first order of business on Tuesday is going to be hearing legal arguments about whether or not this plan should even go out the door

[vol_scouter]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

that’s why I think it’s important that the judge said the first order of business on Tuesday is going to be hearing legal arguments about whether or not this plan should even go out the door

If this is an issue, why was it not discussed long before now?   This process has demonstrated how broken at least this portion of the legal system is.  Perhaps it is the best that can be invented but it seems that it could be better. 

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If this is an issue, why was it not discussed long before now?

Two reasons:

Plan 5.0 is barely a week old.

She has hoped mediation would settle these issues. She said several times in several ways the best solution is a global settlement. But as one attorney put it and she reiterated: sometimes you just have to litigate this out. She said herself: we knew for months there were these issues.  Hope of a mediated solution is out. So now she has to start issuing rulings. I suspect there will be a ton Tuesday

[CynicalScouter]

28 minutes ago, MattR said:

In the meantime,  let's get back to discussing ideas and not personalities.

Fine, here's an interesting move from Century in the bankruptcy.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9fbfe200-8084-4b1d-a659-6786ae8cffd5_6364.pdf

They are asking to subpoena records from

• Stratos Medical Review, LLC
• Stratos Medical Review (SMR), LP and
• SCR Oldco GP, LLC, formerly known as Stratos Legal GP, LLC

Why interesting? Because the judge, in her order authorizing aggregator depositions and discovery said only  "Stratos Legal"

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3b242b2e-f932-4958-b328-48067e1b881a_6184.pdf

All three entities share the same address. I am going to hazard a guess here the insurers are trying to anticipate a dodge by the aggregators: a subpoena that ONLY names " Stratos Legal GP, LLC" or "Stratos Legal" and gets no response because the aggregator will claim THAT particular entity has no records (but the affiliated Stratos Medical Revie, LLC does).

So, blanket paper on everyone and see what happens. If they wanted to play hard knuckle ball here SCR Oldco GP, LLC, formerly known as Stratos Legal GP, LLC would respond and, separately, the other two entities would tell Century the judge's order doesn't extend to THEM.

 

[RememberSchiff]

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Fine, here's an interesting move from Century in the bankruptcy.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9fbfe200-8084-4b1d-a659-6786ae8cffd5_6364.pdf

They are asking to subpoena records from

• Stratos Medical Review, LLC
• Stratos Medical Review (SMR), LP and
• SCR Oldco GP, LLC, formerly known as Stratos Legal GP, LLC

Why interesting? Because the judge, in her order authorizing aggregator depositions and discovery said only  "Stratos Legal"

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3b242b2e-f932-4958-b328-48067e1b881a_6184.pdf

All three entities share the same address. I am going to hazard a guess here the insurers are trying to anticipate a dodge by the aggregators: a subpoena that ONLY names " Stratos Legal GP, LLC" or "Stratos Legal" and gets no response because the aggregator will claim THAT particular entity has no records (but the affiliated Stratos Medical Revie, LLC does).

So, blanket paper on everyone and see what happens. If they wanted to play hard knuckle ball here SCR Oldco GP, LLC, formerly known as Stratos Legal GP, LLC would respond and, separately, the other two entities would tell Century the judge's order doesn't extend to THEM.

 

Why not subpoena the person common to all?

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Why not subpoena the person common to all?

Because the subpoena is addressed to the corporate entities, not individuals.

Sometimes I've seen subpoenas in state court directed to "Custodian of records, XYZ Corp" or  "Accounting Department, XYZ Corp.", but it will never say "Bob Smith as CEO for XYZ Corp."

Edited September 26, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[RememberSchiff]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because the subpoena is addressed to the corporate entities, not individuals.

Sometimes I've seen subpoenas in state court directed to "Custodian of records, XYZ Corp" or  "Accounting Department, XYZ Corp.", but it will never say "Bob Smith as CEO for XYZ Corp."

Seems problematic for the court, where corporations fade and re-incorporate under the same person but not necessarily at the same location.

XYZ Medical...XYZ Legal...ABC Services...

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Seems problematic for the court, where corporations fade and re-incorporate under the same person but not necessarily at the same location.

XYZ Medical...XYZ Legal...ABC Services...

that’s why you do these broad subpoenas.