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

[Eagle1970]

Here is the summary of the Missouri House Bill that addresses Sol for civil child sexual abuse:

CCS/SS/HCS/HB 1055 - This act changes the laws regarding sexual offenses. The act:

(15) Extends the statute of limitations for any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse; (Section 537.046)

 

[Eagle1993]

18 minutes ago, MattR said:

So why was 66% ever mentioned if it's really something greater than 75%? Just curious as to where the 66 number came from. Again, I'm not blaming anyone as I certainly wouldn't have known

Good question and I would think that the % would have been defined before the vote started.

Basically, what BSA is doing (like others) is in the grey area of Bankruptcy law.  So, judges make up rules and eventually every judge/circuit has their own way of handling it.  The 66% is for a normal bankruptcy, but since BSA entered the grey area (including LCs & COs) the judge then applies her own rules to the case based on her circuit.

We actually do not know if 75% is the real number.  We know many will argue 75% is the floor.

Note that we do know JSS has talked about nonconsensual releases as recently as 2017.  This was brought up but she pushed back on the insurance company lawyer as to his understanding of where she stands (she said don't quote me to me).  In this case, she had 93.7% approval from creditors. 

In Brief: Bankruptcy Court Rules That It Has Constitutional Authority to Grant Nonconsensual Releases in Chapter 11 Plan | Insights | Jones Day

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

So why was 66% ever mentioned if it's really something greater than 75%? Just curious as to where the 66 number came from. Again, I'm not blaming anyone as I certainly wouldn't have known

66% was mentioned but emphasis was placed on the 75% figure. 

[Eagle1993]

17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

66% was mentioned but emphasis was placed on the 75% figure. 

To me, what is confusing, is the 66% is what is listed by Omni as target and it shows it as approved.  One would think if the real target was higher, Omni should list that as the minimum.  However, I know this whole thing is a grey area....

[Eagle94-A1]

I do not know why anyone is surprised that TK wants Chapter 7. He has stated this from the get go. 

Now I will give the devil his due, TK does represent his clients better than the other lawyers in this case.. While I disagree with him and do not like his position, I due respect his diligence in representing his clients.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Now I will give the devil his due, TK does represent his clients better than the other lawyers in this case.. While I disagree with him and do not like his position, I due respect his diligence in representing his clients.

This may be just me, but if you want to get the best take on his passion for clients you need to watch him on video. People I respect don’t care for him and think he’s to be avoided, but he is the first “professional” I saw tear up when talking about representing or caring about survivors of child sexual abuse. Some tell me this can be the result of good acting, but I disagree. I did more than a little acting and have been attuned to stage and screen for about 50 years. Crying scenes or portraying pain and remorse are not easy. Though not an example of this emotion, I found his deposition compelling. Then again, I may be a schmuck. That accusation has been flung in my direction. I duck and dive pretty well most of the time.

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

CCS/SS/HCS/HB 1055 - This act changes the laws regarding sexual offenses. The act:

(15) Extends the statute of limitations for any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse; (Section 537.046)

I am unable to access it, if this is a link. I am a “cotton-headed ninnymuggins,” however so that may be in play. (Nod to Buddy.)

Edited January 7, 2022 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

5e2eaa72-1e31-4d5f-a951-ac5a90474218_8190.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

TCC is asking for a status conference January 12 to get the court's feedback as to the go forward plan.  Basically, should everyone admit failure on the current plan and focus on mediation.

 

 

 

[RememberSchiff]

11 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

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. 

 

21 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

5e2eaa72-1e31-4d5f-a951-ac5a90474218_8190.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

TCC is asking for a status conference January 12 to get the court's feedback as to the go forward plan.  Basically, should everyone admit failure on the current plan and focus on mediation.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5e2eaa72-1e31-4d5f-a951-ac5a90474218_8190.pdf

Above link, TCC status report was to be presented at Jan 10 hearing. It is an interesting read, for example, the frank suggestion that upcoming depositions are a waste of time and money.

...for the next three weeks, the Participating Parties will undertake the substantial time and expense—much of it to be incurred by the bankruptcy estates—to complete the depositions of as many as fifty fact and expert witnesses (which must be completed by January 28, 2022) to further the Court’s eventual consideration of a Plan which is already “dead on arrival".

Edited January 7, 2022 by RememberSchiff

[Eagle1993]

47 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

...for the next three weeks, the Participating Parties will undertake the substantial time and expense—much of it to be incurred by the bankruptcy estates—to complete the depositions of as many as fifty fact and expert witnesses (which must be completed by January 28, 2022) to further the Court’s eventual consideration of a Plan which is already “dead on arrival".

Regardless of the side you are on, I think everyone would like to avoid waste.  I really think it would help for JSS to start declaring what the court thinks of the plan.  She frequently indicated she wanted to see where the claimants are at.  It would be great if she:

- Clarifies if non debtors can still be included post Purdue AND if that includes both LCs & COs (I see a world where she may agree to one and not the other)

- Clarifies what % approval she is looking for ... she doesn't have to lock in a number ... but a comment that may allow parties some direction

- Appoints new mediator(s)

[T2Eagle]

I've been trying to think of what is a realistic expectation of an acceptance level.  When you're talking about tens of thousands of people, trying to get a high percentage of agreement on anything is nearly impossible.  For instance, there are some challenges to the methodology of them poll, but recently only two thirds of folks polled believed the earth was round.  

In this case, it's easy to imagine that, say, 10 to 15 percent of claimants won't be satisfied with anything less than burn it all down.  It's also not hard to imagine some similar sized group, maybe slightly smaller, for whom burn it all down is just as unacceptable.  Plus there are the claimants in closed states, it's very possible that anything that's involuntary rather than negotiated is likely to leave them with no definite compensation.  

I'm not sure how you add all that up and expect to get anything more than a couple percentage points higher than the 73% acceptance that was already achieved.   

[Eagle1993]

14 hours 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 think that is part of Kosnoff’s point which is why he says it will end in Ch 7.

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think that is part of Kosnoff’s point which is why he says it will end in Ch 7.

I’ll add that I disagree with this, not that it matters.  I believe that if you get the major law firms on board along with the TCC you can get to 90%.  However, there is a risk of permanent hold outs. 

 

Zalkin agrees with TCC with the need for a status hearing.  They mention that further review of the votes will actually make the vote appear to fail even more.  Their major objection is the 40,000 Charter Orgs and their insurance that is covered saying there is no subject matter jurisdiction to allow it. 
 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e7b1fd8f-7af9-487c-8e48-f0e4d5c1c824_8210.pdf

[SiouxRanger]

All of the comments about various arrangements to transfer camps out of local council ownership, essentially for free, to protect them from creditors have not mentioned the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, updated in 2014, and renamed the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act.  It has been enacted in about 45 states.

The purpose of the Act is to render transactions voidable if done to shelter assets from present or future creditors (by transferring valuable assets, in our case a local council, without receiving comparable value in return which comparable value could be used to pay claimants).

Almost certainly, any such transfer after the Oregon case verdict in 2010 would be suspect as that case was the proverbial handwriting on the wall.

Were it to be shown that Scout Executives had knowledge of substantial settlements, not in the public eye, that date could even be earlier. By the time you know you have a problem, your knowledge is the problem, as any action you take to shelter assets once you know they are at risk makes the sheltering suspect and perhaps voidable (that is can be reversed). Catch 22.

Were a council to transfer camp(s), then manage to stave off filing bankruptcy for the requisite period, one gets into legal discussions of the interplay between bankruptcy law and state law. I don't have any current knowledge on that topic.

And then there is the problem of the Scout Law, Rule 1:  Trustworthy.

Not seemly for scout councils to connive to conceal assets to avoid a financial reckoning for its activities. Then there's the embarrassment of council board members who might take exception to being a co-conspirator in such machinations.

[SiouxRanger]

6 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

To me, what is confusing, is the 66% is what is listed by Omni as target and it shows it as approved.  One would think if the real target was higher, Omni should list that as the minimum.  However, I know this whole thing is a grey area....

Omni is merely in the business of doing "ministerial' acts.  It posts documents, indexes, tallies votes.  It is a clerk.  It is not making policy. Judges make policy, sometimes consistent with other judges and sometimes not..   It sounds as if the only % on the books and contained in bankruptcy law is 66%.

Omni is merely reporting that the vote it tallied exceeds the stated statutory requirement.  We've heard of judges using anywhere from 75% to 95%.  Omni, as a clerk, is not in the position to "pick a percentage."   Judges do that. Omni's representation of "approved" is irrelevant.