Chapter 11 Announced - Part 9 - Confirmation Hearing

[Eagle1970]

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

What is the meaning of the acronym IRO?

Independent Review Option

[MYCVAStory]

This proceeding has backed the Judge into a box.  Typically by now the parties have danced around enough that they are coming to agreements and the Judge can "tweak" them a bit by making it clear where the issues are.  Then, after some hallway negotiations the Judge is asked to bless a mutually consensual plan.  This is anything but.  Between the MASSIVE insurance issues, third-party release challenges that she clearly signaled yesterday, and a host of others there are REAL challenges in place and she could very well say "I'd like to agree that X issue can be agreed to but my hands are constitutionally tied."  All of this is showing that the BSA NEVER should have entered into bankruptcy.  That advice led them into a trap where the mass tort attorneys opened the floodgates.  Instead, the BSA WITH ITS INSURERS should have dealt with cases as they arose, even with that number increasing significantly.  How did their attorneys NOT warn them of the flood they'd create?  Next week's arguments should be interesting and allow for some tea-leaf reading but then it'll be 2-3 weeks until we know anything.  Then, we'll see if the insurers appeal...or maybe the TCC if she tries to cram anything down, and if so, would the Coalition say "We'll take what we can get to pay our bills at this point."  It's a mess and while I suspect the Judge wants to do the right thing, the bankruptcy code thing might get in the way.  Hoping I'm wrong.

 

[Eagle1970]

14 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

This proceeding has backed the Judge into a box.  Typically by now the parties have danced around enough that they are coming to agreements and the Judge can "tweak" them a bit by making it clear where the issues are.  Then, after some hallway negotiations the Judge is asked to bless a mutually consensual plan.  This is anything but.  Between the MASSIVE insurance issues, third-party release challenges that she clearly signaled yesterday, and a host of others there are REAL challenges in place and she could very well say "I'd like to agree that X issue can be agreed to but my hands are constitutionally tied."  All of this is showing that the BSA NEVER should have entered into bankruptcy.  That advice led them into a trap where the mass tort attorneys opened the floodgates.  Instead, the BSA WITH ITS INSURERS should have dealt with cases as they arose, even with that number increasing significantly.  How did their attorneys NOT warn them of the flood they'd create?  Next week's arguments should be interesting and allow for some tea-leaf reading but then it'll be 2-3 weeks until we know anything.  Then, we'll see if the insurers appeal...or maybe the TCC if she tries to cram anything down, and if so, would the Coalition say "We'll take what we can get to pay our bills at this point."  It's a mess and while I suspect the Judge wants to do the right thing, the bankruptcy code thing might get in the way.  Hoping I'm wrong.

 

I believe the proof of claim process was flawed.  Had it required personal completion and real signatures with much more detail, many weak or even fraudulent claims would have never been filed.  Now they have to do what they can on the back end, after law firms have substantial money invested.  Regarding the need for bankruptcy, I see it as BSA didn't have much choice.  A couple dozen crazy high jury awards and they would be back in the same box-especially if the look back windows and sol revisions held up.

[johnsch322]

18 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

This proceeding has backed the Judge into a box. 

Not just the Judge but also the BSA and the insurers. All of the California cases will be filed by the end of the year and if the bankruptcy does not go thru all of them will be scheduled for trial and all by jury. If it is a cramdown then the insurers, LC's and CO's will start facing massive legal bills and then the subsequent awards. 

[ThenNow]

39 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Hoping I'm wrong.

Likewise, for multiple reasons:

1. I am ready to stop poking myself in the eye, banging my head on the table and punching stuff.

2. If BSA does not exit and formal BSA is dismantled, small 's' scouting will not die. Without an overall umbrella and COs like UMC who have signed on to enhanced YO measures, we go back to kids in the woods with adults. Now, however, there are no formal oversight bodies (BSA, COs and YPC), practices, protocols or reporting procedures. I don't think the vast majority of people countenance this reality one teeny tiny bit.

3. Tens of thousands of BSA survivors will walk away with nothing but 2+ years of bloody torment.

18 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I believe the proof of claim process was flawed.  Had it required personal completion and real signatures with much more detail, many weak or even fraudulent claims would have never been filed.  Now they have to do what they can on the back end, after law firms have substantial money invested. 

Agreed. I recall seeing the filings and argument over e-signatures and ballot. I was stunned. I remember reading my POC over and over and over, then staring at that signature line with the preceding warning about the penalties of perjury. Stunned, confused and aghast, frankly. Is it typical? I don't know. 300-1200+ cut and paste electronic signatures in short order, as in seconds removed from review of the POC and close to the Bar Date? Nope.

17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Not just the Judge but also the BSA and the insurers. All of the California cases will be filed by the end of the year and if the bankruptcy does not go thru all of them will be scheduled for trial and all by jury. If it is a cramdown then the insurers, LC's and CO's will start facing massive legal bills and then the subsequent awards. 

See answer 2, above.

Edited April 1, 2022 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

Q: How much training did it take Ms. Wolf to develop her talent for asking a 10 second question over the span of one minute or more, especially after her witness answered that very question two seconds prior. Good grief, Charlie Brown. It's like watching paint dry, and I'm taking about six layers of oil impasto. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

Q2: Why does Tanc keep his computer/camera in a dresser drawer? If you're not watching, you don't get it. If you do, you know exactly what I mean. 

[Eagle1993]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Q: How much training did it take Ms. Wolf to develop her talent for asking a 10 second question over the span of one minute or, especially after her witness answered that very question two seconds prior. Good grief, Charlie Brown. It's like watching paint dry, and I'm taking about six layers of oil impasto. 

Let her claimants talk.  She seems to talk as much as them sometimes.  There are other times where she seems to accidently stumble on a good point only to just keep going.  I think she likely made a mistake not taking the 2019 offer and she does seem to deeply care about her claimants.  They have been waiting since 2018 .. ouch.

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Q2: Why does Tanc keep his computer/camera in a dresser drawer? If you're not watching, you don't get it. If you do, you know exactly what I mean. 

For those not watching, Tanc (Century Insurance Lawyer) does seem to have placed his laptop in a dresser and about 1/2 his video is obstructed.   Very odd look.

25 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Likewise, for multiple reasons:

 

I think a small number of claimants may be better off with no plan.  However, the vast majority will likely see less money and the BSA may fail.  

I am hopeful.  I think the judge wants to see this plan pass.  I have listened to probably 20% of the hearings, so I missed many of the judge's comments.  

Now ... if this plan fails, I think the only answer left is a BSA only cramdown (toggle plan).  I don't see any path that includes COs & LCs other than this plan.  That will leave peanuts for most claimants.

Many lessons for future cases ... perhaps the court should have kicked BSA out of bankruptcy until they were truly bankrupt.

 

 

[ThenNow]

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

the vast majority will likely see less money and the BSA may fail. 

Zero is definitely less than a little. 

[clbkbx]

33 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

300-1200+ cut and paste electronic signatures in short order

Has anyone heard a good estimate of the number of fraudulent claims? An expert this week said her experience was something a bit over 40% but I don't know if it was a comparable group. 

More importantly, at least to me, is the breakdown by class. If all/most fraudulent claims are for the expedited distribution, that would be annoying to me and it's likely illegal, but ultimately wouldn't affect other outcomes to any great degree (my calculation is less than 1% of $2.7B).

If there are fraudulent claims in different classes, they will need to provide more information for review. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

Had it required personal completion and real signatures with much more detail, many weak or even fraudulent claims would have never been filed.  Now they have to do what they can on the back end, after law firms have substantial money invested.

I agree with this... law firms not vetting the claims (and, of course, the people making those claims) has made this process much more difficult. 

[Eagle94-A1]

58 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 I remember reading my POC over and over and over, then staring at that signature line with the preceding warning about the penalties of perjury.

Mods, If this is the wrong thread to ask the questions,  please move it to the correct thread.

@ThenNow, what were the stated penalties?

If not stated, what are they and do they also apply to the lawyers as well?

If money is involved with the penalty, can that money go towards survivors?

[MYCVAStory]

12 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Has anyone heard a good estimate of the number of fraudulent claims? An expert this week said her experience was something a bit over 40% but I don't know if it was a comparable group. 

It was NOT a comparable group.  Regardless, it is a reminder of the need for a ROBUST validation process.

[clbkbx]

Just now, MYCVAStory said:

It was NOT a comparable group.

Thanks! 

Do you have concerns with the validation process? I haven't read the TDP completely but assumed this was part of choosing a competent person to administer the trust.

[clbkbx]

7 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

what were the stated penalties?

If helpful:

There's also section indicating you "declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct."

[MYCVAStory]

2 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Do you have concerns with the validation process? I haven't read the TDP completely but assumed this was part of choosing a competent person to administer the trust.

You've hit the nail on teh head and why it's so critical to have the right INDEPENDANT Trustee and claims administrators in place.  They'll need to balance validation, time, expense....