Jump to content

  • LATEST POSTS

    • Eagle1993
      Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation

      By Eagle1993 · Posted

      New hearing set January 24, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Discovery - Notice of Hearing 4863-1975-2202 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com) Right now it is about the coalition law firms who are not complying with the judge's ruling about discovery (per insurance companies).
    • clbkbx
      Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation

      By clbkbx · Posted

      A good reminder that CSA affects people differently. 
    • johnsch322
      Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation

      By johnsch322 · Posted

      This does not surprise me at all given the long term effects of Child Sexual Abuse on ones psyche. Drug abuse, issues with authority, and problems with relationships do not make a CSA survivor the ideal worker.
    • clbkbx
      Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation

      By clbkbx · Posted

      Having had the chance to revisit the Bates report, it seems that third parties in the bankruptcy case were often another liable party and their share is not included in the analysis. Below are some excerpts to support this (emphasis mine).    I think it would fair to say, the Bates report indicates: the BSA-only share is less than 10% of the total value of the claims and that share is about $3B. (Unsaid is that the BSA’s expert thinks the total value of claims is over $30B.)   From that, the lawyers take all the amounts in the current plan and say: see, all BSA claims will be paid in full.    But as structured, the other main entities (TCJC, LCs, COs) that would/could pay any of the remaining 90% of the value of the claims will receive a release of liability.    #26 “The appropriate evaluation of the reasonableness of the Settlement Trust is whether the Settlement Trust pays Abuse Claims, fairly and equitably, reasonable amounts relative to the harm to the survivor, the responsibility of the BSA, accounting for state laws apropos of each Abuse Claim.” #28 “The Trust simulation modelling exercise indicates that if the average level of the BSA responsibility share scalars of the Trust is about 10 percent for Abuse Claims for Single Survivor Cases and the net of aggravating and mitigating scalars for repeat abuser Abuse Claim is 125 percent, then the Trust will spend about $3.4 billion paying claims at values consistent with simulated BSA-entities responsibility shares needed to match the historical filing and settlement pattern.” #30 “For these reasons, I believe that the average BSA responsibility share for Abuse Claims is more likely less than 10% than greater than 10%.” #79  “As the Claro verdict study group reveals, the institutional share of responsibility is a critical factor determining the value of a sexual abuse claim against an institution.” In Sections III and V, there are discussions of the TCJC and LC responsibilities but is not incorporated into the BSA-only calculation   Lastly, the Bates report, also at #30, indicates that in reference to whether settlements should be lower: “… there are over 27,000 Abuse Claims unrestricted by statute of limitations that could have filed a lawsuit but did not. ” I’m guessing this is disingenuous as many SOL laws only recently changed. It also adds “[t]hese survivors are typically high school graduates in their mid-fifties, half of whom are unemployed or retired.” That is surprising if true. 
    • Eagle1993
      Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation

      By Eagle1993 · Posted

      I expect this is likely being discussed and I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of the deal.  However, it adds complexity to the insurance payouts (they will likely need to know which LCs are in/out before closing their offer) and I expect there will be great debate on how to calculate the required "buy in" amount for each LC.   One benefit is actually for the Ad Hoc committee.  Right now, let's say the Ad Hoc committee is asked to increase the offer by $400M.  They then have to spread that out to the 250+ councils and ask each one for approval.  That is a tough discussion as if even a few councils bulk, the deal is dead.  The win is that the Ad Hoc committee can go back and say this is your number ... are you in or out.   Now, if this is the path, then I think the LC contributions would have to be limited to those who have claims against that council.  Otherwise, some claimants would get payments from councils + be able to sue their own council.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...