Chapter 11 Announced - Part 8 - TCC Term Sheet & Plan Confirmation

[Eagle1993]

19 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The mark-ups are disgusting, but not evidence of fraud.   The PDF starred entries are temp workers.  ... It's the nature of contracting. 

Law firm contacts temp company to get extra workers.  Temp company pays person $16-$20 per hour.  Temp company has cost (insurance, payroll taxes, sales reps, facilities).  That raises their cost $20-$30 per hour.  Temp company wants to make profit so charges $40 to $60 per hour.  Law firm has cost (building, equipment, coordination).  That raises cost to $50-$65.  Law firm wants to make profit.  That doubles again at least to $80-$125.  

It's really no different than buying product from a retail store.  Walmart contracts over-seas and pays $8 per pair of pants, but charges you $35.   Oversea manufacturer pays $2 for material and $1 for labor.  

This sounds more like a disgruntled employee.  

Sad to see myself defending a law firm.

 

Could be.  It would be interesting how the rates are vetted.

Now, if they are charging for labor they didn't use, that is the red flag. 

Omni is one of the top expenses of the BSA to date.

[MYCVAStory]

Judge called a hearing on quick notice....NOT happy that the STAC couldn't agree on ONE Trustee.  TCC and Pfau/Zalkin wanted Hauser.  Coalition wanted Levy.  Deadlocked at 4-3 and the BSA submitted Hauser's name to the Coalition's consternation.  Coalition wanted two trustees with one being Levi.  Judge decides that she will allow Hauser to move ahead because it is the BSA's plan.  Buchbinder says two trustees would be a mess and she agrees.  She also seems VERY pissed that the STAC couldn't work this out an dmade work for her, she wants a VERY independant and qualified Trustee, she will be looking at the role of the STAC and appears to want it to be advisory at best with an independant trustee.  Interestingly, Rothweiler raised his hand to speak but she disallowed it because he is a represented party and Molton was already speaking for the Coaition.  NOT a good look when you want to jump in to take your attorney's place.  Pachulski gave Molton a biot of a lesson in Bankruptcy code so maybe this was damage control.  Overall....a good result for Survivors if this judge wants the right Trustee, and the lawyers who have been fighting for two years to be advisory at best.

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Omni FRAUD?!?

A former employee of Omni is alleging they are charging high fees for lower wage workers.  $16 - $20/hour workers are being charged at $80 - $125/hr to BSA.

Also claiming they hired 30 temporary workers who did nothing and they charged BSA.

Also claims knowledge that the ballot count is incorrect, and COO lied to court.

Finally, also claims they did the same in other cases, including USA Gymnastics

 

4 hours ago, fred8033 said:

This sounds more like a disgruntled employee.  

Hm. I wonder if this person was "encouraged" to write this letter. I am not prone to conspiracy theory, but this would add flavor to the screenplay.

Edited February 24, 2022 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, RandomScouter said:

Are you serious?  (Given the tone of many of your posts, I think it is a legitimate question. 😉)

It's over 20 pages long, and not just that--it's over 20 pages of legalese.

mama mia!

Definitely not serious. Again, where is that tongue in cheek emoji when you need it?  

[ThenNow]

45 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Hauser

Judge Barbara "Houser" in case anyone is researching.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

TCC and Pfau/Zalkin wanted Hauser.  Coalition wanted Levy.  Deadlocked at 4-3 and the BSA submitted Hauser's name to the Coalition's consternation.  Coalition wanted two trustees with one being Levi. 

Are there any revelations on why there was contention over one vs. the 'tother? 

[MYCVAStory]

You have to wonder if after trying to control things for so long and excluding the TCC, then having that fail, if this wasn't a last(ish) effort at retaining some control over Trust operations.  Sounded like the Judge wants no part of that.

[ThenNow]

John Lucas of PSZJ and Dr. Kennedy are releasing a video, likely tomorrow, walking through the three paths to seek an award. That made my day. Now I can stop with the Beautiful Mind decorations in my office. Maybe.

[NJScout1980]

Cannot wait to read the comments about Chp 7 bankruptcy filing from our favorite twitter attorney and his minions.   Survivors being manipulated and victimized again? Geez.   Jim Stang is 100% correct…liquidation will not happen and even if it did it would take years and years, cost a boat load of money, force bankruptcies of LC’s and lead to nothing better than what we have now.  Typing words and statements on twitter doesn’t make them facts!  If an LC files for bankruptcy in a closed state do you honestly think they will pay any claims outside of SOL’s?  They have no morals and won’t do what is fair and just.  Many will lose and it will just be more years and years of terrible suffering.  
 

Vote your conscience!  The only right choice comes from your heart…not your lawyer or anyone else!
 

Unfortunately, truth be told, there is no end in sight. 

[clbkbx]

10 hours ago, NJScout1980 said:

liquidation will not happen and even if it did it would take years and years

I agree with this. What I don't understand is why the possibility of Chapter 7 is not so bad for settling insurance companies that they won't change their settlement amounts. It seems like BSA national is at or near being maxed out and the LC/CO amounts are lower than expected but significant. The TCC's team spent a lot of money looking into this. Insurance coverage is not a panacea but, to me, they seem to be getting off the easiest. 

On the TCC q&a last night, I asked something to the effect of "if the TDP amounts are historically low and underfunded, and given that YPT must be addressed under any scenario, what is a good reason to vote for a plan where the TDP hasn't changed?" and DK responded that youth protection was enhanced. 

I understand from my attorney that the Independent Review option is limited to some pre-1976 cases and is meant to bring other insurance companies to a settlement, which will go into the Trust. So that might make the TDP less underfunded. 

The recent refrain to vote yes because the only other option is Chapter 7 rings hollow to me. Hartford changed their announced settlement even before the plan was voted down. 

Am I missing something or is it really "vote yes or it will be a painful Chapter 7"?

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, clbkbx said:

I understand from my attorney that the Independent Review option is limited to some pre-1976 cases and is meant to bring other insurance companies to a settlement, which will go into the Trust. So that might make the TDP less underfunded. 

Asking to better understand the above paragraph.  

• TDP - trust distribution procedures for the Plan Trust
• Independent review - review of a specific victim's claim for whether it is valued correctly

So an independent review of a single claim would go to increase the trust fund available to all members?  Or is it  affecting the distribution of the already established dollars in the fund to increase the amount to that single victim.  I was trying to understand the "go into the trust".

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

2 hours ago, clbkbx said:

I understand from my attorney that the Independent Review option is limited to some pre-1976 cases and is meant to bring other insurance companies to a settlement, which will go into the Trust. So that might make the TDP less underfunded. 

Asking to better understand the above paragraph.

Same. Before I wade in, it would be good to have clarification of what the attorney sad. I see nothing that creates that limitation. 

[clbkbx]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Before I wade in, it would be good to have clarification

Hi @fred8033 and @ThenNow, I was also trying to figure out why the IR might be better overall. @fred8033, yes, I mean the TDP as claims using the matrix with scalars and IR as the review of a specific claim by a Neutral.

Here is my understanding of the mechanism, using the example from my attorney:

The Plan is adopted as is. A limited number of people are eligible to go through IR. Person #1 goes through and the Neutral approves a large settlement that is paid by non-settling insurance/LC/CO's. Person #2 goes through and the same thing happens. Repeat until the non-settling insurance/LC/CO's agree to a global settlement so they don't have to keep paying out through the IR process. That settlement goes to the Trust.

One comment from my attorney was that it is unknown if there are enough people to make the IR useful, i.e., are the gates too narrow? From the TCC update last night, they touted that they have a veto over the new settlements in this Plan, which they will use to maximize any additional settlements (as indicated in my initial comment, I'm already underwhelmed at the current settlements so I don't know what this veto power is "worth" but, all things being equal, it seems better than not having it.). 

A follow up question (as yet unasked) that I have is: what does that mean for potential IR cases after these settlements get moved to the TDP track? That seems unfair to people with potential IR claims. 

@ThenNow, I also did not understand these limitations from the current plan. (That it would only be a few people and that currently non-settling entities can become settling entities to limit their payouts through IR. Maybe the "state court" limitation is meant to be read as only cases before 1976 but I was not clear on that.).

So my overall understanding is that the IR is a cudgel to get more entities to a settlement which could help further fund the currently-underfunded Trust amount. That there are potentially a limited number of people that can do this is a concern as well as the unfairness to the end-of-the-line IR folks.

Happy to have clarifications from others as they analyze the Plan and get feedback from their attorneys.

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

So an independent review of a single claim would go to increase the trust fund available to all members?  Or is it  affecting the distribution of the already established dollars in the fund to increase the amount to that single victim.  I was trying to understand the "go into the trust".

They said in the meeting last night that they had created an almost hour-long video explaining the review processes (three paths) in detail and hoped that the video would be up on the website very soon.  At that length hopefully it answers a lot of questions or at least helps Survivors ask the right questions of counsel.

[skeptic]

55 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Hi @fred8033 and @ThenNow, I was also trying to figure out why the IR might be better overall. @fred8033, yes, I mean the TDP as claims using the matrix with scalars and IR as the review of a specific claim by a Neutral.

Here is my understanding of the mechanism, using the example from my attorney:

The Plan is adopted as is. A limited number of people are eligible to go through IR. Person #1 goes through and the Neutral approves a large settlement that is paid by non-settling insurance/LC/CO's. Person #2 goes through and the same thing happens. Repeat until the non-settling insurance/LC/CO's agree to a global settlement so they don't have to keep paying out through the IR process. That settlement goes to the Trust.

One comment from my attorney was that it is unknown if there are enough people to make the IR useful, i.e., are the gates too narrow? From the TCC update last night, they touted that they have a veto over the new settlements in this Plan, which they will use to maximize any additional settlements (as indicated in my initial comment, I'm already underwhelmed at the current settlements so I don't know what this veto power is "worth" but, all things being equal, it seems better than not having it.). 

A follow up question (as yet unasked) that I have is: what does that mean for potential IR cases after these settlements get moved to the TDP track? That seems unfair to people with potential IR claims. 

@ThenNow, I also did not understand these limitations from the current plan. (That it would only be a few people and that currently non-settling entities can become settling entities to limit their payouts through IR. Maybe the "state court" limitation is meant to be read as only cases before 1976 but I was not clear on that.).

So my overall understanding is that the IR is a cudgel to get more entities to a settlement which could help further fund the currently-underfunded Trust amount. That there are potentially a limited number of people that can do this is a concern as well as the unfairness to the end-of-the-line IR folks.

Happy to have clarifications from others as they analyze the Plan and get feedback from their attorneys.

"Uunderfunded" is in the eye of the beholder.  I find that comment ludicrous; but then what do I know?  The whole thing is a ludicrous swamp of intermingles pain, grief, and greed.  I just want it done so we can try to move forward with todays world, rather than trying to remake the past.