Chapter 11 Announced - Part 10 - Post Confirmation Hearing/Judges Ruling

[Eagle1993]

This one took 8 days between the hearing and plan approval.

59 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Approved reorganization plan of Abengoa in 2016. Note objection of US Trustee objection to third party releases.

http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb16-10790-1033.pdf

 

This one took 48 days between hearing & rejection.  However, that included both Thanksgiving & Christmas breaks.

59 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Rejected the Fourth Amended Plan of Exide Batteries in 2002

https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-kevin-j.carey/exide.pdf

 

 

Somewhat concerning that the approval took only 8 days but a rejection took a month and a half.  I know just two examples ... but we should be ready for a rejection (or a hearing/quick fix) situation.  I struggle to see why she would need >60 days to approve this.  Definitely a possibility ... just a bit concerning.

[Eagle1993]

I should also mention, this is definitely a unique & complex case, so there is a definite possibility it is jut taking a long time to consider the plan.  Silverstein noted at a hearing for selling the distribution center that the findings the BSA and plan proponents are asking her to make in confirming the plan present her with issues that she has never previously faced as a bankruptcy judge.

"Quite frankly, probably none of my previous rulings in eight years really dealt with this particular type of issue, where there are such extensive findings that people are asking me to make, and where the findings are particularly controversial," she said.

I think going back to what she has said in various hearings.  She doesn't want to see the BSA end.  I expect if BSA was some other organization, she would have likely just killed the plan even if it would end the org.  I really think she is doing everything possible to let the organization survive.  However, she must comply with bankruptcy law and must ensure the plan survives appeals.

She is likely in a very tough spot and is working through the best she can.  

[Tron]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I should also mention, this is definitely a unique & complex case, so there is a definite possibility it is jut taking a long time to consider the plan.  Silverstein noted at a hearing for selling the distribution center that the findings the BSA and plan proponents are asking her to make in confirming the plan present her with issues that she has never previously faced as a bankruptcy judge.

"Quite frankly, probably none of my previous rulings in eight years really dealt with this particular type of issue, where there are such extensive findings that people are asking me to make, and where the findings are particularly controversial," she said.

I think going back to what she has said in various hearings.  She doesn't want to see the BSA end.  I expect if BSA was some other organization, she would have likely just killed the plan even if it would end the org.  I really think she is doing everything possible to let the organization survive.  However, she must comply with bankruptcy law and must ensure the plan survives appeals.

She is likely in a very tough spot and is working through the best she can.  

Why would she care if the BSA stops to exist? The overwhelming majority of the program is volunteer and local based and something new without legacy issues will rise out of the ashes. 

I would say the reality Silverstein not wanting BSA to die is not about BSA but about the reality that the vindictive get the BSA at all costs BS that surrounds this case is vastly ignorant of the fact that if there is no pound of flesh to get, everyone gets nothing.

[ScouterDavid]

11 minutes ago, Tron said:

Why would she care if the BSA stops to exist? The overwhelming majority of the program is volunteer and local based and something new without legacy issues will rise out of the ashes. 

I would say the reality Silverstein not wanting BSA to die is not about BSA but about the reality that the vindictive get the BSA at all costs BS that surrounds this case is vastly ignorant of the fact that if there is no pound of flesh to get, everyone gets nothing.

With a non profit bankruptcy, the court has two obejctives - settle the claims and make sure the organization survives Chapter 11, assuming the mission is still relevant.

[ThenNow]

50 minutes ago, Tron said:

Why would she care if the BSA stops to exist? The overwhelming majority of the program is volunteer and local based and something new without legacy issues will rise out of the ashes. 

Forgive me, but you're sorta shooting at a target in the dark and speculating where it is and what the bullseye looks like.

1. Because a good case has been made, including by many survivors. Ask the US Trustee what we said when we applied for the Tort Claimants' Committee.

2. Because she said so. Repeatedly. At one point it was so obvious I was objecting and wrote the Trustee about it. Survivors seemed a distant second, at best.

3. She strongly expressed her concern about the nearly 1M Scouts who are innocent in this and who find great value in Scouting. She did that out loud in open court. It's in the record.

50 minutes ago, Tron said:

I would say the reality Silverstein not wanting BSA to die is not about BSA but about the reality that the vindictive get the BSA at all costs BS that surrounds this case is vastly ignorant of the fact that if there is no pound of flesh to get, everyone gets nothing.

Again, ignores the facts and states facts (not at all) in evidence. I believe you're projecting a personal assessment and opinion onto the judge and into the fabric of the case, which I have been part of for almost 2.5 years.

Edited June 14, 2022 by ThenNow
Oopsy

[RememberSchiff]

6 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Found these two "Opinion on Confirmation" by Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey (recalled Judge Silberstein fired her mentor). One plan he rejected (49 pages) and one he approved (29 pages).  I have not found previous Judge Silberstein opinions.

 

Found Chief Judge Silberstein Opinions, some (few?) are regarding plan confirmation.

https://www.deb.usco urts.gov/judges-info/opinions?field_judge_nid=63&field_opinion_date_value[value][year]=

Edited June 14, 2022 by RememberSchiff

[Tron]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Forgive me, but you're sorta shooting at a target in the dark and speculating where it is and what the bullseye looks like.

1. Because a good case has been made, including by many survivors. Ask the US Trustee what we said when we applied for the Tort Claimants' Committee.

2. Because she said so. Repeatedly. At one point it was so obvious I was objecting and wrote the Trustee about it. Survivors seemed a distant second, at best.

3. She strongly expressed her concern about the nearly 1M Scouts who are innocent in this and who find great value in Scouting. She did that out loud in open court. It's in the record.

Again, ignores the facts and states facts (not at all) in evidence. I believe you're projecting a personal assessment and opinion onto the judge and into the fabric of the case, which I have been part of for almost 2.5 years.

No I was shooting for this. Specifically point 3. Finally. If I, or someone of my same opinion on the matter were to have said this there would have been no upvotes and hoards of bellyaching comments. This is great, thank you.

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, Tron said:

No I was shooting for this. Specifically point 3. Finally. If I, or someone of my same opinion on the matter were to have said this there would have been no upvotes and hoards of bellyaching comments. This is great, thank you.

You’re welcome, but no. No “finally” about anything. It’s been said before and the judge’s statements have been reported here via several previous posts, way back in the olden days.

You rebuffed someone and asserted, by implication, the judge is not interested in seeing Scouting continue. Or, at the least, she is ambivalent. Maybe you were trying to bait someone into saying #3? Not sure. I stated the facts. You seems to want to impute your opinion on others without stating it. Say what you mean and suffer the bellyache. I’m not sure what game this is, but I don’t think you’re winning. Personally, I’ve stated my feelings about Scouting, as in current and future, both here and by past actions. Some survivors don’t agree with me, which is fine. I honor them and their view.

What has been objectionable is people asserting there are two equally “victimized” camps here. One, CSA survivors, the other current and future Scouts. I am not asking or inviting further dialogue on that topic, just creating the historical context. 

[MYCVAStory]

4 hours ago, Tron said:

No I was shooting for this. Specifically point 3. Finally. If I, or someone of my same opinion on the matter were to have said this there would have been no upvotes and hoards of bellyaching comments. This is great, thank you.

For some context, her comment at the first hearing I believe (or close to it) was that the "....mission of the Boy Scouts is of paramount importance."  While this was widely seen by Survivors as overly "pro-scouts" in discussion with experienced bankruptcy professionals it was viewed as reflective of being supportive of the debtor voluntarily entering bankruptcy.  As well, the judge at that point had no idea of the enormity of this bankruptcy and number of claimants that would come forward.  My observation is that over time she demonstrated the impartiality that Survivors expected.  While her ruling will be the ultimate arbiter on that her decisions over two years in my mind have not been slanted one way in an egregious way.

 

[fred8033]

11 hours ago, Tron said:

Why would she care if the BSA stops to exist? The overwhelming majority of the program is volunteer and local based and something new without legacy issues will rise out of the ashes. 

I would say the reality Silverstein not wanting BSA to die is not about BSA but about the reality that the vindictive get the BSA at all costs BS that surrounds this case is vastly ignorant of the fact that if there is no pound of flesh to get, everyone gets nothing.

@ThenNow has fairly represented the situation over time.  ...  His above posts are correct and reasonable.

Your statement "everyone gets nothing" has truth too; as the judge's wish that BSA continues reflects other unspoken reasons. 

IMHO ... 

• To avoid a far uglier, larger and more costly liquidation case. 
• To avoid re-starting bankruptcy ... after spending 150+ million ... after 29 months.  
• To avoid opening new huge questions that chapter 11 bankruptcy did not address.  
• To get victims as much money as possible.  There is no guarantee a liquidation would mean more money to victims.  
• To get victims money earlier.  Chapter 11 approval puts money into a trust fairly soon.  Chapter 7 would be an unknown future date.
• To avoid creating many more court cases.  Liquidation would be a BSA only liquidation; not a settlement with all involved parties.
• To avoid asking if BSA can even cease to exist.  BSA is not a normal non-profit.  BSA was created by law; passed by congress; signed by the president.  Though usually an honorific, the law has implications that creates a real mess. ... It's like asking if the federal reserve can cease to exist.  It would probably take an act of congress to take BSA out of existence.  ... Would "liquidation" just put BSA into limbo until a future president re-established BSA, say 10 years from now?  ... Starting fresh with no YP oversight from this bankruptcy agreement?  

                    Short and specific  ...  Index ...  Full document containing 30901

• To avoid a huge number of new questions.  ...  BSA national indebted properties (Philmont, The Summit) and their mortgages ... different debt priorities ... the separation of BSA and LCs ... funding pensions ... etc, etc, etc.

There is truth that liquidation could mean everyone gets nothing.  

Edited June 15, 2022 by fred8033

[ScouterDavid]

6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

@ThenNow has fairly represented the situation over time.  ...  His above posts are correct and reasonable.

Your statement "everyone gets nothing" has truth too; as the judge's wish that BSA continues reflects other unspoken reasons. 

IMHO ... 

• To avoid a far uglier, larger and more costly liquidation case. 
• To avoid re-starting bankruptcy ... after spending 150+ million ... after 29 months.  
• To avoid opening new huge questions that chapter 11 bankruptcy did not address.  
• To get victims as much money as possible.  There is no guarantee a liquidation would mean more money to victims.  
• To get victims money earlier.  Chapter 11 approval puts money into a trust fairly soon.  Chapter 7 would be an unknown future date.
• To avoid creating many more court cases.  Liquidation would be a BSA only liquidation; not a settlement with all involved parties.
• To avoid asking if BSA can even cease to exist.  BSA is not a normal non-profit.  BSA was created by law; passed by congress; signed by the president.  Though usually an honorific, the law has implications that creates a real mess. ... It's like asking if the federal reserve can cease to exist.  It would probably take an act of congress to take BSA out of existence.  ... Would "liquidation" just put BSA into limbo until a future president re-established BSA, say 10 years from now?  ... Starting fresh with no YP oversight from this bankruptcy agreement?  

                    Short and specific  ...  Index ...  Full document containing 30901

• To avoid a huge number of new questions.  ...  BSA national indebted properties (Philmont, The Summit) and their mortgages ... different debt priorities ... the separation of BSA and LCs ... funding pensions ... etc, etc, etc.

There is truth that liquidation could mean everyone gets nothing.  

I think you are correct when you said "There is truth that liquidation could mean everyone gets nothing." If BSA liquidates, the pension plan crashes and the PBGC take it over. The liabilities of the plan is over $1.3 billion (I think) and as I understand it (could be wrong), the government is first in line to get assets. The SBR appraised for maybe $45 million and BSA owes around $225 million. Chapter 7 would be a disaster.

[ThenNow]

10 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

My observation is that over time she demonstrated the impartiality that Survivors expected.  While her ruling will be the ultimate arbiter on that her decisions over two years in my mind have not been slanted one way in an egregious way.

100% agree. I didn't mean to suggest it had not balanced out, especially once the bar date passed and claims were tallied, and later as survivor letters started flooding the docket. 

[Eagle1970]

Would someone please let the judge know that this forum would like a ruling?

Would someone please let the judge know that this forum would like a ruling?

[PaleRider]

4 hours ago, ScouterDavid said:

I think you are correct when you said "There is truth that liquidation could mean everyone gets nothing." If BSA liquidates, the pension plan crashes and the PBGC take it over. The liabilities of the plan is over $1.3 billion (I think) and as I understand it (could be wrong), the government is first in line to get assets. The SBR appraised for maybe $45 million and BSA owes around $225 million. Chapter 7 would be a disaster.

Could you tell me what PBGC means please sir? 

[Eagle1970]

8 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

Could you tell me what PBGC means please sir? 

It is the government pension oversight organization.  I'm no expert on this, but I believe the Pension fund would have fairly high priority in a Chapter 7 liquidation.