Travelers Indemnity v. Bailey simplified

What were the "important principles" she worked to protect? (0.00 / 0)

Did Warren ever declare personal bankruptcy herself, after her divorce, perhaps? Are the important principles the same as her own self interest and of divorcing women who want to maintain their lifestyle as single mothers, insulated from creditors?

I noticed this in her wikipedia, is that the important principle too?

In 1995 Warren was asked to advise the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. She helped to draft the commission's report and worked for several years to oppose legislation intended to severely restrict the right of consumers to file for bankruptcy. Warren and others opposing the legislation were not successful; in 2005 Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 21:01:32 PM UTC

Important principles (0.00 / 0)

The important principle she keeps referring to is the preservation of the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts - the 524(g) trusts.:

Section 524(g) was enacted in the context of the Manville bankruptcy, driven by a desire on the part of a broad coalition of interested entities to enable the development of trusts, like that established in the Manville plan, to facilitate compensation for claims that were expected to arise in the future.

The problem was and is this:  1) victims of asbestos exposure face a disease that will affect them late in life, and kill them slowly.  A lawsuit and any judgement is distant.  2) The company that manufactured the exposure might be long gone because of bankruptcy. 3) the insurance company is on the hook for product liability claims that have a very, very,very long life.  

The solution to the problem was to take corporate $ + insurance $ and fund a trust.  The solution is typical Bootlegger and Baptists., the heart of virtually every Democrat program.

The Bootleggers are the Plaintiff lawyers and insurance companies, each who seek a single amount in a trust for the payment of future and current claims.  The Insurance companies want the trust: quantify and pay the claim and be done with the problem.  The Plaintiff attorneys want the trust: take 33% of the payment into the trust as a fee + a fee to manage the trust in the future.

The Baptists were the poor, poor, long suffering victims.  BTW, the long suffering victims get about 33% of total of the trust and the lawyers get the rest. A better estimate of Trust expenses isn't known because, IT'S A SECRET.

Think about the incentives:  Plaintiff attorneys want a lump sum and will err on the low side simply to get a big payoff.  Insurance companies will naturally err on the low side because they want to pay less, not more.  Victims don't have a vote, because many don't even yet know they're victims.

Trusts are not publicly disclosed; they're run, with few exceptions, by the Plaintiff attorney law firms.


Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 17:40:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NO MORE MONEY TO VICTIMS other than $2.8B settlement (0.00 / 0)

This explains why the union and the plaintiff's lawyer made a statement for Warren- they got got a piece of the $2.8B pie.  Of course, the workers still haven't been paid, but their representatives are willing to overlook that simple fact, in the name of politics.  Shame on them.

Any worker who suffered injury and who didn't get a piece of the pie is SOL.  Any worker who wanted to sue Warren's client for its own indepenent wrong-doing is SOL.  These are the principles Warren fought for.  Shame on her.        

---

by: Bravehaht @ Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:50:20 AM UTC