ThenNow Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: I may have just imagined the word "Stand-down" but it was pretty similar. I think Kosnoff gets a bit emotionally involved and I understand that ... but you have to follow the rule of law. I think he is in some serious trouble now and this is just a distraction to the bankruptcy. Oh, no. I was on. Guy (Taylor) said just that. To add, she was very concerned about attorneys signing "100's of proofs of claims" and look where we are. She was clearly not happy and very "troubled." Blech. Btw, who should I bill for my hours upon hours upon hours of research, hearing attendance, writing, vexing and sheep counting? Who, I ask you? Good God man, is there not an adult in that house? Edited January 24, 2022 by ThenNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttsy Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said: So .... we march to the Feb 22 date. If this ends up in plan failure, what a waste of money. It will just emphasize that bankruptcy reform is absolutely needed. A hundred million dollar march. If it leads to bankruptcy reform then maybe. It usually takes a 911 type of event to get Congress' attention. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 25, 2022 Author Share Posted January 25, 2022 Here is the Kosnoff order. It was about the live tweeting when the TCC was deposing BSA counsel. It sounds like Kosnoff probably shouldn't have been on that call, but the bigger issue was that he was tweeting protected info. Note that 7 days after deposition, the material could be released if not determined confidential (or other privileged, etc.). They stopped the deposition to get Kosnoff to stop the live tweeting. e0809104-fbda-40e1-9c69-7c79ef65e400_8480.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 Back on topic... Is the End Near for Third Party Releases In Chapter 11 Plans? ...Although there is no provision of the Bankruptcy Code expressly authorizing non-consensual third-party releases, only three of the eleven United States Courts of Appeal have expressly prohibited them. The other Circuits have either expressly approved them or left the door open to approval in “rare” or “limited” circumstances... recent decisions: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Purdue Pharma, L.P. case and United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc. case... identically titled bills were introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate as HR4777 and S2497, respectively. The “Nondebtor Release Prohibition Act of 2021,” if enacted, would prohibit discharging liability of non-debtor third-parties to creditors without the creditors’ consent and limit the time period during which a bankruptcy court may stay prosecution of creditor claims against non-debtor third-parties while a bankruptcy case is pending to 90 days. Neither Bill has reached a floor vote to date... Succinct and coherent legal overview at source https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/is-the-end-near-for-third-party-6944004/ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 25, 2022 Author Share Posted January 25, 2022 2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said: ...Although there is no provision of the Bankruptcy Code expressly authorizing non-consensual third-party releases, only three of the eleven United States Courts of Appeal have expressly prohibited them. The other Circuits have either expressly approved them or left the door open to approval in “rare” or “limited” circumstances... JLSS has faced some interesting situations in the past. Shortly after a Supreme Court ruling made non debtor releases questioned, JLSS ruled on Millennium. Judge Silverstein's Opinion in Millennium Lab Holdings Threatens to Bring Clarity and Common Sense to Debate Regarding Constitutional Power of Bankruptcy Courts | Bankruptcy Law Insights Quote In Judge Silverstein’s view, “[t]here is no question [that] if the proper standard is met, a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order in a core matter that impacts or even precludes a state law action between two non-debtors.” So ... she did at the time agree non-debtors can be included if the proper standard is met. I would be surprised if she decides that non-debtors are completely excluded from bankruptcy. Part of this seems like a turf battle between different courts ... so it will be interesting if the district court still agrees with non-debtor releases ... but I expect JLSS will. Now in this case, she has made some statements about "concerns" she has with the plan. She has talked about having marked up certain sections. She may limit the releases, expect approval to hit a certain level, limit which non debtors are granted releases and which claimants are included. Right now, I think she is holding to the Feb 22 date as she needs to get out in court where she has issues with the plan. She needs to rule and not rely on multiple parties guessing what is and is not allowable. Then, after the hearings, the parties can finalize a plan that gets TCC, Zalkin and a few others on board. The more I think about it, it probably makes sense to march to that Feb 22 meeting. Yes, there will be waste, but she needs to make some rulings or both sides will remain in their trenches. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 @Eagle1993 So do you think that the 22 February hearing will provide an indication of the resolution of the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYCVAStory Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said: So do you think that the 22 February hearing will provide an indication of the resolution of the case? A confirmation hearing is a lengthy process in cases as complex as this one. Recent predictions are that it could take weeks and not days. Should a plan be confirmed it would be a resolution. If not it could still be a resolution if a plan fails, the BSA says "we tried" and injunctions against LCs are lifted. Still, even if a plan is confirmed there can be appeals and if a trust is set up it will take time for that operation to get going. Survivors should remain as patient as possible and not expect checks in the mail the week after the 22nd! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYCVAStory Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said: JLSS has faced some interesting situations in the past. Shortly after a Supreme Court ruling made non debtor releases questioned, JLSS ruled on Millennium. Judge Silverstein's Opinion in Millennium Lab Holdings Threatens to Bring Clarity and Common Sense to Debate Regarding Constitutional Power of Bankruptcy Courts | Bankruptcy Law Insights The article is over four years old. While it hints at her feelings re third-party releases it's a hint at the bankruptcy landscape THEN. Recent decisions invalidating third-party releases and anticipated appeals moving higher and higher suggest that she would have reason for different feelings now. As well, she did say from teh bench that her Millenium decision should NOT be taken to apply to this case necessarily. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 25, 2022 Author Share Posted January 25, 2022 Just now, MYCVAStory said: The article is over four years old. While it hints at her feelings re third-party releases it's a hint at the bankruptcy landscape THEN. Recent decisions invalidating third-party releases and anticipated appeals moving higher and higher suggest that she would have reason for different feelings now. As well, she did say from teh bench that her Millenium decision should NOT be taken to apply to this case necessarily. I was looking for that quote ... but yes, a lawyer quoted her Millenium decision and she said something like "don't quote me to me". She also said her Millenium was different than what she will need to rule on in this case. She has a history of approving non-debtors and approved this RSA. On the flip side the other district decisions have come out since the RSA + she has made comments about concerns, markups and how Millenium doesn't fully apply here. At least with the hearing, we will know where she stands with respect to the plan and objections. She mentioned speed is critical right now in this case, so I expect her to clear the way to Feb 22. Even if the current plan is not confirmed it should help get everyone on the same page where changes are required and the process to get it confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYCVAStory Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: he has a history of approving non-debtors and approved this RSA. The RSA was essentially her saying "Okay, you can go down that path but it's YOUR job to prove that the destination is the right one." An RSA isn't an endorsement of a settlement. That said, getting to a confirmation hearing is huge and hopefully any decision won't get tied up in appeal. Sorry to raise that possibility! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 25, 2022 Author Share Posted January 25, 2022 Another hearing scheduled, Feb 1. 42aeca4c-d1b6-462c-b8ba-bcd220071581_8487.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) This is BSA vs Roman Catholic Church & Century vs Roman Catholic Church (Ad Hoc Committee). Basically, disagreements on deposition requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttsy Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 22 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: She also said her Millenium was different than what she will need to rule on in this case This transcript should be available publicly if the TCC kindly post it. LSS was not entirely clear on this point or maybe she was. My interpretation of her remark was that her decision in Millenium Labs was based on the question of whether third-party releases could ever comport with the Due Process Clause. Her answer was yes but only in very rare circumstances. She set forth a multipart test, including but not limited to “overwhelming” creditor support. One issue now, that should not be an issue at all, is whether 73.5% is “overwhelming.” The Purdue Sackler opinion by Judge McMahon last month did not reach the Due Process issue because she ruled on the bankruptcy statute alone, finding third party releases are simply not authorized The DP issue was irrelevant Bankruptcy judges can’t conjure up powers that are not granted by the code This is the critical distinction LSS was pointing out to the attorney for Hartford Her decision in Millenium is apples to McMahon’s oranges opinion. And then you get to the thorny problems of the particulars of this case. Purdue received 96% creditor support and the Sackler liability released was derivative of the debtor’s Here LC and especially CO liability is independent and distinct 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattR Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 Locked until I split off the YP sub rule thread 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattR Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 I moved the sub thread about YP to BTW, @Muttsy, I thought you said you weren't coming back unless we banished skeptic. Anyway, welcome back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InquisitiveScouter Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 (edited) Moved to the YP thread... Edited January 26, 2022 by InquisitiveScouter Moved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts