Eagle1993

26 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No one turned off Zoom. Judge still heard talking.

One attorney said the judge "Neutered the Coalition right at the end there" with the fees issue.

Rothweilier must be ticked.  While the judge let him speak yesterday, I don't think he did himself any favors.  He seemed clueless on how the entire process works.  

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

If 1 & 2 are not covered, why would LDS enter into the agreement.  These are major holes in the liability protection that make a person question it's worth.  

 

#1 is clearly not covered.  LDS, judge, BSA everyone agrees.  LDS cannot pay $250M and expect all CSA claims to go away.

#2 was not exactly clear.  Judge & BSA seemed to agree it is not covered as only "scouting activities" are covered.  That is where the debate of scouting definition came up.  LDS seemed to think perhaps #2 would be covered ... but it wasn't 100% clear.

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

1. My ward leader abused me
2. My ward leader WHO WAS MY SCOUTMASTER abused me OUTSIDE of a scouting event.
3. My ward leader WHO WAS MY SCOUTMASTER abused me DURING a scouting event.

What gets covered here?

Judge was clear ... 1 & 2 are not protected in the settlement, 3 would be covered.  I'm not 100% sure LDS agrees. 

BSA & LDS are not aligned .... it seems like BSA believes this is scouting only.  LDS seems to think every person cannot sue for non scouting if they took the scouting claim.  This is BIG.  LDS seems to think otherwise.... uh oh.  Ongoing discussion as it is not clear in the plan.

Judge is indicating this is not clear.   

There is a fight over the definition of scouting ....

Insurance companies & BSA are working on a definition of scouting....

Judge believes it is important and shouldn't be relying on a dictionary definition.

BSA ... programs offered by the Boy Scouts of America pursuant to charter and through organizations that the BSA has authorized to provide its program.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Other COs do NOT have the situation LDS has.

1) LDS was, in effect, the SINGLE Chartering Organization for all their units. No other group is like that. As was pointed out by the attorney for the Methodists and Catholics (ad hoc committees): the CO wasn't The United Methodist Church of America. It was UMC Church of Smalltown, USA. It wasn't the Diocese of Dallas or even the Roman Catholic Church, it was St. Paul's of Smalltown, USA.

2) LDS' price point was around $100,000 (250 million / 2500) with $100 BILLION in assets. As I said before: for them $250 million is a rounding error. Asking St. Paul's of Smalltown, USA to come up with $100,000 is a LOT different.

100% agree ... I wouldn't be surprised if all of the other COs combined do not hit the $250M LDS offered.  BSA & Coalition are offering false promises of increases they have not delivered on.  They got the easy one (the one with the most money and biggest risk with centralized funding.   If BSA wants good relationships with COs, perhaps their counsel stops saying expect more settlements using the LDS as a framework. 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Coalition lawyers were pushing for "this is just a down payment, there's more to come from the insurance companies".

Of course, as has been pointed out, now that Hartford has set the standard (787 million / 24000 = $32791) no other insurance companies are going to accept anything other than the Hartford deal.

I think the BSA and Coalition are offering false promises if they indicate any other CO will offer the same settlement as the LDS.  They keep mentioning the LDS is a framework for other COs.  I highly doubt that and believe they are not being truthful as I expect they also know other COs will not pay the same settlement rate.

Looks like hearing is continuing tomorrow at 12 Eastern.  

24 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

And if you smelled a sense of desperation when Rothweiler spoke on and on from prepared remarks he read (after saying he didn't expect to be speaking)  it might have to do with the fact that all those commercials and overhead and professional fees for Molton and company may be due and stacking up.  Coalition cut of $752 million might help pay that.

He sounded like a man who bit off more than he can chew.  He talked about the bills.  The travel.  His Covid battle and the fact his mom died of Covid.  I’m sorry, but this is not about him.  Why did he take 15 minutes of the judges time to explain how hard he worked?

Best line ... I wasn't prepared to talk and then went on reading a paper for 10 minutes.   Stang is destroying him right now.  

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I know that the focus is on victims, and rightly so, but I think the judge is having a hard time with being fair to the insurance companies here as well. Why and how is it that the settlement trustee gets to, in effect, set aside statutes of limitations and create claims values that claimants can then take to state court OR direct to the insurers and demand payment.

If I remember correctly, the TCC plan as explained to me would rely on a combination of settlements & state court trials.  Basically, the trustee of the settlement would take cases from the settlement and sue insurance companies in state court.  As they win cases, it would lay the foundation on a settlement.  It would take longer, but likely get to a fair settlement.  It sounds like the current plan took a different approach.

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurance company lawyer today is, if you read between the lines, BEGGING for this to go back to state court because they know 59,000 claims go away. And because they think they've got a better chance to settle for less for far fewer cases/claims.

Insurance just wants delays.  Lets say 59,000 are removed (I'm not 100% convinced as many could all file in NY/NJ using their SOL as BSA was HQ there for a while).  Then lets say 20% of the remaining are false.  That leaves 20,000 claims.  Lets assume all still end up in bankruptcy court.  Per  BishopAccountability.org the average settlement is $268K.  $5.3B .  Rough math ... BSA's current offer is $2B and I don't expect much more coming from them ... most would come from insurance.  So, insurance companies already include $750M and they would have to make up the $3.3B incremental ... so about $4B.  That assumes the insurance companies are correct.  My guess, if the other side is patient, that $4B would be much, much greater.

So, why would they delay if the end result is likely a higher payment then the current deal they could strike.  My guess is that they think by delaying, the other side will negotiate a lower settlement offer so insurance stops objecting.  If the other side was willing to wait it out, insurance would likely have to pay >>>>$ than the current settlement.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

The judge's point was that she wanted "illustrative" examples (victim X, with abuse type Y, in state Z = $A) but that with so many variables offering something more formulaic (which I think TCC was pushing for) to the tune of 82,5000 claims would be impossible or misleading.

I understand you will not have 82,500 unique calculations; however, you know where many claims are occurring, if they are LDS or not (or unknown), what state, SOL impacts, type of abuse, etc.  You should be able to make a range for many of these claims. 

Again, when I voted on the pension deal, it was a very specific value $XX,XXX but even then, it included statements that this was the best estimate at this time ... blah, blah, blah.  While I don't think you can do this in the BSA case, you should be able to give a range with caveats.  The range of $3.5K to $2.7M is just meaningless.  

10 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Well....here's the bait and switch from the Coalition and FCR below.  Note thatthey use the "CLAIM VALUE" of the plan to show a figure to 2.7 million.  This is an arbitrary plan number that is the best estimate of attorneys for valuation.  They "will be valued" but that does NOT, I repeat NOT, mean that any survivor can expect to see that amount. 

I have been involved in a few larger lawsuits.  In all cases, I was given information on what my specific settlement would be if the deal was agreed to. Some cases they were mass tort and my payout was a small coupon. In one case, it was a complex pension case where each individual had a specific unique settlement number (the final actually came in a bit higher than what we voted on).  This was in the range of $40K and while I wasn't physically abused, it was a serious case where I wanted to ensure the settlement was fair.

I do not understand how claimants could be asked to vote on a deal when given a range of $3,500 to $2,700,000.  While there will always be a range, you need to give a more reasonable range.  I would expect my lawyer to tell me a much more narrow range (at minimum, keep it to an order of magnitude).  $0 - $10K ... $10 - $99K ... $100 - $999K ... $1 - 9M.  The fact that the coalition is ok with giving a $3.5K to $2.7M range shows they don't care about their claimants.  They remind me of the lawyers that sue credit card companies, Facebook, etc. and get their claimants $5 and rake in $100Ms of fees.  Typically I'm just annoyed by them as most "claimants" in the other lawsuits have limited damages.  This is different.  Gathering a bunch of men who were raped as kids so you can collect $100Ms+ and give them $3,500 - $10K is horrible.  It is sickening.  The fact that BSA lawyers are colluding with them vs working with the TCC makes me question the honor in the BSA.

I hope the judge ensures there is some methods for claimants to determine their likely payout.  Otherwise, I don't understand why we are even seeking a vote.

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So there will be NO $3500 option on the ballot. All victims will be lumped together for voting purposes.

I would be shocked if the judge allows this.  She seemed interested in collecting the data with the ballot given the concerns the TCC/others raised.  The only reason she removed other proposals from the ballot (i.e. council) was that you could do the analysis later during plan confirmation.  Without the $3500 selection, you wouldn't be able to do that.  BSA was OK with this during the hearing but changed their minds later.  I wonder why.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

If that $3500 is contingent on a) a yea vote that b) results in an approved plan that is different than “Here is $3500 drop your claim, renounce your right to vote, and go away”

My understanding is that if you vote Yes AND selected $3500 ... as soon as the plan is approved (and the money is in the account) you should get your $3500.  I don't think it removes your right to vote and if the plan changes substancially, I wonder if you could change your mind.  For example, there is no guarantee the $3500 remains and is in the final plan.

I think there are going to be several cross tabs on this vote.

- Overall vote %

- Vote by LC

- Vote by CO

- Vote by $3500/total claim

If the total vote is 99%, none of the above will matter.  If it is closer to 66%, I expect there will be fights to show how only those taking $3500 approved the plan.  Or that only xx% of councils were approved.  It seems to open up avenues to fight the plan even if it achieves >66% of the total claimant vote.

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The BSA since at least Plan 2.0 intended the ballot to have an option for "Accept the plan AND I'll take the expedited payment".

Here was the language in Plan 5.0

 

If the ballot will collect this info then I agree they will push this to reviewing the vote/plan confirmation.

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If it succeeds with 2/3rds the $3500 payout folks AND the 2/3rds of non-$3500 payout folks, it lives (it could be killed for other reasons of course)

The question is .. how will she know which individuals plan to take the $3500.  It sounds like BSA doesn't want to know that until plan approval.  You need to know that before plan approval.  So the ballot must include that info.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

TCC throws down the gauntlet.

They are demanding that all 82,500 be IMMEDIATELY classified for voting purposes, and quote the judge back at her. And BSA apparently made a Sunday night shift in its view of voting.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/375adbf4-92db-4a41-b164-2ecfb1fcc7ce_6368.pdf

So this means that the BSA seek to allow those opting for $3500 to vote, swamping the claims of all others.

The TCC is calling this voting diluting and manipulation (pages 9-10).

The TCC now wants the court to order BSA to divided claimants into two groups the order would

 

Beat me by 1 minute on posting this update.  I think this is a HUGE deal.  If the judge allows this, BSA may be screwed and realize the vote is likely to fail.  I wonder if the judge rules in favor if BSA asks for a pause on the plan to renegotiate.  I see 0% chance that those who don't take the $3,500 quick pay out vote.

While it is likely they get 100% of those votes who simply want the fast payout, they would need at least 66% of the votes of those who want a full settlement.  

It sounds like the judge agreed to this (as did BSA) during the hearing.  Now BSA lawyers are probably realizing the impact.

This could be a non issue if the judge denies the request.... so we should know tomorrow as it can't be put off until confirmation of the plan.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

"Certain Excess Insurers" are submitting their proposed confirmation schedule based on what the judge (verbally) directed.

Rather than putting in specific dates (December 9, October 15, etc.) they laid out a formula (150 days after X, then Y).

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dad63f9f-ccb6-42d5-8cd7-527a885bf7fb_6367.pdf

Based on their math, the earliest for a plan confirmation is 182 days after the disclosure hearing.

If the disclosure hearing is 9/28/2021, that means the earliest for a confirmation hearing is 3/29/2022.

And remember: BSA is NOW saying it's out of cash by that point (1Q 2022).

The insurance companies want to drag this out so I don't necessarily believe their timeline, but I have to agree the BSA schedule is very aggressive unless 100% of parties are in alignment and the hearings are essentially rubber stamps outside a few objections.  With the TCC and many claimant attorneys not on board in addition to most COs & insurance companies ... I just do not see how BSA's timeframe is met.

4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

With all due appreciation to the host and moderators, I rarely even look at the other thread.  One is enough for me.  I'm not even sure I could find it.  May I suggest when items are moved you indicate so with a link?

That was a link.  Click on the picture and it will take you to the other thread.

25 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

My concern is the 7 month transition. It needs to be the standard year, if not longer.  ESPECIALLY if the rumors that council's have to formally approve the MBC are true. It will take time in some rural, geographically large councils yo get the approved MBCs in place.

They need to cut one or multiple Eagle Requirement MBs if they add this.  I would be ok if it would be added to a Citizenship MB collection and you have to earn 2 of 4.  If they do that, I think 7 months would be fine .  I feel our required MB program skews to the book/class room type merit badges and this is going to make it worse.

All ... some of the discussions here drifted from the original topic.  So, if it seemed best to move those to the other thread linked above.  If the posts were more closely linked to this specific bankruptcy case, I kept it here.  

12 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This is just my point.  The overall vote for the BSA is for an amount of money that the BSA, LCs, and others are to contribute.   If the a council is not released then they withdraw and the amount that was voted upon is no longer the same amount.  If several large councils or a large number of councils withdraw, then the total could be significantly smaller that would mean that the vote was for an amount that is far less.  That would seem to me to nullify the vote.   This process seems hopelessly flawed.

I guess I'll add my hunch.  If the vote comes back as 95% approval ... I think we exit with the plan as voted on.  It may have minor changes, but I bet the judge will say ... the claimants clearly support the plan, who am I to refuse.  With 95%, it is likely most if not all council and major CO subgroups probably passed the plan.   I think many of these issues will become sticky the lower that vote percentage is.