Eagle1993

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'm sorry folks, but I just literally can NOT get over this. The Coalition is now arguing that ANY examination of the aggregators must end because the judge, in accepting the solicitation plan that allows all 82,500 claimants to vote, has in effect mooted discovery in to HOW those claims were generated.

Somehow I doubt that's what the judge thought she was doing, but who knows at this point.

 

I see no way this flys.  During the hearing there were several discussions about discovery.   The plan hasn’t been confirmed.  How can they have a confirmation hearing without this discovery?

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And what do you know: The Coalition is also objecting to Rule 2004 discovery as well.

They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.

The argument is, in effect, that now that the court has agreed to allow all 82,500 claimants to vote, there is no legal basis for Century to examine or ask to examine how those claims were generated.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0cf9b37e-1d03-45af-b46d-411e1171879c_6460.pdf

That is garbage.  Even the judge stated she needed to get through the disclosure so she could move on to discovery.   Will be interesting to see how she rules.  

Huge news if true.  
 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The $19 comment comes directly from BSA's own table/chart. It refers to Tier 6 abuse in a closed state. It appears PDF page 41 of this BSA disclosure statement.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

So will the $3500 quick pay be reduced based on state? 

5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Not sure USA Today is a very reliable source from most of what they publish.  

The reporter has been following the case and the only questionable thing I see is that $19 comment. 
 

The truth is that BSA is asking claimants to settle for far less than the average Catholic Church payout of $268K per abuse claim.  They can try to put lipstick on this pig, it’s still a pig.  The question is if that pig can get better if the deal is rejected.   

Per USA Today…

For example, survivors who experienced abuse that did not involve touching, such as being forced to watch porn by a Scout leader, could receive as little as $19.

I think these people could still take the $3500 payout, correct?  It seems like $3500 would be the floor. 

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, non-Coalition, AIS abuse victims = 12,000.

 

But during Rothweiler's cry fest, he said he represented 16,000.  I wonder if BSA is using that 16,000 number instead of the 3,054.  If that is the case, they are under 67%.

I did a bit of digging and found that Big Brothers & Big Sisters do more vetting of volunteers than BSA.  

• First .. they require their professional staff to interview volunteers prior to approval.  BSA outsources this work to COs.
• Second .. they require their volunteers to have monthly meetings with their professional staff.  BSA has volunteers that have never met staff.
• Third ... my understanding is they review social media accounts of volunteers.  BSA doesn't do this at all.  

Does this make Big Brother & Sisters safer than BSA?  I'm not sure ... but I will say there are youth serving programs that vet their volunteers more than BSA. 

I really think there could be a big opportunity for a centralized youth volunteer clearing house.  Basically, submit your details, Facebook pages, finger prints, etc.  They do the background checks & reviews.  Perhaps a phone interview.  Then the "clear" the volunteer.  As a youth volunteer in multiple organizations I would welcome it as I would have to get cleared once.  My only concern would be some sort of political hurdle which eliminates volunteers for some non youth protection issues.  But I digress...

In terms of actually carrying out activities at the unit level, I haven't seen many differences from other youth programs.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Those represented by counsel, especially counsel that are part of the Coalition, are going to hear "I, as your lawyer, am recommending you approve the deal." The question is whether or not victims are going to go against the direct advice of their own personal attorneys.

 

I think we have a few (or at least 1) AIS claimants on this forum.  I'm curious about that relationship.  Who did they see as their counsel?  Was it AIS or Kosnoff or some other law firm?  

The biggest group of claimants in the coalition come from AIS, correct?  My understanding is 25% of the Coalition is AIS.  However, AIS is clearly split and Kosnoff is against the deal while other lawyers are for it.

So ... will those 16,000 claimants get mixed recommendations?  What happens if their names appear on multiple master ballots and their votes differ?  Century went on for a while about this, but I never heard a resolution.  

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I along with others pointed this out and the TCC had started a separate legal proceeding before dropping in in favor of the RSA.

I was looking at that legal proceeding yesterday and it was stayed due to the RSA.  Now that the RSA is dead, I was just wondering if this would start up again.  At this point, I tend to doubt it unless BSA files for Chapter 7.  It seems like the TCC's primary focus now is LC, CO and insurance contributions.  Those are in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.  The value of HA bases are pretty limited and even if some of the loans from JP Morgan are questionable, there are still legitimate secured debt.  Net it probably won't provide much.

The Century lawyer is a bull in a china shop right now.  He will do everything he can to slow the process down.  If the Arrow discovery can open up some questions ... great news for Century.  I think he believes (and is starting to be proved correct) that the longer this takes the lower the amount the Coalition will settle for.  

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-plan-set-vote-abuse-claimants-80333568

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-okd-poll-sex-abuse-survivors-bankruptcy-plan-2021-09-30/

 

The official committee appointed by the U.S. bankruptcy trustee to represent and act in the best interest of all sexual abuse survivors is recommending that abuse claimants reject the Boy Scouts’ plan.

In a draft letter filed with the court, the nine abuse survivors on the committee said the plan is “grossly unfair,” and represents only a fraction of the settling parties’ potential liabilities and what they should and can pay.

Most claimants don’t follow scouter.com or other sites following this case.  They may not read the 1000 pages.  They will look at the letters but I expect they will definitely hear these news stories.  The lack of TCC support is a huge risk and I think the BSA may underestimate the impact.  Hearing the official group that represents you to reject it he ballot is a major deal.  

  Ok, moving on from paper...

Century has been very busy tonight.  They are busy issuing subpoenas ... including to Arrow WV and Ankura Consulting Group.  Ankura served as a consultant to the FCR.

5dfb4003-657b-44ad-a477-f24fee838f65_6451.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

1 minute ago, SiouxRanger said:

Leave No Trace compliant?

BSA wanted to only send a web link, at most a USB but the US Trustee objected as many may not be able to access the web or prefer paper and by law paper is default.  BSA said it would be too expensive ($3M to print and mail) and the US Trustee said if BSA cannot afford to follow the law, perhaps they should reconsider the chapter they are filing under.  

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The FCR/Coalition has proposed a new revised letter to claimants.

 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9e6bec25-c79e-44c4-9305-119362586c17_6441.pdf

They lowered from $1.8 to $1.7B and changed "promptly" to "provide" and removed reference to full recovery.  They also removed the term "billions".  Looks like minor changes/corrections.

Edit:

I love the redlines ... makes checking on changes very easy and quick!

In accordance with the Hartford Settlement, Hartford will contribute $787 million to the Settlement Trust, $137 million to be available immediately to the Settlement Trust on the Effective Date of the Plan and $650 million to be held in escrow until the order confirming the Plan is final and non-appealable.

So Hartford will only initially pay in $137M until there are no further appeals?  Also, Hartford does pay into the general fund, it doesn't look like their payment is allocated to Harford claimants only.

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Century files a "Motion for Clarification" these are rare but not unheard of from where I am at.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8e85eddf-112e-40bd-aaae-110a882a7974_6435.pdf

Century is trying to get at the question of are Coalition fees REALLY TRULY out of the Plan and Solicitation or not?

BSA says the fees are still in the Plan.

and Century wants a definitive statement, once and for all.

 

Moreover, pursuant to the Plan, and subject to the extent approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the granting a motion filed pursuant to sections 363(b), 1129(b)(4) and 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 9019, or otherwise applicable bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy law, the Debtors w

I think the above is how the BSA handled the change.  Basically, was this enough to show the Coalition will not be paid unless the court agrees that the fees align with the code?  And if so, is this enough for the judge?

It sounded like the judge wanted this pulled out completely.  Century's question seems fair.

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

#1  I don't understand this fundamental.  Voting to accept a settlement of BSA liability where those outside any legal SOL claim can heavily influence the vote.  This is a court of law; not general advocacy or marketing.  If the majority of states are closed states (and it is closed vs open ... not grey #1, grey #2, grey #??), then the votes and retrieved funds should go to those that have legal right.  ... I don't understand how funds are distributed to those without legal standing.  I don't understand how the court hears arguments for clients without standing.  

#2  I'm not sure rejecting the plan gets more.  Ch7 could result in less as other claims get higher priority.  Even without Ch7, there is no guarantee a different settlement would be better.  ... if anything, a rejection could let BSA out faster by having the judge find a strict amount BSA can afford and then let BSA out. 

I'm not sure any path toward a larger, more complex settlement is possible.

#1)This will be argued during plan confirmation.  So, lets say the judge agrees with insurance companies (and some law firms) that claimants outside SOL should not get payment.  She can remove them from the plan.  Then ... the question will be the vote.  They can then look at the vote of the remaining claimants.  If they voted against the plan, then a new plan would likely have to be generated.  This is one of many risks that could cause the current plan to fail.  However, if the judge was really concerned, I don't think she would have allowed the current plan to go out for a vote.

#2) If you are in the SOL, you are currently getting pennies on the dollar.  You are likely better off suing LCs (and their insurance) and COs (and their insurance) in state court.  Even if both go bankrupt, you will be splitting with a lot less other claimants.  As others have stated, there are many fewer individuals suing in state court than the mass tort BSA case ... 

Note that BSA's monthly operating report should be posted later today.  This will cover their position at the end of August.  What will be interesting, is this is the first month (August) where they entered with almost no liquidity left in their Unrestricted Endowment Balance (only $9,000).  At the beginning of the year, they had $55M.

Now, since the start of the year, they haven't touched their Unrestricted RBT Balance.  Does anyone know what the RBT balance is?  I wonder if they start taping into that.  Otherwise, I expect the liquid cash balance to start dropping rapidly.

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

• Confirmation Hearing January 24.

 

Starts January 24. 😀

I wouldn't be surprised that this takes months of hearings.  

The disclosure statement had very few substantial changes.  Most of the major fights were pushed to confirmation.  There are MANY issues to be addressed during confirmation.  Each one could take days of hearings.  The judge can't meet every day (she has other hearings).  I can't over state this ... the confirmation will take a huge about of time ... so much so it could put BSA survival at risk.

Even this assumes nothing shocking comes from the vote or discovery.  If something comes up there ... Chapter 7 or a BSA only plan.

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

This is self-promotion, TCC condemnation by implication and fraudulent juxtaposition. Totally misrepresents the facts. Terrible

I don't disagree.  From what I heard, I would estimate 75%+ of the words spoken by coalition lawyers were about themselves and not claimants.  Personally, I would have either gone with no lawyer or hired a lawyer outside the coalition by now.

20 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Despicable. Reprehensible. Disgusting. I cannot believe they said this out loud, in public, had someone write it down and then send it out to the world. Shame on them. Shame...

"Unlike the Coalition, the TCC has no plan to compensate survivors and has not created a multi-billion-dollar compensation fund for survivors through its efforts to reach settlements with insurers and sponsoring organizations to build the most robust fund possible."

I'll try to not guess nefarious motivations. Here is where I think the two sides are...

TCC Plan ... maximize National BSA contribution.  Maximize any national BSA insurance company settlement.  LC, CO, LC insurance and CO insurance ONLY if they contribute a substantial portion to the trust.  Otherwise, allow claimants to purse action in state courts.

Coalition Plan ... maximize National BSA, national BSA insurance, LC, CO and their insurance settlements in a centralized trust.  Accept their best offer within a certain timeframe (essential, negotiate hard until a time period is hit).  Then agree to that amount and move on.  State court pursuits are not an option.  Why is timeframe critical, because at some point, BSA would go Ch7 and the options of LC/CO coverage in a central trust is gone.

To be fair ... I think you could see the Coalition Plan as simply a different strategy.  It could  help individuals who are permanently outside SOL ... assuming insurance, BSA and/or LCs wouldn't have caved under pressure of the TCC and offered more (which was always a possibility).  However, I think it really negatively impacts claimants inside the SOLs.

 I think the coalition decided to go with the quicker guaranteed payout.  The TCC plan would have definitely increased the payout for those inside the SOL but put at risk the payout for those outside SOL.

In terms of voting ... If my #1 goal was cash and I was outside SOL I would likely vote in favor of the BSA plan.  If my #1 goal was cash and I was inside the SOL, I would reject the plan.  If my #1 goal was for BSA to feel the pain of my abuse, I would reject the plan. 

15 hours ago, elitts said:

Plus I see there's no teeth in the legislation either.

15 hours ago, yknot said:

Generally the teeth is that no insurance would cover you if you violate state law.  In addition, if anything happens and you did not comply with this law, good luck in court.  The state doesn't need to enforce it, insurance companies and trial lawyers will.  

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

I think this is where there was a lot of discussions.  I think the clear cut is abuse at scouting events are clearly channeled to the settlement trust.  Also, it seems clear that if there was a non scouting interface with the abuser that was through the CO (for example a pastor who abused a youth outside scout settings) those could have direct claims outside the trust.  The murky area is the relationship with the individual is through scouting but abuse completely outside scouting programs/events/activities.  I believe it is primarily a CO problem.  LCs/national will always be channeled to the trust.

It sounds like everyone had a general idea where this was headed but they need to document it clearly.  I'm not 100% convinced everyone saw eye to eye.  I think we have to wait and see what comes out.

I'll add on a bit. 

Quote

For the avoidance of doubt, no Claim alleging Abuse shall be a “Post-1975 Chartered Organization Abuse Claim” against a Participating Chartered Organization if such Claim is wholly unrelated to Scouting.

This one statement in the plan was debated as too broad.  This led to questions as to "define scouting".  There will be a fight over this language.  BSA came out and said that the trust is about abuse in scouting, not about abuse within COs outside scouting.

The judge seemed to be very clear ... she cannot provide any protection to COs for abuse that occurred outside scouting.  

All of us in this forum can already think of hundreds of examples of grey areas here where someone is tied to scouting but also has oversight at the CO outside a scouting relationship.  COs may find paying into a settlement offers them little protection in the end.

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

So, if this goes down with these bifurcated claims, is this going to carry over to all claims? In many cases, at least with me, I met with and was abused by my SM while at his home or on his boat. Some were part of merit badge work. Others part of the special treatment. How do those fall out? Obviously, merit badges are Scouting-related so I assume an official event or activity. The ancillary things? Not so much. I met him exclusively through the Troop at my church/CO. If all the abuse was on his boat or in his home and not related to Scouting, per se, no viable claim in this case? If so, the mess just became a massive a roof leak with a sewer backup and a fire emanating from the furnace. No one say that the water intrusion from the roof will put out the fire. Promise?

I think this is where there was a lot of discussions.  I think the clear cut is abuse at scouting events are clearly channeled to the settlement trust.  Also, it seems clear that if there was a non scouting interface with the abuser that was through the CO (for example a pastor who abused a youth outside scout settings) those could have direct claims outside the trust.  The murky area is the relationship with the individual is through scouting but abuse completely outside scouting programs/events/activities.  I believe it is primarily a CO problem.  LCs/national will always be channeled to the trust.

It sounds like everyone had a general idea where this was headed but they need to document it clearly.  I'm not 100% convinced everyone saw eye to eye.  I think we have to wait and see what comes out.