CynicalScouter

Thanks, this is what I found. 1) August 16 https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 8-16-21.pdf Stang: "Century has approximately 40 percent of the exposure on the abuse claims..." 2) May 13 https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 5-13-21.pdf Stang: "Hartford is one of the two largest insurance carriers with the largest insurance risk in the case. And the BSA negotiated a settlement with Hartford, by which Hartford pays 650 million dollars on account of no less than 24,000 claims, and it, in effect, tears up the insurance policy, in exchange for 650 million dollars." So, putting this together 1) Century is "approximately 40 percent of exposure" 2) Hartford is "no less than 24,000 claims...24,000 claims...And so, it’s at least 24,000" (24000/82500 claims = 29%) So let's say Hartford is 30% to account for the "at least" and "no less than". 30% of X = $787 million. X = $2,623,333,333 40% of $2,623,333,333 (Century's 40% per Stang in August 16) = $1,049,333,333.2 In other words, if Century and other insurers demand the deal that Hartford got (and why wouldn't they?) TOTAL to ALL victims from insurance on average is $2,623,333,333/82500 = $31,798

The only reason several of these firms choked down the RSA was because they were told "the big money is in the insurance companies". Now that BSA cut the Hartford deal 2.0, there is NO way the other insurers are going to pay one dime more than what Hartford paid.

At one point, and I may be wrong here so bear with me, I believe I read that Hartford's insurance accounted/covered 40% of the claims. Doing some math 40% of X = $787 million. X = $1,967,500,000/82500 or around $24,000 per average claim. No where near the tens or hundreds of billions being discussed. But let's assume that I mis-remembered and it Hartford wasn't 40% of claims but 4% Doing some math 4% of X = $787 million. X = $10,967,500,000/82500 or around $240,000 per average claim.

Keep in mind there is the TCC and then there are literally hundreds of law firms, including the AIS group including Kosnoff. There is no one answer here.

EVERYTHING is about getting more money added. These are lawyers representing victims. It is their ethical obligation to get as much money for their clients as possible.

One of the argument being made is that no they won’t get a vote. And that’s not coming from BSA that’s coming from attorneys for victims in states that don’t have stature of limitations. The argument is why should the 52,000 or so victims in states that have claims worth $0 (due to statutes of limitations) have the same vote as those victims with “live” claims. The Zalkin and other law firms are making the case the votes should ONLY go those victims inside the SoL should have any say and that to do otherwise is unfair.

Letter posted to Facebook from a law firm. “As you may have heard, early this morning, the Boy Scouts of America filed its Fifth Amended Plan. While we are still reading and reviewing the plan, we wanted to highlight some aspects of it that you may hear about on the news and give you our initial thoughts. Links to the plan, disclosure statement, and proposed order regarding voting methodology are found at the bottom of this email. The plan contains a settlement of $787 million with The Hartford insurance company. The Hartford is one of the largest insurers in the case with massive exposure for these claims. We do not find this settlement acceptable and did not consent to it on your behalf. The plan contains a settlement of $250 million with TCJC (also known as The Mormon Church and/or LDS). This money will likely only go towards compensating victims abused through the TCJC’s sponsorship of Troops. We do not find this settlement acceptable and did not consent to it on behalf of our TCJC/LDS clients. Local Councils: $600 million. While we initially supported a resolution with the Local Councils in this range, it was premised on the assumption that the Local Councils and BSA would maximize the pressure exerted on insurers. Ok they reached with Hartford. We are now reconsidering our position on whether to support this resolution. You can view your local council’s specific contribution beginning on page 281 of the Amended Disclosure Statement. You can view a summary of your local councils assets beginning on page 311 of the Amended Disclosure Statement. Approximately $220 million from Boy Scouts of America: For the same reasons we articulated with respect to the Local Councils, we are reconsidering whether to support this resolution with Boy Scouts of America. We expect two things moving forward: 1) we anticipate objecting to the plan on behalf our clients. There will be many reasons for these objections, which we will describe to you once we fully review the details of the plan. 2) We anticipate providing you with advice as to how we believe you should vote. We expect our advice will be to vote not to confirm the plan, but we are still processing the details of this complicated document. The plan can also change as negotiations continue and our advice may ultimately change. Voting has not started: Please understand that, contrary to some reports and statements, voting has not started. How much will you recover?: This is impossible to calculate at this point. The settlements described above do not include many insurance companies and many chartering organizations. It is not until we know the total amount contributed to the Victim’s Trust that we will be able to give you a ballpark estimate as to your recovery. However, even at that point it is difficult to analyze because we do not know how many claims will be eliminated either through vetting or through the “quick pay” option. $3500?: You may have heard this figure either through town hall meetings or on various websites. This is what bankruptcy lawyers sometimes refer to as a “quick pay” option. It is basically an option for people to accept $3500 without further vetting or analysis of their claims. It will be paid promptly, no questions asked. Generally speaking, we would not advise our clients to exercise this option, as we believe it significantly undervalues most claims. What we need from you: In the next few days, you will receive an AdobeSign document that you can electronically sign that authorizes us to use our discretion and vote on your behalf. It specifically rejects your option to accept the $3,500 “quick pay” option. If you believe you would like to elect this option, please call us. In the next few weeks, our clients that a) have not submitted evidence of their participation in scouting and b) were not found on charter rosters, will receive an email with a link to a website where such information can be submitted. We will continue to update you on our ongoing negotiations.”

Nope. If your claim is outside the statute of limitation you get nothing “Statute of Limitations or Repose. The statute of limitations, statute of repose, and the choice of law determination applicable to an Abuse Claim against the Settlement Trust shall be determined by reference to the tort system where such Abuse Claim was pending on the Petition Date (so long as the Protected Party was subject to personal jurisdiction in that location), or where such Abuse Claim could have been timely and properly filed as asserted by the Abuse Claimant under applicable law.” and ”Statute ofLimitations orRepose. Iftheevidence provided by the Abuse Claimant or otherwise obtained by the Settlement Trustee results in the Settlement Trustee concluding that the subject Direct Abuse Claim could be dismissed or denied in the tort system as to all Protected Parties against whom the Direct Abuse Claim was timely submitted (as set forth in Articles IV.A) due to the passage of a statute of limitations or a statute of repose, the Settlement Trustee shall apply an appropriate Scaling Factor based on the ranges set forth in Schedule 1 hereof; provided, however, the Settlement Trustee will weigh the strength of any relevant evidence submitted by the Abuse Claimant to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled under applicable law, and may apply a higher Scaling Factor if such evidence demonstrates to the Settlement Trustee that tolling would be appropriate under applicable state law.“ EDIT: it seems there should be some scaling factors maybe they’re missing or another document?

FYI: worth I think at this point revisiting what the TCC was thinking were fair values for the abuse vs. BSA. BSA's view was and is that total abuse values should be in the $4-7 billion range based on statutes of limitations and other factors. That remains in Plan 5.0. The TCC's position was they were valued at AT MINIMUM $102,716,619,500 (prior to adjusting for statute of limitations and other factors that would increase or decrease the value of the claims). https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf Now here is where I think the TCC is in a MUCH better position than when it filed this in April. The threat that was always hanging over the heads of BSA and LCs was that these 82,500 claim would turn into thousands or tens of thousands of law suits. In that filing, the TCC noted that New York claimants amounted to 5,100 claims. "Pay up" the thinking went "or we bury you in suits." Here's the thing. The New York window has now closed. And we didn't see 5,100 claims turn into 5,100 lawsuits. Only a "mere" 1370+: 31 in NY Federal courts, 1343 in state court. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cb5441eb-c31d-4917-979b-f9bfc64b4833_189.pdf The threat of "pay or we will bury you in civil litigation" is now greater than it was. IMHO.

Major points TCC will not "sell out" the victims (implying FCR/Coalition/everyone else is) LDS is getting of absurdly cheap ($3,000 per claim on average) Hartford is getting of absurdly cheap This is less and less about victims and more and more about getting BSA out of bankruptcy no matter what $10,000-$12,000 on average is absurd for abuse that includes (and I am not going to detail what it includes but it is at the link)

First order of business is deciding if we should move on to the second order of business. I've seen it with orders to show cause. If she agrees that it is too soon, then that's it for the day. Lawyers HATE, HATE, HATE IT because it means they have to argue a) we are NOT ready to go to the second order of business but b) nevertheless prep as much/as fast as they can.

Exactly. The LCs would be on their own, but then again, legally, they are on their own NOW. All BSA's trying to do is use the BSA bankruptcy to leverage a "global" settlement. That said, a BSA only bankruptcy means dozens of LCs go into bankruptcy the next day, but some walk away without having to pay a dime.

It was always, always, always a hard legal sell as to why the LCs (who are neither debtors nor creditors in the BSA bankruptcy) should be able to use BSA's bankruptcy to solve or resolve claims against the LCs. That has been one of the longest running objections and one of the main ones lodged by the U.S. Trustee. If the LCs want to be protected from past claims, they should be filing their own bankruptcies, not trying to climb aboard BSA's. Why should a victim have his claims against the LCs voided/prohibited from going into state court if the LCs are not the ones in their own bankruptcies? How is that due process? Etc. Disastrous? Maybe. But it was always a hard case to make why the LCs should get their claims released as part of this process.

Since we moved, here's all the main Plan 5.0/TCC plan documents so far TCC Plan TCC Motion to allow it to file plan and outlines of the plan BSA Plan 5.0 Amended Chapter 11 Plan / Fifth Amended Chapter 11 Plan Amended Disclosure Statement for the Fifth Amended Chapter 11 Plan Redlines of Fifth Amended Plan and Amended Disclosure Statement to the Fifth Amended Plan Revised Proposed Solicitation Procedures Order Revised Proposed Confirmation Scheduling Order Redlines of Exhibit F to the Amended Disclosure Statement to the Fifth Amended Plan

Yes, but she could have said "with prejudice" is my point. In other words, BSA was stupid to try again, but not outright out of line/contempt.

Any plan requires 2/3rds of claimants in each class with claims valued at at least 50%. 11 U.S. Code § 1126. Since each claim is valued at $1, that's 2/3rds of victims voting. In this case, all the victims are voting on is a plan that keeps their options open: they can accept what the plan is offering OR go into the settlement trustee system or go back into the tort system (item #6)

That was fast, fast, fast. Judge orders TCC motion to delay the September 21 hearing on the disclosure statement to be heard on....September 21. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/b69a209a-5fd6-4e7a-974e-a3355fd445ce_6229.pdf

This was the ruling: https://boyscoutssexualabuse.com/wp-content/uploads/bsa-ruling-on-rsa.pdf She rejected the Coalition payment "at this time" (page 20, line 2).

Right, but she ruled I believe "without prejudice" meaning, they could try again. Doesn't mean it will WORK any better the second time around of course...

Close. Scrapped it as part of the RSA, said OK to try again later.

So, could the following take place: The TCC gets the judge to submit its plan OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the the BSA/Coalition/FCR/Hartford/LDS. The Coalition lawyers recommend to their clients they reject the TCC plan. Now, instead of the BSA plan failing because the Kosnoff/burn-it-all-down groups ensure the vote stays below 67%, now it is the Coalition that encourages enough clients to vote "no" that the TCC plan cannot get 67%.

More filings: 1) The insurers join the TCC motion to delay the September 21 hearing https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3e62a26e-dce6-42a7-bb0b-7b3e4ce77d12_6226.pdf 2) The TCC wants its motion on ending exclusivity to be considered at the previously scheduled September 23 date and briefing done on an expedited schedule. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2af12ca4-9055-40e6-b21f-795c212cb177_6227.pdf

Outline of the proposed TCC plan (quotations from https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/88e3df3e-384a-4c17-8bdd-fa2aaf44875a_6225.pdf) Every single thing they agreed to in the RSA, they now opposed, right down to the settlement trustee. No Gray 1/2/23. The LC contributions are now too low. The entire settlement trustee system and channeling injunction gets reworked. Again: this is a complete repudiation of the RSA. What follows are the main points of the TCC plan outline (I converted to numbered points, but otherwise no changes) the TCC Plan does not include a fire-sale settlement with Hartford; instead, the TCC Plan will preserve the Hartford policies so that true value can be realized by survivors the TCC Plan does not include the proposed $600 million settlement with the Local Councils; instead, if the Local Councils want protection from the childhood sexual abuse claims each Local Council will need to make a substantial contribution that is commensurate with the liability that implicates each Local Council the TCC Plan will not provide a release for Chartered Organizations unless each such Chartered Organization makes a substantial contribution that is commensurate with the liability that implicates each Chartered Organization Non-settling insurance carriers will not be insulated by a channeling injunction; instead, the settlement trust, or survivors who have a direct right of action, may sue the non-settling insurance carriers until such carriers have settled with the settlement trust and purchased back their policies in exchange for adequate consideration any global settlement with an insurance carrier, Local Council, Chartered Organization, or any other party seeking a non-consensual third party release and protection by the channeling injunction will need Court approval the TCC Plan includes modified TDPs that allow survivors to pursue and liquidate their claims in the tort system, enabling them to trigger the payment provisions under the applicable insurance policies the settlement trust will be overseen by a disinterested settlement trustee that has experience with sexual abuse.

And here it is https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/88e3df3e-384a-4c17-8bdd-fa2aaf44875a_6225.pdf TCC wants to submit its own plan ASAP, noting that exclusivity ends October 18 in the middle of BSA's voting (if it gets its way). It this says this It throws the RSA under the bus and argues, in effect, it never should have agreed to that deal. AND the TCC indicates it HAS a plan, here, now, ready to go.

Yep, look like whoever mentioned it yesterday was right: TCC isn't going to wait until October 18 and run the clock out, they want to take over the process and put forth their own plan now. Of course the problem is if this is TCC vs. the debtor and Coalition and FCR and Hartford and LDS, etc. will the judge agree?