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

[CynicalScouter]

Tanc: the proofs of claim in most of these simply declare the abuse happened. There is no way for the insurance companies to even TRY and get more information to see if they really did. That's not fair; the insurers have a right to depositions and other evidence gathering. "The proofs of claim are completely untested."

3 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The TCC engaged CBRE and Keen, while BSA engaged JLL.

THANKS! That makes it clearer. I did not know where Keen came from.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Another point: the court ruled the insurance companies cannot do a GLOBAL or OMNIBUS objection to ALL claims or a group of claims.

Tanc: Great. Then let the insurance companies conduct investigations of the individual claims and claimants so we can object individually.

BSA/FCR/Coalition: No. Let them all vote, THEN you can investigate the claims.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Tanc: The insurance policies were NOT written to allow the policy holder to just make settlements willy nilly or enter into agreements that shift policy holder rights WITHOUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY AGREEING.

And the Trustee a) has too much power (he can set aside the statute of limitations) and b) Eric Green in particular simply a puppet for the Coalition who will give them whatever valuations they ask for.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Judge: What do the insurers want for them to NOT object to the plan? Or are you just going to come back and object no matter what I rule?

Disturbing that the Judge would ask such a question because it cannot be answered with finality IF, after the answer is given, other conditions are allowed to change.

Negotiation is an iterative process.  Demand, response, amended demand, amended response...

If it is interpreted as the Judge's solicitation for an amended response, fine, but if interpreted in the sense of, "You insurance folks just can't be pleased, no matter what." Well, that is where I see a problem.

Edited September 28, 2021 by SiouxRanger
Added last sentence to complete the thought.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, SiouxRanger said:

Disturbing that the Judge would ask such a question because it cannot be answered with finality IF, after the answer is given, other conditions are allowed to change.

She even predicated that it wasn't a fair question so she knew what she was asking wasn't going to get a yes/no, but I think her point was made: we all know that whatever happens, the insurance companies are going to appeal.

[CynicalScouter]

Tanc: it is impossible to settle the case when the Coalition thinks it can set the settlement amounts and pick its own trustee. IF the judge rules this unfair process out or at least allows the strike claims (I presume the statute of limitations ones) then negotiations can happen.

[CynicalScouter]

Notable: Stang never raised is hand and is staying out of this. I don't think he is abdicating his responsibility, I think he's recognizing that this is the insurers show and the best thing to do is step back and let this play out.

[SiouxRanger]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

She even predicated that it wasn't a fair question so she knew what she was asking wasn't going to get a yes/no, but I think her point was made: we all know that whatever happens, the insurance companies are going to appeal.

Yes.  I think you are right.  It ain't over until we've come to the end of forever.

[CynicalScouter]

Tanc: Having Coalition fees set IN THE PLAN will taint the entire process. Pull it out of the plan and let the Coalition come back to the court after plan vote (or plan confirmation) to make their case.

[CynicalScouter]

Plevin: the insurance policies require payment ONLY if a) a trial takes place that results in a judgment or b) a settlement agreed to by the insured AND the claimant AND the insurance company. This "trust adjudication procedures" don't cover either.

This entire process denies insurance companies their rights under these policies and just turns them into "Check writing machines".

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

I need to step out, but judge is directing the FCR/Coalition/BSA to specifically address how any of this is fair, in particular the part where the plaintiffs lawyers get to pick the trustee and that the beneficiaries get to decide who and how they benefit ESPECIALLY when it comes to potential or possible third-party liability.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

I know that the focus is on victims, and rightly so, but I think the judge is having a hard time with being fair to the insurance companies here as well. Why and how is it that the settlement trustee gets to, in effect, set aside statutes of limitations and create claims values that claimants can then take to state court OR direct to the insurers and demand payment.

Several times lawyers pointed out that not only do bankruptcy courts not have that power as a statutory matter, but as a CONSTITUTIONAL matter as well.

And why does BSA get to take its policies and shift to a settlement trustee without the permission of the insurance companies?

Where is due process for the insurers?

I know, I know, insurers are EVIL but they have a point. Be curious to see how the BSA/Coalition respond.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

One more note: Rosenthal (I think) wants the entire Trust Adjudication Process eliminated, but failing that, he wants a very clear statement from the judge that whatever number the settlement trustee comes up with is NOT a court judgement, is NOT binding (outside of BSA and the LC contributions), and has NO impact on the rights of insurance companies to defend themselves.

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I know that the focus is on victims, and rightly so, but I think the judge is having a hard time with being fair to the insurance companies here as well. Why and how is it that the settlement trustee gets to, in effect, set aside statutes of limitations and create claims values that claimants can then take to state court OR direct to the insurers and demand payment.

If I remember correctly, the TCC plan as explained to me would rely on a combination of settlements & state court trials.  Basically, the trustee of the settlement would take cases from the settlement and sue insurance companies in state court.  As they win cases, it would lay the foundation on a settlement.  It would take longer, but likely get to a fair settlement.  It sounds like the current plan took a different approach.

[CynicalScouter]

Stang now has his hands up.