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

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

85.72% Accept.

 

[Eagle1993]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

Yikes.  85% seems low.  I'm still 95% convinced Judge LSS will approve the plan.  I expect some minor changes, but she could have easily changed the direction during the RSA hearing.  Also, I think bankruptcy judges believe bankruptcy is the best path for compensation and dealing with non debtors.

However, that 85% will provide plan opponents some fire power during the district court review.  I haven't seen the 3rd circuit district court review/approve a non debtor release since Purdue.  I wouldn't be surprised to see plan approval in bankruptcy then kicked back by the district.  At some point, it may become BSA only.

I think Purdue and BSA are examples 1 and 2 on why bankruptcy should be limited to debtors only.  In BSA, there would have been a lot less spent on legal fees.  Simply divide up BSA unrestricted assets and move on.  Insurance ... settle or let the trust go through the battles.  Pulling in non debtors wasted time and resources.  Yes, I expect the $ pot grew a lot AND those outside SOLs probably faired better, but at what expense (legal)? 

Perhaps all will work out in the end, but man, this is some ugly sausage making.  

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Perhaps all will work out in the end, but man, this is some ugly sausage making.  

I'm undergoing a remodel. It seems endless. Painfully so. One thing after another. Overruns. Redundancies. Do overs. Inflation. Supply chain. Bid adjustments. Delays upon delays. Unscrupulous people. Sound familiar? The electrician was installing lights yesterday. He is an affable, tatted up, big-bearded biker sorta fella. I like him. Yesterday, he overheard me muttering to myself after finding the latest dumb thing one of the other sub's did. He chimed in from the other room, "You're dancing in the hotdog factory, again. Get out of there and don't come back until they tell you it's finished." Word.

[ThenNow]

18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Yikes.  85% seems low.

As I recall, on top of the AG's and US Trustee, Purdue had roughly 2000 holdout tort claimants. Based on this report, we have 8000.

[T2Eagle]

16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Yikes.  85% seems low. 

Why does that seem low?  Given how many people we are talking about, that is literally higher than the percentage of people who would agree that the earth is round. 

Given the pain involved there has to be a substantial number of people for whom anything short of burn it all down will not be something they voluntarily agree with.  Add in the number of people who would be personally better off without any non debtor releases (more recent case, substantial evidence, a willingness to endure trial, deep pocketed solvent co-defendants, etc.),  and I don't see any way you're ever going to get much higher.   In addition, for the folks in those two camps there is no downside to voting to reject.  They won't receive less from the plan because they disagree with it.

[Eagle1993]

3 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Why does that seem low?  Given how many people we are talking about, that is literally higher than the percentage of people who would agree that the earth is round. 

Given the pain involved there has to be a substantial number of people for whom anything short of burn it all down will not be something they voluntarily agree with.  Add in the number of people who would be personally better off without any non debtor releases (more recent case, substantial evidence, a willingness to endure trial, deep pocketed solvent co-defendants, etc.),  and I don't see any way you're ever going to get much higher.   In addition, for the folks in those two camps there is no downside to voting to reject.  They won't receive less from the plan because they disagree with it.

Purdue had 120,000 and were able to get 95% on board and the district court rejected the plan.

The question .... can you force someone to eliminate their right to due process against a non bankrupt organization through a bankruptcy ruling?  Many district judges are saying no.  Others say yes ... but only in very unique cases AND it requires overwhelming support.  I've struggled to see many cases approved <90%.

It doesn't matter if they would be better off or not.  It is their right to chose their own path in the legal system.  

I question if district court was going to allow this before seeing the 85%.  That 15% of individuals are rejecting this plan is a major iceberg that could hit in the future.  I understand there is no actual # as this is working in the gray area of law ... but I was hoping to see at least 90% to help improve the chances of approval.

[NJScout1980]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Purdue had 120,000 and were able to get 95% on board and the district court rejected the plan.

The question .... can you force someone to eliminate their right to due process against a non bankrupt organization through a bankruptcy ruling?  Many district judges are saying no.  Others say yes ... but only in very unique cases AND it requires overwhelming support.  I've struggled to see many cases approved <90%.

It doesn't matter if they would be better off or not.  It is their right to chose their own path in the legal system.  

I question if district court was going to allow this before seeing the 85%.  That 15% of individuals are rejecting this plan is a major iceberg that could hit in the future.  I understand there is no actual # as this is working in the gray area of law ... but I was hoping to see at least 90% to help improve the chances of approval.

I’m starting to wonder if this 15% is made up of a majority of survivors who have strong claims and come from open states.  They are the ones who would benefit most from a BSA only bankruptcy.  

[Eagle1993]

7 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

I’m starting to wonder if this 15% is made up of a majority of survivors who have strong claims and come from open states.  They are the ones who would benefit most from a BSA only bankruptcy.  

I would agree, the majority probably have strong state court cases.  There is probably a group that is confused and don't realize they are better off with this plan.  Finally, there is probably a group that desires the BSA to fail or are looking at alternate paths (such as the global CH 7).

I only hope each person voting fully understands the situation and are being properly advised by their lawyers.  

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I only hope each person voting fully understands the situation and are being properly advised by their lawyers.  

"If wishes were fishes we'd eat for a lifetime." There is 0% chance this hope is realized. 

Also, 85% is not a good sign. 8000 holdout votes of 56,500 voting claimants is not insubstantial. 

Edited March 11, 2022 by ThenNow

[clbkbx]

9 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

let’s shine some light on the real culprits in dragging out this bankruptcy.

Thanks for sharing the article. I'd suggest reading it critically (and not only because it's an op-ed by a member of the Federalist Society). Here's one example:

Quote

...recent reports are that the bill for BSA’s experts and those hired by the official creditors’ committees have ballooned to more than $205 million, which is approaching the size of the original trust that was part of settlement discussions. Experts have noted that bills for lawyers and others in connection with the fraught proceedings are on a path to being comprise more than 40% of BSA’s self-reported assets, whereas in past mega-bankruptcies such fees were usually 2-3% and certainly less than 10%.

I agree that fees should be kept to a minimum but who cares how much the "original trust" was worth and why should it be a basis for comparison? In fact, the author is making a point in the opposite direction: after experts and lawyers were part of the negotiations, the current trust is going to be over $2.7B. I mean, that's a return on investment! Spending $2 to get $24 is a good deal. A 1217% ROI! 

To the second point, I have looked for this information and not been able to find any good source... has anyone ever come across anything useful? At least the author caveats the BSA's assets with "self-reported." 

[BadChannel70]

Looking at the updated numbers, it shows 22,004 survivors opted out of granting 3rd party liability releases. That's almost 50% of the total number of survivors who voted. I would think a district court judge and maybe JSS would consider this as not overwhelming support for the plan. At least as it relates to BSA trying to bring their friends Tom, Dick and Harry to the party.

 

And for the indirect abuse claims, the percentage is much higher who rejected the 3rd party liability releases....

Edited March 11, 2022 by BadChannel70

[clbkbx]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

8000 holdout votes of 56,500 voting claimants is not insubstantial

Approximately 3,000 additional people had their votes counted (how that squares with the difference from the non-counted vote appendices is more effort than I'm willing to put in at the moment). Of the counted votes, approximately 9,000 more people voted accept and 6,000 less people voted reject.

I'm assuming the bulk of the 6,000 fewer reject votes are changed votes and the 3,000 additional counted votes were predominantly to accept. Further, I'm assuming the bulk of the changed votes are the 5,000 additional yes votes are from those voting by master ballot (i.e., certain law firms changing their position from reject to accept). Does that make sense to others?

[johnsch322]

The one group that must be most displeased with the latest voting results will be the insurance companies, LC's and CO's. Everyone who was mediating on the side of survivors was hamstrung by the bad deal that BSA made with Hartford and that was compounded by the Century and LDS deals. No matter what they say publicly the insurance company's need this to go away. 

[clbkbx]

Just now, johnsch322 said:

Everyone who was mediating on the side of survivors was hamstrung by the bad deal that BSA made with Hartford

This is also what I understood from my attorney (after I previously voiced displeasure on this forum that the insurance company amounts were terrible and should be renegotiated). 

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Everyone who was mediating on the side of survivors was hamstrung by the bad deal that BSA made with Hartford

Agreed. If we recall the way it went down, without any involvement of the TCC and triumphantly announced to the world as the second coming, it was clearly a (the?) major BSA gaffe that set the trajectory.  I believe that is when I went into my, "smells like desperation" and not "teen spirit" routine.