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

[ThenNow]

16 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

have never heard that any of the nine are Lawyers.

I have a vague recollection one is a retired attorney. Not this one of course. He was summarily rejected. 

[SiouxRanger]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I have a vague recollection one is a retired attorney. Not this one of course. He was summarily rejected. 

In response to a question during a TCC town hall meeting about a month or two ago, Doug Kennedy referenced a video of one of the earliest TCC town hall meetings where he gave a brief biography of all of the TCC members. 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I have a vague recollection one is a retired attorney. Not this one of course. He was summarily rejected. 

In response to a question during a TCC town hall meeting about a month or two ago, Doug Kennedy referenced a video of one of the earliest TCC town hall meetings where he gave a brief biography of all of the TCC members. 

The rejected attorney was correct. Below is a link to the TCC’s TH transcript of 1.14.21. Worth reading from the top to get the JH and DK intros. All the brief bios follow in short order. 

https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 01-14-2021.pdf

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

What will it take to get a plan passed and survive as an organization?

Ask the TCC, DOJ, churches and all other hold outs. It will take an open checkbook for more money from LC and insurance companies for s

This is my question exactly, which is multipart:

1) Dollars and who’s gonna cough them up and onto the table;

2) YP improvement requirements; 

3) LSS’s threshold percentage required for approval;

4) LSS’s risk tolerance in the face of a possible post-approval Purdue smackdown; and

5) Who holds the votes that can be moved, whether through disqualification or satisfaction of demands. (Nod to Eagle1993 who I know said several of these items better than I.)

As to votes that can be garnered, how many actual votes are held by the objecting firms? For those whose clients are predominantly in open states and voted master ballots, do they have any intention to settle with anyone other than BSA? From all I hear, I don’t think so. If that is the case, those votes won’t budge and become immaterial in the discussion. Am I wrong about that? I was wrong once. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Hm. Anyway, if they are intransigent, what’s left to gather and stick in the accept column? Dunno? Can the balance who might be convinced move the needle by 2% or 22%. That’s the range in question reflecting back to #2 above, yes? Per VolunteerScouter, who I believe speaks on good information, the BRG LC dashboard numbers are DOA. He could be wrong, though his opinion read as immutable. I should not speculate, assume or react in ignorance. I may get the penalty box. Perhaps he’ll chime in. 

Last two questions. Does anyone know in which states and LCs the 275+/- filed cases and the 1200 threatened were lodged? What about the firms who brought or were bringing them? I wish I knew where and who. Depending on their influence on the workings of mediation, it could be of note.

PS - Knowing there are very mixed feelings about TK, I’ll nevertheless add one comment. He noted in his deposition that not many of the claimants’ bankruptcy attorneys are long-time CSA counsel. It has also been noted a good number of them did not agree to represent their clients in state court, should it get to that point. Who’s who in mediation and influential consultation I have nary a clue.

Edited January 6, 2022 by ThenNow

[fred8033]

Please remind everyone that this is a discussion forum.  Having a different opinion or having been victimized in the past does not excuse being mean or bullying other people now. 

I posted a comment and was lambasted for it in a very cruel way.  It was 100% inappropriate. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by fred8033

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

It has also been noted a good number of them did not agree to represent their clients in state court, should it get to that point. 

Is that a red flag?  Large national case with representation that can't or won't represent on at the state level?  It sort of makes sense.  Trying to focus on the larger national case even if they don't have resources to litigate state by state. 

With how these proceedings are going, victims will be in state court at some point; against the LC and/or the CO.  It's interesting that some victims would need to get different representation for the state level.  

[ThenNow]

51 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Is that a red flag?  Large national case with representation that can't or won't represent on at the state level?  It sort of makes sense.  Trying to focus on the larger national case even if they don't have resources to litigate state by state. 

This is my sense of it. I won’t go so far as to call it an understanding. I think the implication is they are not child sexual abuse attorneys willing to go the distance with their clients. In the end and in the main, this is a personal injury/mass tort case. Many of the attorneys who are representing abuse claimants are, in fact, PI attorney. BUT, many do not have experience representing survivors of child sexual abuse. What that says to me (and only me) is, “Yee haw!! All aboard!! Bandwagons ho!!” If you pursue all manner of other tort cases in state court, why are you not representing your client here and there? My thinking, because this is a case to which you can hitch your buggy and go along for the ride under inertia power. When it arrives, you jump off and go to the bank. Then, (JOKE ALERT!!) the saloon. Again, this is my sniffer and not my lame brain. 

PS - Remember, some of them apparently have ample resources to pursue individual PI cases on state level. Here, they received investment dollars so they could represent muchos individuals. See what I mean?

Edited January 6, 2022 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

56 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I posted a comment and was lambasted for it in a very cruel way.  It was 100% inappropriate. 

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. 

[ThenNow]

Another article with an update (nothing new) and recap.

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/boy-scouts-america-bankruptcy-updates-100239596.html?src=rss

Edited January 6, 2022 by RememberSchiff
removed content unrelated to topic.

[Bronco1821]

Is there somewhere one can go to find that their vote was recorded correctly?  I voted against the plan through the mail but my attorney is one of the "those" and I was just hoping that he somehow didn't vote after me by master ballot changing my vote to for the plan.  There are so many documents to plow through and the OMNI site is very un-user friendly, plus I'm old and not so tech savy.

[ThenNow]

20 minutes ago, Bronco1821 said:

Is there somewhere one can go to find that their vote was recorded correctly?

Check your messages. It’s accessible through the little envelope icon at the top right of the page up yonder ⬆️. 

[SiouxRanger]

21 minutes ago, Bronco1821 said:

Is there somewhere one can go to find that their vote was recorded correctly?  I voted against the plan through the mail but my attorney is one of the "those" and I was just hoping that he somehow didn't vote after me by master ballot changing my vote to for the plan.  There are so many documents to plow through and the OMNI site is very un-user friendly, plus I'm old and not so tech savy.

That is an excellent question.  The answer should be posted here if someone knows, and hopefully, either the TCC has that info posted somewhere and makes it known at its Town Halls, or the need to post it is brought to the TCC's attention.

And THEN, there needs to be some mechanism to flag those disparities to OMNI so they can be tallied.

[clbkbx]

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.”

 

 

[Eagle1993]

TCC indicated they were invited back into mediation Monday this week and have been going strong since.  They cannot comment; however, it sounds like they are being listened to and there can be a framework to get it updated and acceptable.

[Eagle1993]

Based on history, they expect the final count will be under 75%.  It is highly unlikely or impossible to confirm this plan.  BSA seems to be admiting this by pulling in TCC into mediation.

Even at 90% this plan may not be confirmed.

1) The plan must be feasible ... it cannot be quickly followed by Ch 7.

2) Best interest of creditors.  Debtor must prove that BSA must pay at least as much as they would be liquidated.  TCC believes they can show they did not meet this, regardless of the vote.  In addition, the BSA must prove releases are fair & legal.  COs and LCs are getting a pass just because BSA filed.  Courts do not typically allow that ... TCC, believes under 3rd Circuit that the releases are legal.

Issue of releases is one of the 2 most significant the TCC law firm has seen in 40 years.

The goal is to get compesation, independant trust and YPT but also a plan that is legal.  Right now, the plan misses on all 4 counts (per TCC).

 

 

TCC sees a path to accomplish all 4 above and are discussing internally and now working with all parties.