August 19th, 2026 Omnibus Hearing - Meeting Summary & Initial Analysis
This is a long one, took notes during the session. I'll revisit later today when the transcript is released. In summary, good decisions for a number of individual claimants by Judge Silverstein, but no progress on any issues that affect all claimants.
Edit: I'm a Pro se claimant and not a lawyer. If you have specific questions, please feel free to DM me and I'll do my best to help advise.
- -
Court session started with reviewing motions from incarcerated claimants first.
First claimant was requesting a late-claim submission for reasons that were supplied to the court through a previous DI. Judge Silverstein ruled the claim is valid and the late claim reasoning is valid, and has instructed the Trust to accept the claim. The Trust is represented by Mr. Rush.
Second, AB request for investigation, claimant was not able to join.
Third, BM petition motion for proof of claim and motion to compel. BM was not able to join.
Fourth, RM petition motion to compel the Trust to make a distribution. RM received incorrect payment, has been waiting since March 2025. Trust is saying there were errors with release forms and lack of notary; Trust was able to finally receive accurate information and correct forms. RM stated the sum was not paid the amount and was only given a. Brittney Welch from the Trust then explained the 4.7% payment was only paid out, not the entire award. Tough to watch a claimant go through this process in real time.
Fifth, DS petition to file a late file claim. Judge said the submission was interesting. Judge asked is DS would like to explain his communications. DS wanted to know if the court received a response to the opposition, the court confirmed they had. DS has been trying to find the location of the attorney, but he cannot obtain the contact information of his attorney since August of 2020 and June 2021 was incarcerated and has very limited ability to communicate. Trust response is that they never received any records for DS and asks the court to not allow the claim. Judge says it is a point to consider a prejudice to the Trust in regard to the late claims (not sure what that meant). Judge stated that DS did attempt to submit a claim via attorney Mr. Black who is no longer able to be found. Judge granted the request and allows DS to submit a claim.
Sixth, JB request for court order. JB was not able to join or had issues with connection.
7th, non-incarcerated Pro se claimant, ES, appeared via phone. Cross communication with other people, JB tried to join. Confusing as heck. ES got back to his argument, his former attorney filed a lien of 40% in October 2025 and ES was notified by the Trust that the attorney also has an additional 60% lien. ES states there is no documentation of additional 60% lean and it does not appear in the portal. Trust initially said 90 days were allowed to resolve lien, after 90 days Trust would hire an interpleader, former attorney would not engage and would not turn over files. Trust at day 91 said they would withhold the initial 40%, but may release the undisputed portion. Now the Trust is not allowing any portion to be released until a lien has been released. The Trust counsel has even attempted to reach out to prior counsel without success. Judge looked pleasantly pissed. Excellent argument on behalf of ES to ask why the Trust is withholding 100% of the distribution instead of just the 40% lien. Mr. Rush spoke for the Trust.
Evan Oshan of Oshan and Associates of Washington. Oshan has a rigth to his full contingency fee and additional attorneys fees. Mr. Rush said the Trust has attempted 5 communications to resolve the former counsel lien, but cannot until the lien is resolved. Approximately 200 liens have been filed by claimants firing prior counsel. The Trust states they are concerned about their liability for sending the wrong amount and doesn't want to be the one to decide an amount. Judge Silverstein put some heat on Mr. Rush saying he is asking for things that he is asking regarding insurance companies later in todays agenda. Judge then asked Mr. Rush what authority does the Trust have to withhold the funds. Judge isn't having the excuses - she told Mr. Rush the Trust needs to hire an interpleader and got pretty intense. Judge toyed with the idea of calling Mr. Oshan to court. Mr. Rush cited page 11 of the Trust agreement that the Trust does not have the power to resolve conflicts between a claimant and a former attorney. Judge doesn't like this answer. Mr. Rush is reluctant to file interpleader actions due to liability to the Trust, but the Judge does not see an answer she likes.
"Im finding this process unsatisfactory." -Judge Silverstein
Love that. We all feel the same way. Judge is entering an order requiring Mr. Oshan to respond, if he doesn't respond or states he doesn't need to respond to the Judge. Set for hearing on September 29, 2026. Judge told ES that was the best she could do for today. ES was worried that 40% lien was in dispute, why is the 60% still being withheld. Mr. Rush stated Mr. Oshan sent a lien, but left the details of the lien blank. Without knowing the amount Mr. Oshan is wanting to specify, Mr. Oshan is effectively blocking the entire claim. Judge stated the fact the lien was not sufficient and should be reevaluated for validity. Judge is instructing the Trust to reach out to ES outside and concluded the matter.
Next, back to 4th, AB payment dispute. Received $3,500 check, but received only $750 and $800, but never received one time payment. Missing approximately $1750. Hard to understand. Response from his attorney Mr. Cowan stated $785 first payment, that AB had liens and holdbacks which netted the second payment, then one lien was cleared, and a lien research fee of $125 and a remainder to the client for $840; Trust instructed to refund $125 lien research fee. AB is upset that anything was taken out of his $3,500 payment. Judge is taking time to go through claim. Mr. Cowan stated 40% contingency fee, expenses of $420.15. AB is upset, but Judge Silverstein took time to review and explain, but AB was under the impression that $3,500 was not subject to any fees removed (contingency fee, expense reimbursement).
Back to 6th, JB is Pro se incarcerated and would like mail sent to his physical address, not to a processing center, since it is a legal matter. The company in Florida responsible to processing mail is not adequate in delivering mail. The Trust said they reached out to the facility and the facility is not considering the BSA matter legal mail as it does not have to do with his incarceration (criminal law) and would be rejected. JB stated mail is scanned and provided on a tablet, so he is not able to receive forms that he is able to fill out. Judge explained to JB the difficulty of working with incarcerated claimants and is facility dependent. Judge instructed the Trust to reach out and see how it can be able to best accomodate.
That finished the incarcerated and Pro se portion.
Charlie Brown introducing Ben Cramer to introduce a motion. Ben Cramer appearing on behalf of a claimant (JPB?), asking for the court to review the case of the claimant and assign it to the matrix. Complicated motion, too much to capture in here, I'll have to review transcript and come back to this one. Basically seems like a claimant started through the IRO (independent review option) but should be dismissed and go into the Matrix. Mr. Cramer reiterated many points quickly and narrowly. Mr. Rush spoke for the Trust, stating the Trust doesn't have authority to re-accept a claim once it is dismissed even if they wanted to. Judge Silverstein didn't like what Mr. Rush stated, and pushed back on him. Judge and Mr. Rush argued some more that dismissal of an IRO claim with recommendation for re-submitting as a Matrix claim was not the same thing as stating the claim was a $0 award. Judge is not having any excuses from Mr. Rush. This went on ...for a while. Mr. Cramer must have a big smile on his face watching this happen in real time. Mr. Rush also stated the former attorney also filed a lien on the claimant, even though they were fired for malpractice and Judge stated Mr. Cramer could effectively deal handle given his appearance today. Judge was also unhappy the Trustee did not bring this to her at the beginning of the process when there was a dispute. Judge felt the Trustee did not act within her (Houser's) authority to deny the claim. Mr. Rush asked for clarification on one item regarding rule 60 and the Judge asked an order to be submitted by Mr. Brown.
Item 12, motion by claimant that funds they received from a non-trust award should not be used to offset a trust claim. Lawyer Michelle Obuyan (sp?) read a prepared brief stating the Trust awarded a $687k claim and was reduced to $0, for a Tier 1 (severe) claim, due to the fact there was an award by a third-party (school district) from a previous dispute. Very long statement. Good argument. Trust used 'mixed abuse claim' logic to zero out claim. Mr. Rush spoke for a bit. Judge is still frustrated with him from before, but still professional. Judge is not aware how the Trust has the ability to 'setoff' or 'zero out' a claim so she is going round and round with Mr. Rush. God this is exhausting to listen to. Judge wants to resolve this in favor of the claimant, but unsure which method is best to use. My god, it goes on and on and on and on. And on. Judge wants the Trustee to review her decision on this claim.
5-minute recess before last item is called.
After break, a new lawyer began speaking about the Trustees motion to enforce the plan to address 3 preliminary issues. This argument is about the $211m interest ownership. Lawyer stated attached to the escrow agreement is a form over what the tax ownership looks like for the interest on the settlement payment under Exhibit A. Lawyer is being smug and Judge Silverstein is being patient. Lawyer is saying we can't object to the amount in dispute because the Trust hasn't stated a specific dollar amount. Lawyer is saying the insurers aren't following the right steps. Settlement agreement and escrow agreement treat taxes differently. His speed cadence reminds me of "I'm just a simple country lawyer". Lawyer is from Bank of New York.
Point 1: do we need an adversary proceeding? Lawyer argues using an example of LazyDays RV Incorporation bankruptcy case. New lawyer from Hartford insurance is very upset that they aren't given the chance to go to mediation.
I have to stop listening to this for my own sanity. I will let AI review the audio transcript when it is released later today.
This last motion was one that will affect how the $211m interest decision is argued at the next Omnibus hearing in September. Today's motion was defining how they are going to argue it.