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 in

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 ex

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 ”Sta

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

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 bankr

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

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 in

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?