Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Bankruptcy professor is asking about the independent review option. I don't expect much in today's hearing as Silverstein seems very reserved until specifically asked to rule. Quote Prof. Jacoby @melissabjacoby #BoyScouts settlement with survivors' committee includes independent review option: hire retired judges, replicate portions of civil courts except no juries. Sparks thoughts of many kinds. Would helpful to hear if common in other aggregate litigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Insurance will fight the updated plan. 87292318-be02-41ca-a258-8d0b44a78386_8785.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) They believe the confirmation hearing must be delayed. It is a substantial change, they need time to review, object, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1970 Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 Would anyone venture a guess on time frame? Do all independent reviews need completion before payments are made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said: Would anyone venture a guess on time frame? Do all independent reviews need completion before payments are made? My understanding is no. There are 3 paths running in parallel. The $3500 would be paid quickly. The other two paths (TDP, Neutral) would require longer. It sounds like TDP would be faster than Neutral, Neutral gives the highest possible payouts (or $0). However, probably clarified more when added in plan. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: Bankruptcy professor is asking about the independent review option Yup. I asked this earlier. It jumped out immediately. Where did this come from, pray tell? Edited February 11, 2022 by ThenNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Hearing started ... BSA starts by going through the updates Lots of thanks around. Many days, late nights, early mornings. Went through YPT updates ... BSA wants to be platinum standard Updated Abuse definition & added mixed abuse (that was always out there but now clarified) A big issue was how chartered orgs were treated in last plan. Not TCJC or Methodist. Pre 1976 if not included through settling insurance, they cannot just slide in. They have to settle or they are not protected. That was a major roadblock. Before they were all included New independent review process New trustee to be named Monday next week Document sharing was critical, especially for survivor counsel to ensure there is access to discovery. Term sheets talked Bates/White report & supplemental report. Creditors do not agree with Bates/Whites Debtors do not agree with Creditors They have agreed to disagree 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Due to BSA liquidity, BSA can use proceeds of Scouting U to support BSA liquidity as they are running out of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Proposal from BSA: - TCC & Coalition and state court want to communicate to survivor community as whole and discuss with those who did not vote or voted against plan to allow them to approve plan. - Push start of confirmation to March 1 (from Feb 22) to allow time to revote - Debtors have 1 witness who is lead lawyer and would not be able to support ... so would want that witness to go. This Monday ... file Plan, TDP and Settlement Trust Agreement Thursday Feb 17 .... updated objection deadline (on updates to plan). Now that CO releases are changed for Pre 1976 - Feb 21 ... debtors & others file briefs in support of plan Feb 28 .. Abuse claimants to update votes to Omni Feb 28 ... Other COs to provide objections to changes in releases Feb 28 ... IF COs want to opt out, that is the day March 1 ... start hearing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Going through various updates. Insurance wants to adjourn until at least March 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Insurance - what seems to go on ... claimants have taken over and now inflated claim values are being used. They are very upset. There were unapproved extensions already done. The plan is now worse and more objectionable. JLSS ... Discovery needed? Was hoping update would check boxes off of insurance list, but it sounds like it went the other direction. Insurance said ... yes your honor. JLSS ... Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 US Trustee Proposing to change votes is inappropriate. We should call this the 6th amended plan. Disclosure statement is needed. Need to show how this improves plan for Class 9 parties. All they did is confuse COs. This is the no third party left behind act. New TDPs ... fee for independent review. No court in this country requires a filing fee of $10K to initiate a tort case. Attempt to change votes without consent .. slap in fast for survivors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Roman Catholic Church ... last time the debtor said no reason to vote last time (per debtor) as plan got better. Now, 40,000 charters, have had the rug pulled out from them. This needs to go out. Time is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, ThenNow said: 3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: Bankruptcy professor is asking about the independent review option Yup. I asked this earlier. It jumped out immediately. Where did this come from, pray tell? AHA! From my mouth to Mr. B's ears. "I've never heard of a $10,000 filing fee." Me either. Edited February 11, 2022 by ThenNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 Sounds like hearing starts March 9 (2 week delay). I missed parts of the hearing today, but it is clear that certain insurance companies, some COs (most notably Roman Catholic Church) and various claimants are objecting to the updated plan along with the US Trustee. BSA is running out of money. TCC lawyers even indicated that any delay means less money left for the trust. Opponents to the plan (most notably the US Trustee) said that is BSA's fault for wasting everyone's time this past summer. Judge made a reference that she doesn't want due process to be an issue during appeal, as she said she knows no matter what side she rules on during the hearing, there will be appeals. Judge encouraged parties to continue to meet to see if they can get objectors on board before the hearing. Hard to see that as most want non debtors excluded. Perhaps insurance companies could be brought in. A lot of discussion about the hearing. No opening statements. Closing statements will be oral. Various other points made about how to handle the trial. One area the judge seems to be concerned about is the $20K fee ... why not just send everyone through TDPs. We will see.. I 100% believe she is open to including non debtors. Plan and other documents must be filed by Monday. Objections later. Again, trial March 9. A mention of 50 hours for a trial was thrown out but not agreed to. Also, they will likely have 1 day or a few hours of the trial for subset of claims (Oracle, AT&T, GSUSA, etc.). Those that are not the primary part of the debate. Finally, claimants who have lawyers must have their lawyers represent them. Any claimant that was to be part of the trial directly and testify, etc. will need to release their name publically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: One area the judge seems to be concerned about is the $20K fee ... why not just send everyone through TDPs. We will see.. Yup. I don't think the key votes move from reject to accept without the significant multiplier on the "high value" claims. On the notion of high and low value claims, I saw my psychiatrist this week. Of course, we were talked about the case including the range of potential awards. I thought she was going to fall out of her chair, throw something and/or pull out her hair. She was aghast. I know, I know. There's no money. 55,000+/- of us are Shades of Gray and should be happy to get something rather than nothing. Forgetting that, this is how people in the real world, not to mention those who work with trauma patients every day, feel when they hear about the case. High rollers get access to the high value. Mr. B is not happy. PS - I don't know if the high entry fee mini-trial is the right thing or not. It certainly is a creative and expedient way to accommodate the disgruntled open state folk. All I know is how I feel. Right now, it's pretty much like I wasted two years of premature hair loss, stomach lining, sleep and relative peace of mind. Likely my own fault. Edited February 11, 2022 by ThenNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts