Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation

[Eagle1993]

Sounds like the tone has completely changed.  No guarantee, but there are deep conversations now.  50 depositions by the end of January on both sides.  

TCC said no gloating, just excitement on their side as the failed vote is allowing the negotiations that are needed to get a final plan that is acceptable.

[ThenNow]

Address to check on and confirm your vote. I’d use this email and avoid calling.

Bsaballots@omniagnt.com

[Eagle1993]

TCC call ended ... probably the happiest I have seen the TCC since early in the bankruptcy.  A few more points.

75% .. where did that come from?  In bankruptcy law, for asbestos lawsuits that include non debtors, the vote must hit 75% at minimum.  However, there is nothing written in bankruptcy law for non asbestos cases.  So, when asked for a bare minimum value, 75% is typically used.  However, each judge/case typically sets their own mark.  They range from 75% to 90%.  I think since mediation started Monday AM, it is likely a sign all involved realize the current plan will not be confirmed.

 So, again, the 4 keys to get TCC on board:

1) More compensation ... Insurance, COs, LCs and possibly national will have to pay more. 

2) Independent trust ownership ... Currently Coalition connections seem to run the trust

3) youth protection improvements

4) Plan that complies to bankruptcy law ...

 

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, clbkbx said:

Given that there is a lot to digest in the vote breakdown… it jumped out at me that almost all of the Hurley McKenna & Mertz, PC entries are “Holder did not indicate vote to Accept or Reject the Plan.”

 

 

I don't believe that is true.  :Hurley McKenna & Mertz represent 4,500 abuse survivors.  What you are seeing is a subset from their master ballot.  My guess is that they submitted a master ballot with all 4,500 claims but some of their clients didn't indicate accept/reject which is why these are showing up.

[clbkbx]

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't believe that is true.  :Hurley McKenna & Mertz represent 4,500 abuse survivors.  What you are seeing is a subset from their master ballot.  My guess is that they submitted a master ballot with all 4,500 claims but some of their clients didn't indicate accept/reject which is why these are showing up.

Thank you. 

[fred8033]

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I’m sorry and hope I didn’t do something (again). I appreciate your opinions, tenacity and that you used the word “lambasted.” A much neglected but wonderful and very old part of the English language. Well done, you. 

We're good.  Thank you for the kind response.   ...  

PS - I miss an older co-worker who for years and years ran a word-of-the-day poster.  

[1980Scouter]

The BSA is going to have to be firm with local councils on any increased contribution.  Many will likely fight it to the end.

Getting them all on board not an easy task at all. If you look at if the SOL  current cases are brought against LC, most will pay out a lot more.

So it seems like no brainer to me. You survive with less assets and maybe only one camp, but you get to continue on.

[Eagle1993]

January 10th hearing has been canceled.   Between the TCC call last night and now this, I think it is clear the current plan is dead. 

[elitts]

On 1/5/2022 at 12:16 AM, MYCVAStory said:

Two years and how much has been spent "voluntarily" by the BSA to solve its past sexual abuse problems?  Keep in mind that beyond this disappointing vote and the fact that a judge has NEVER forced a cramdown in a sexual abuse-related bankruptcy

People can keep saying this like it's a rule or something, but it simply isn't.  There haven't been any cramdowns because there hasn't needed to be.  There also haven't been any conversions from a Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7 because a deal couldn't be reached.

On 1/5/2022 at 7:53 AM, 1980Scouter said:

73% is a solid D grade in school. Is a D good enough? I was surprised it is this high.

I dunno what school you went to, but That's a C- in this neck of the woods.

On 1/5/2022 at 8:28 AM, 100thEagleScout said:

Yeah I think this is pretty spot on.  Probably the worst-case scenario BSA could be put in.  Honestly, at this point I would just prefer a BSA-only bankruptcy so my lawsuit can proceed in state court and I can reach a real settlement myself.

You mean so that you can proceed to stated court, where you'll get to participate in another bankruptcy?  Outside of those LCs that end up with than a handful of suits, I expect any widespread move into the state courts will simply initiate more Chapter 11 filings, but without the National BSA insurers kicking in funds, anyone going that route is going to be getting a handful of beans, not a little bag of gold.

On 1/5/2022 at 1:37 PM, Muttsy said:

BSA only plan was alluded to at the last hearing. Century’s lawyer stated to the court-in response to Pachulski’s suggestion of a BSA only plan that such a plan would not be feasible because BSA, the LCs and charters are too “integrated.” I quickly glanced  at Lauria’s, Andolina’s and the Ad Hoc LC lawyer’s faces and I saw nods in agreement. Moreover those Hollywood square faces expressed zero disagreement with Schiovoni’s assertion that BSA is essentially a single organization for operational purposes at least. So unless there is an immediate stipulated substantive consolidation of the LC’s assets in to the debtor’s estate, a BSA only plan has already been rejected as a viable possibility.

Yeah, cause the Insurance company's lawyer, who desperately wants to push through a settlement now, is a really good source for independent analysis.

On 1/5/2022 at 4:56 PM, RememberSchiff said:

Boy Scouts $2.7 Billion Settlement Plan at Risk of Failing

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/boy-scouts-settlement.html

Mr. Stang said the committee wanted to see changes to the plan to bring better compensation, an improved plan for youth protection going forward and an independent governance of the settlement trust.

With negotiations continuing, changes to the proposal could bring opportunities for claimants to change their votes.   (interesting idea, could the Debtor make incremental changes and then see if a net 2% of voters would change their vote to AGREE. Technically more feasible with e-Ballot voters. Hmmm, which side would that favor?)

More at above link.

I just love how they keep talking about the desire for "an improved plan for youth protection" as though that's somehow the stumbling block here.

25 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

The BSA is going to have to be firm with local councils on any increased contribution.  Many will likely fight it to the end.

Getting them all on board not an easy task at all. If you look at if the SOL  current cases are brought against LC, most will pay out a lot more.

So it seems like no brainer to me. You survive with less assets and maybe only one camp, but you get to continue on.

Some LCs will pay out more I'm sure, but not nearly as much as people seem to think.  Since there likely won't be any insurance funds left to tap by the time it gets to LC lawsuits, it won't take more than a handful of cases for any LC to simply file for a re-organization of their own.  Except that this time they'll have had almost half a decade to protect assets before filing.

[Eagle1993]

35 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

The BSA is going to have to be firm with local councils on any increased contribution.  Many will likely fight it to the end.

Getting them all on board not an easy task at all. If you look at if the SOL  current cases are brought against LC, most will pay out a lot more.

So it seems like no brainer to me. You survive with less assets and maybe only one camp, but you get to continue on.

I'm not sure we will see a single council fund going forward.  Perhaps TCC was hinting at that, but the issue of bankruptcy law keeps coming up.  I've seen several question how you can pay claimants from one council with money from a different council.  So, perhaps, we may see a council by council payout and if a council pays out that money goes to claimants from that council.  Then votes of those claimants would have to pass.  If a council doesn't pay out, they will have their own liability going forward.

Perhaps the same could be applied to COs.

[Eagle1993]

3 minutes ago, elitts said:

Except that this time they'll have had almost half a decade to protect assets before filing

Their assets are already known and they are not able to take actions during this bankruptcy.  This was brought up earlier and there was fury.  I think you are mistaken if you think councils can do this ... one tried and got burned.  

 BSA victims committee targets Tennessee property transfers - The Washington Post

[100thEagleScout]

15 minutes ago, elitts said:

I dunno what school you went to, but That's a C- in this neck of the woods.

A 74 or lower was always an F for me in school.

 

15 minutes ago, elitts said:

You mean so that you can proceed to stated court, where you'll get to participate in another bankruptcy?  Outside of those LCs that end up with than a handful of suits, I expect any widespread move into the state courts will simply initiate more Chapter 11 filings, but without the National BSA insurers kicking in funds, anyone going that route is going to be getting a handful of beans, not a little bag of gold.

Still likely more than what we’ve got now

[1980Scouter]

42 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I'm not sure we will see a single council fund going forward.  Perhaps TCC was hinting at that, but the issue of bankruptcy law keeps coming up.  I've seen several question how you can pay claimants from one council with money from a different council.  So, perhaps, we may see a council by council payout and if a council pays out that money goes to claimants from that council.  Then votes of those claimants would have to pass.  If a council doesn't pay out, they will have their own liability going forward.

Perhaps the same could be applied to COs.

This is a very good fair way to do things on the LC level. Each council decides and pays for their liability. Better chance of passing local boards if the payouts stay within the council.

[elitts]

50 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Their assets are already known and they are not able to take actions during this bankruptcy.  This was brought up earlier and there was fury.  I think you are mistaken if you think councils can do this ... one tried and got burned.  

 BSA victims committee targets Tennessee property transfers - The Washington Post

They can't take action now.  But anyone who did before the stay has had time for it to age past undoing, plus all you have to do it wait till the stay is done, put the asset in a trust, then wait 3 years before filing bankruptcy.  Since lawsuits take years to litigate anyway, the timing works out ok.

[Eagle1993]

23 minutes ago, elitts said:

They can't take action now.  But anyone who did before the stay has had time for it to age past undoing, plus all you have to do it wait till the stay is done, put the asset in a trust, then wait 3 years before filing bankruptcy.  Since lawsuits take years to litigate anyway, the timing works out ok.

They already identified what assets are restricted or not.  That list won't change going forward .. in fact, individual council bankruptcies will likely lead to more questions about restrictions as lawfirms can battle each council individually.  Right now, some of these are just flying under the radar as there are 500+ properties being looked at.