CynicalScouter

Attorney for Methodists/Catholics: the COs want to know this information. AND BSA is going through the LCs are telling COs "Don't worry about pre-1976" it is improper that these extra-judicial communications are taking place. The COs have a right to know what the pre-1976 claims are and how much. BSA's response is that the COs do not have a right to know because pre-1976 the COs weren't covered by BSA anyway.

Stang wants Hartford to disclose of the 2.4-7 billion how much Hartford is? Also Stang wants the average of Hartford Settlement per person. Judge "I don't think that average means anything and we don't know how many valid claims" and you can get a calculator and do it in three seconds. So, here's the 3 seconds. 787,000,000/24000 claims = $32791.66 787,000,000/2.4 billion = 32.7% 787,000,000/7 billion = 11.2%

Attorney provides this data point on the Hartford plan. In 1972, Hartford had for BSA plan for $500,000 per occurrence and no aggregate limits. That means JUST 1972 was $1.467 billion. Nowhere does it lay out exactly how much Hartford is cutting its deal for. Hartford objects of course: that $1+ billion number assumes all claims valid, provable, etc. EDIT: the other question is what is "occurrence". Every act of abuse = occurrence?

Century does NOT want this language in the disclosure or wants it modified or with a statement Century disagrees with this.

Judge laughingly suggests that she just direct a statement at the beginning of the disclosure statement "Century disagrees with everything." "We understated what Century's position is" she says a few times.

There are already dioceses who have done it. The idea of more-to-come is a logical conclusion with the Methodists bailing as well.

This is the Green conflict-of-interest statement that was Footnote 93

Judge notes that Humphrey is represented by counsel, but IS allowing him to speak for just this. Survivors struggle with trust in general, survivors are not clear that now that the Coalition is an adversary to the TCC that they will get a fair shake. They are looking to you judge to provide a fair shake. That's all I have to say. Stang wants a big disclaimer in the disclosure about Green. Stang want disclosures of professional relationships between Green and Coalition. BSA supports appointment of Green and is OK with footnote 93 to be put into main body of disclosure statement.

Judge is really trying to understand why the BSA gets to pick the trustee and why there is a trustee advisory committee, etc. She's perturbed. Ed Harron does NOT want the insurance companies to talk, but as the judge notes, the plan makes the insurance companies a beneficiary, therefore they have standing to speak.

Let's see what happens, but TCC chair John Humphrey, who is NOT an attorney, is trying to be heard by the court/judge. That is NOT suppose to happen. Only attorneys are suppose to address the court. Let's see if this happens.

Dallas and Brooklyn Dioceses I know for a fact. Someone had said a Florida diocese had similarly told all the scouting units to get out. Etc.

Two days later. Still not a peep.

Kermit. But it's not easy. Seriously. He's the proposed Settlement Trustee. https://www.scouter.com/topic/32676-chapter-11-announced-part-4-revised-plan/page/79/?tab=comments#comment-529544 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32676-chapter-11-announced-part-4-revised-plan/page/79/?tab=comments#comment-529543 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32676-chapter-11-announced-part-4-revised-plan/page/79/?tab=comments#comment-529550

Judge "I was surprised to see his [Green's] name come back in this case." She said she wasn't saying anything more than that, but it is clear that she is NOT thrilled with Green being trustee.

Remember how in August the judge got really, really annoyed that an attorney attempted to withdraw/dump their client simply by posting a notice to the court of withdrawl? And how the judge noted that in her court, you need the court's permission? Well, the law firm (Mones) is now trying to dump the client. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8eaff829-fbc6-4068-851f-87b877ebc465_6343.pdf

Stang confirms he drafted a letter being reviewed by the TCC members to be included in the disclosure package.

Stang says the BRG data is "not quite ready for a national audience yet". There are objections from BSA about how Stang computes what the real value of these claims are (I take it in the context of statutes of limitation, etc.)

For the longest time the TCC has wanted their view of what THEY view as available LC assets to be disbursed to anyone and everyone. Councils were told NOT to release this because it was mediation privileged.

They attorney from Guam is bringing up again what Stang and others have: the COs should be subject to the same kind of analysis of how "substantial contribution" the LCs are and that includes a listing of all assets and how much of those assets are being put in. The LDS has $100 billion. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mormon-church-amassed-100-billion-it-was-the-best-kept-secret-in-the-investment-world-11581138011 $250 million is almost a rounding error at that point. The BSA wants to push this off until Confirmation and claims that total CO assets vs. contribution shouldn't be the analysis done.

Stang doesn't want the CO claims lumped by religious organization (e.g. Roman Catholic Church, etc.) or even Dioceses. He wants to have all 40,000 COs listed and how many claims per CO. The judge is worried about misleading people.

Today starting at 10am with a break in the middle. https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/moveit/LSS.html

Official agenda for September 23. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8295d93f-c841-4c5d-beb8-7edd6cad2b2c_6331.pdf The first 3 items have been agreed to by stipulation and agreement, including by the TCC, therefore they will likely take about 2 minutes each (Lauria will explain what they are, why all parties agree, and judge will ask for objections. Hearing none, she'll move on). That will leave Debtors’ Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Approving Knight Settlement Agreement and (II) Modifying the Automatic Stay, to the Extent Necessary to Permit Payment of Settlement Amount by Applicable Insurance. (D.I. 6154, filed 9/2/21). Debtors’ Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Approving Romero Settlement Agreement and (II) Modifying the Automatic Stay, to the Extent Necessary to Permit Payment of Settlement Amount by Applicable Insurance. (D.I. 6155, filed 9/2/21).

Won't that be a mess. The Coalition (including many of the victims' own lawyers) are saying "vote yes" and the TCC says "vote no".

Let me stake a claim here (and I am prepared to eat crow on this later). I agree we are at the start of the beginning of the end. Some iteration of Plan 5.0 will go out for a vote very soon (October-November) and the results posted (November-December). There is no way Plan 5.0 or any iteration gets 67%. The judge will be left with three choices: No 67%, order a cram down that includes BSA, the LCs, and the participating COs (LDS at this point). I see this as really, really, implausible. No 67%, order a cram down that includes BSA only (the "toggle" plan). I see this as the most likely scenario. No 67%, let the TCC (by now exclusivity is over) send out its plan. I know that the bankruptcy code allows for multiple plans to be submitted to creditors at the same time, but I do not see there is enough time for the TCC to get its plan out. Maybe if the judge had delayed for 2 weeks, but not now. She seems absolutely intent to get this to a vote and resolution sooner rather than later.

So let's game this out. There are at last count 52000 time barred claims. We know from the NY experience that approximately 25% of claims become actual lawsuits (5100 claims, 1300 lawsuits filed) 52000*.25= 13000 lawsuits that are "dead on the statute". At Hartford-type levels ($787,000,000/24000) that's $33,000 a claim or around $430 million. At Muttsy's $100,000 levels, that's $1.3 billion. Both numbers are well within the realm of what BSA is offering. Again, no amount of fantasy or magic is going to make the statute of limitations vanish or somehow convince insurance companies to pay out $1 million dollar claims in states with statute of limitations bars. As even Muttsy has to admit: the best scenario here is $100,000 and even that is a maybe. I will agree on this point: having been told to expect $1 million dollar settlement offers, victims confronted with the reality of only getting 10% or even 1% of that may just decide to vote against the plan as being insulting, regardless of the reality that the alternative is they were NEVER, EVER going to be getting that. And that means we are in cram down territory.