Chapter 11 announced - Part 14 - Plan Effective

[Eagle1970]

Is it likely this will pause the BSA plan?

[Eagle1993]

8 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Is it likely this will pause the BSA plan?

I doubt it.  They had their chance to pause it, and after briefly pausing it, they let the plan proceed.  I expect they knew this decision and if they expect to impact the BSA they would have kept the pause going.  Just a guess, perhaps hope.

[Timbuktu]

Were payments being processed between the February (brief) hold and today? Do we know roughly what %age have been processed in total?

[Eagle1993]

On 2/16/2024 at 3:42 PM, Eagle1993 said:

Would uphold Purdue plan: Thomas, Kavanaugh

Would reject Purdue plan: Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson

On the fence (or just tougher to read): Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan

Actual results...

Uphold Plan... Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan

Reject ... Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson and Alito

Interesting as the results have the most conservative members rejecting the plan joined by liberal Jackson and the moderates/liberals upholding the plan.

Waiting to read more insights into the ripple effects.  Hoping BSA plan is safe.

Edited June 27 by Eagle1993

[Eagle1970]

• The Trust is aware of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma. The impact of that decision, if any, on the Boy Scouts’ plan of reorganization will be decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the pending appeal from confirmation of that plan in due course. In the meantime, it is business as usual for the Scouting Settlement Trust. My team continues its work evaluating and determining the claims that have been submitted to it.

 

Respectfully,

Hon. Barbara J. Houser (Ret.)

Trustee

Source Link: https://www.scoutingsettlementtrust.com/s/

Edited June 27 by RememberSchiff
added source link

[BadChannel70]

Lujuan claimants filed today in 3rd circuit court requesting additional briefing on impact of Purdue decision. Arguing BSA plan does not pay in full all claims or that is has been substantially consummated. 

Like I posted earlier, this is still a very hotly contested plan...

[SNEScouter]

2 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Is it likely this will pause the BSA plan?

Only my opinion, but I doubt that the Third Circuit will stay the plan now.  It has been in effect for some 14 months at this point.  I won't be surprised if the Lujan & D&V claimants seek a stay, but I expect it will be denied. Recall that several requests for a stay have been made and denied already, including by the Third Circuit and SCOTUS. 

Instead, the Third Circuit will move forward to decide the appeal.  Recall that the case was already fully briefed and scheduled for oral argument in April at the Third Circuit.  However, they decided it made sense to wait a mere couple months for Purdue to be decided before moving ahead with argument and decision.

At this point, the Third Circuit may now request limited further briefing on the effect of Purdue.  That would be sensible.  On the other hand, the issues decided in Purdue were pretty well anticipated in the earlier briefing, so there probably doesn't need to be much more ink spilled on it.  The Third Circuit will hear oral argument at some point, and then render a decision.

The battleground for the Third Circuit appeal is now squarely focused on equitable mootness - that is, whether the plan has been substantially consummated since going into effect in April 2023, and whether third parties have so changed their position in reliance on the effectiveness of the plan,  that it would be near impossible to unwind it.  If the Third Circuit finds the appeals to be equitably moot, it could affirm the plan on that basis even in light of Purdue's finding that nonconsensual third-party releases are not permitted under the bankruptcy code. 

Regardless of the result, expect the losing side to seek SCOTUS review of the eventual ruling by the Third Circuit and/or en banc review (that is, review by the full Third Circuit judges instead of a panel of 3 judges).

Why is it hard to unwind the plan?  Well, for one reason among many others, 250 +/- local councils have contributed millions of dollars to the Settlement Trust, as well as real estate sold or directly  contributed, in exchange for the benefit of the third-party releases contained in the BSA's plan of reorganization.  Similarly, the settling insurance companies (Century & Hartford & a few others) bought back the BSA's liability insurance policies in exchange for significant contributions to the Settlement Trust.  Significant amounts of the money contributed to the Settlement Trust has been spent, making it hard to simply refund those payments.  The plan also involved a significant refinance of the JP Morgan debt that is secured by Philmont, the Summit Bechtel Reserve, and other high adventure bases.   Unwinding all of this would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

Lots of twists and turns stilI to come.  

 

[RememberSchiff]

Post Confirmation Report (12 pages) 06/30/2024

This appears to be a summary of professional fees and survivor claims paid in last quarter and a cumulative total.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/76ac3a87-5de8-4990-b51a-78e5d693372a_12318.pdf

[MYCVAStory]

I was asked to pass the message below on to Survivors.  It doesn't constitute an endorsement on my part.  It's for information.  That said, I do find it intriguing that an attorney, with no shortage of experience in the US Bankruptcy system, is calling BS on the way attorneys take 40% for essentially filling out a form.  I Know, in a lot of cases they do more than that but how great would it be to see a change where those who need more pay more and those who need less pay less.  You know....like any other service we purchase!  It doesn't apply to my personal situation but given that a number of Survivors on this forum have expressed concerns about "the system" I'm passing it on.  I hope anyone reaching out to this attorney will share their opinion of the discussion.  Again, I'm not an attorney, I have no financial interest in this, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.  I'm just passing it on.

July 22, 2024

To Survivors who have filed claims in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case:

My name is Lawrence Friedman.  I am a former Director of the US Trustee Program.  Prior to my appointment to that position, I was a bankruptcy trustee in Detroit where I administered more than 10,000 bankruptcy cases under both Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code.  I discovered considerable fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system, and I began writing and speaking about my findings, ultimately testifying multiple times before the US Senate Subcommittee on proposed reforms to the bankruptcy system.  My inside view led to my appointment as the Director of the Program responsible for the oversight of the bankruptcy system.  Within 90 days of my appointment, I was faced with the mega bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia.  I immediately championed a change in policy which mandated the appointment of examiners in each of these cases.  Examiners bring transparency to the process, and examiners also act as a clearing house for information thus adding efficiencies to the administration of these cases. 

Since leaving the Department of Justice, I have been increasingly troubled by the use of the bankruptcy system to solve societal problems.  My focus is on these mass tort cases where victim Survivors are being victimized again by bad actor tort lawyers.  I believe that my team can bring these matters to the attention of the Court and effectively free up more than $70,000,000.00 in funds which these lawyers are claiming in fees and which rightfully should go to Survivors.  The explosion of claims within these cases is particularly troubling.  I have authored several editorials and white papers on this topic.  That said, real change comes from action.

I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys.  Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form.  The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out.  The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it.  Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form.  The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form.  Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00.  There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules. 

Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness.  My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve.  Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!"

I am interested in chatting with any victim Survivors who have expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which their claim has been handled by their current counsel.  They can contact me with no obligation at:mailto:lfriedman@friedmanpartners.net

[Eagle1970]

On 7/24/2024 at 9:44 PM, MYCVAStory said:

I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys.  Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form.  The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out.  The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it.  Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form.  The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form.  Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00.  There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules.  Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness.  My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve.  Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!"

I represented myself.  It was a substantial undertaking.  Years of filing forms, meeting deadlines, keeping educated and, oh yeah, filing an appeal.  The attorneys will spend far more than $150 to get a case through the process.  I've seen objectors clog up settlements before, causing long delays.  Claimants knew about the 40%.  In an open state, I would have been represented.  However, in my pitiful state, there was not enough to pay an attorney 40% and come out with more than chump change.  I'm sure that most represented claimants will be glad to have their 60%.  I'm not a fan of this action and would not participate in it.

 

Edited July 27 by RememberSchiff
by request, moved response out of quote - RS

[MYCVAStory]

On 7/25/2024 at 8:05 PM, Eagle1970 said:

I'm sure that most represented claimants will be glad to have their 60%. 

I wonder.  I wonder how many claimants called a toll-free number that turned out to be an "aggregating company", had big dollars waved in front of them, had their "lead" sold to a firm, received the bare minimum of service and will be satisfied with the monetary outcome.  It's going to become real when a more accurate picture of the award percentage is known!

[Eagle1970]

On 7/27/2024 at 7:19 PM, MYCVAStory said:

I wonder.  I wonder how many claimants called a toll-free number that turned out to be an "aggregating company", had big dollars waved in front of them, had their "lead" sold to a firm, received the bare minimum of service and will be satisfied with the monetary outcome.  It's going to become real when a more accurate picture of the award percentage is known!

I suspect that the claimants in open states will be much more pleased with their 60% than the pro se claimants in closed states, something I can personally speak to.

[swilliams]

On 7/24/2024 at 9:44 PM, MYCVAStory said:

I was asked to pass the message below on to Survivors.  It doesn't constitute an endorsement on my part.  It's for information.  That said, I do find it intriguing that an attorney, with no shortage of experience in the US Bankruptcy system, is calling BS on the way attorneys take 40% for essentially filling out a form.  I Know, in a lot of cases they do more than that but how great would it be to see a change where those who need more pay more and those who need less pay less.  You know....like any other service we purchase!  It doesn't apply to my personal situation but given that a number of Survivors on this forum have expressed concerns about "the system" I'm passing it on.  I hope anyone reaching out to this attorney will share their opinion of the discussion.  Again, I'm not an attorney, I have no financial interest in this, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.  I'm just passing it on.

July 22, 2024

 

To Survivors who have filed claims in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case:

 

My name is Lawrence Friedman.  I am a former Director of the US Trustee Program.  Prior to my appointment to that position, I was a bankruptcy trustee in Detroit where I administered more than 10,000 bankruptcy cases under both Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code.  I discovered considerable fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system, and I began writing and speaking about my findings, ultimately testifying multiple times before the US Senate Subcommittee on proposed reforms to the bankruptcy system.  My inside view led to my appointment as the Director of the Program responsible for the oversight of the bankruptcy system.  Within 90 days of my appointment, I was faced with the mega bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia.  I immediately championed a change in policy which mandated the appointment of examiners in each of these cases.  Examiners bring transparency to the process, and examiners also act as a clearing house for information thus adding efficiencies to the administration of these cases. 

 

Since leaving the Department of Justice, I have been increasingly troubled by the use of the bankruptcy system to solve societal problems.  My focus is on these mass tort cases where victim Survivors are being victimized again by bad actor tort lawyers.  I believe that my team can bring these matters to the attention of the Court and effectively free up more than $70,000,000.00 in funds which these lawyers are claiming in fees and which rightfully should go to Survivors.  The explosion of claims within these cases is particularly troubling.  I have authored several editorials and white papers on this topic.  That said, real change comes from action.

 

I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys.  Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form.  The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out.  The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it.  Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form.  The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form.  Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00.  There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules. 

 

Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness.  My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve.  Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!"

 

I am interested in chatting with any victim Survivors who have expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which their claim has been handled by their current counsel.  They can contact me with no obligation at:mailto:lfriedman@friedmanpartners.net

 

 

 

I'm such a skeptic.  This, sadly, sounds like another lawyer trying to cash in with more promises that may not end up matching reality.

[Eagle1970]

18 hours ago, swilliams said:

I'm such a skeptic.  This, sadly, sounds like another lawyer trying to cash in with more promises that may not end up matching reality.

No, you are a realist.  Years ago, I was involved in a case in which a similar claim caused a hold in the release of funds.  The larger law firms actually had to pay a 7-figure settlement to the objecting firm in order to get the process completed.  Guess what?  If you are not willing to pay a contingent fee, either represent yourself (good luck) or pay the hourly rate.

[fred8033]

On 7/24/2024 at 8:44 PM, MYCVAStory said:

Since leaving the Department of Justice, I have been increasingly troubled by the use of the bankruptcy system to solve societal problems.  My focus is on these mass tort cases where victim Survivors are being victimized again by bad actor tort lawyers.  

We've been asserting this for years.