CynicalScouter

You are exactly right The section is around page 184: 6. Claims Allowance Process https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e699803-3fcf-4cc3-9c54-2f36667e9b4a_5371.pdf meaning no mass settlements. Meaning interviews and potentially "examinations" by whomever (including lawyers for the insurance companies) And then it lists them in categories Yep. If the Trustee believes the information is false, the claim is out.

This is what is going to be before the trustee for years. Under bankruptcy Rule 3001(f) claims are GENERALLY prima facie evidence of a valid claim. But that's all they are: prima facie or on its face. That's the absolute lowest level of evidence there is. The insurance companies can demand more evidence if they believe that is not enough to prove the claim. If the abuser's name was in the IV files (and the subcategory known as P or Perversion files) that would help the case. That is why these kinds of cases and claims are so hard either in or out of court. Think about it this way: John Doe claims he was abused by Scoutmaster Smith of Troop 123 on December 1, 1967. BSA records indicate that John Doe was a scout in Troop 123 in December 1967 and that Scoutmaster Smith was the Scoutmaster of record. Ok, so you have a prime facie claim that includes name, date, location, and type of abuse. The insurance companies are NOT going to simply based on those two data points going to cut a check for $1 million and I would be shocked if a trustee based entirely on those two data points said "that's proof enough that the abuse took place." That's why when BSA came up with its estimation of claims it was in the $4-$7 billion: they expect that the VAST, VAST majority of these claims are going to be dismissed for inability to prove the claim. For a sneak preview of what that is going to look like, see this from Century's attorneys. They are going to fight, fight, and fight. Possibly all 82,500. Or they'll make low ball offers. They've already spelled out their plan here. POC = Proof of Claim https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/56165724-aaf9-4833-a53d-fd81ae5f5481_5214.pdf "B. In any event, even where a POC satisfies the Rule 3001(f) standard, if an objector refutes at least one of the POC’s allegations, the burden of proof reverts to the claimant. Even where a POC meets the standard under Rule 3001(f), if the objector produces “evidence which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency. . . the burden reverts to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”17 While this is not the place to address the substance of this issue, Century has adduced evidence to rebut the prima facie validity of thousands of POCs, placing the burden on the claimants to present adequate evidence to prove that they possess a “right to payment.” Century expects that in addition to the evidence already before the Court, Rule 2004 discovery will uncover more proof that POCs were improperly generated. Beyond manufacturing POCs, the evidence could identify POCs that were submitted without the alleged creditor’s involvement or any factual basis whatsoever for the claims.Evidence of such deficiencies would (i)strike at the heart of the requirement that, to be allowed, claims must be enforceable against Debtors;19and (ii) rebut the prima facie validity of thousands of POCs."

Right, and all that those records are going to do is confirm that yes: John Doe was with Troop 123 in the XYZ Council (which was merged into today's ABC Council) in 1967. You still have the problem of sufficient proof: is a statement of claim absent any other documentation or anything else sufficient to demonstrate to a trustee the claim is valid? BSA is, in effect, prepared to offer money to not fight that fight 82,500 times. Some/most LCs are going to be willing to do that as well on smaller scales, (10 claims, 100 claims, 1000 claims, etc.). But holdout LCs and definitely the insurance companies are going to fight tooth and claw all 82,500 or, perhaps, offer low ball payout offers ($10,000 on a purported $1 million claim) and indicate that if the claimant doesn't take the offer they'll be deposed/cross-examined/forced to provide more evidence and proof. At that point BSA and the cooperating LCs will be out of this, but the claimants will be spending the better part of a decade in front of the trustee fighting with the insurance companies.

One more note: If you filed a claim against BSA as part of the bankruptcy and it comes time for the trustee to decide how much the insurance companies will pay, the insurance companies MAY let me repeat this MAY demand testimony and cross-examination of the claimant. Part of the insurance company being able to have their day in court is they have the right to depose the claimants to determine if they were really injured and how much. They may or may not do this in your particular case, but they may. Remember: the insurance companies do NOT want to pay do NOT want to pay out on false claims and do NOT want to pay one more penny then they have to (e.g. $1 million for a $100,000 claim) Therefore, they can and likely will demand more information from some claimants and that may mean depositions. They've already asked for at least 100 depositions and if this goes further, I would expect they will ask for more and more. EDIT: And as absolutely sympathetic as I am to the victims here, I also recognize that the insurance companies and their lawyers have a duty to ensure the insurance companies are not paying out more than they have to. They are businesses, not charities, and are therefore going to demand proof of claims before they start writing checks. And that is in some (many?) of these cases going to mean depositions.

Speak to your attorney, but there's a short term and long term ramification. IN THE SHORT TERM if you had sued, then when BSA filed for bankruptcy everything stopped/stayed/paused. So, let me give and example. John Smith sued BSA and the Local Council in January 2020 in New Mexico state court. The BSA filed bankruptcy in February 2020. That STOPPED all proceedings in Smith vs. BSA and the LC. That means FOR NOW John Smith cannot be deposed or cross examined by BSA or the LC pending the conclusion of the bankruptcy. That's the short term. IF however the bankruptcy collapsed and BSA couldn't come to an a bankruptcy agreement or IF the BSA got a bankruptcy agreement and the LC did not, then Smith vs. BSA and the LC goes forward and yes, as part of a civil case, the plaintiff may be deposed/asked for evidence in their case and if it goes to trial yes they can be called to testify. It is simply a matter of law that in a civil case, the plaintiff can be cross-examined if it goes to trial or if a deposition it requested. In the case of sexual abuse, for obvious reasons, defense counsel does NOT want to cross-examine a victim of sexual abuse in front of a jury. But they can ask for information and a deposition and yes cross-examine.

The insurer's "day in court" if you will is at steps #1 and #2. The trustee will operate like a mini-judge, hearing testimony and evidence, reviewing documents and briefs, etc. Appointing a trustee (or special master, or judicial hearing officer, or some other quasi-judicial officer) to hear victims claims is not unheard of and happens often in mass tort cases. To oversimplify again, the trustee will have all the power and authority of the bankruptcy court judge SUBJECT TO THE JUDGE'S OVERSIGHT. So, the insurance companies will have their day in court before the trustee, appointed by the court to handle such matters. When the trustee speaks, it is with the bankruptcy court judge's voice. The insurance company is going to argue to the trustee somethings along the lines of No, the claimant didn't give enough information to prove their claim therefore it should be dismissed Yes, the claimant gave information, but it's a $100,000 claim not a $1 million claim Yes, the claimant gave information, and ok sure it's a $1 million claim, but the insurance plan for that particular year had a $500,000 cap therefore the claimant is not going to get more than that from the insurance company. Etc. If they absolutely don't like it, then they'll refuse and then they'll go before the actual bankruptcy court judge, who will almost certainly tell them to do what they are told. Insurance companies are not going to outright disobey a court order to pay someone something and again, the trustee is acting on the orders of the bankruptcy court. They'll object. They'll appeal. But if the trustee says this is what they have to pay, that's what they have to pay (subject to appeal).

Because this is a related action: many/most (if not all, it is close) of these claims are claims against BSA and the LCs. That's the tricky part and why everyone has said at various points that this is a weird/odd/rarely used way to get a class-action mass tort type situation in a bankruptcy and why the U.S. Trustee filed in their objection a question of whether this was even legal. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/241d24f2-4d85-482f-a433-da28b3f8ce3e_3581.pdf There will likely be an opt-out option where a victim can object to the plan and seek to sue the LC (BSA will be covered by the bankruptcy) in state court.

Right. LCs who participate are not subject to abuse claims prior to February 18, 2020. They have until July 7 or 9 to vote. LCs that participate are deemed "Protected Parties" as in "protected" by the bankruptcy settlement. There are 7 groups of "protected". https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/75cad6f2-cc34-4b0c-896f-0d26815b1189_5368.pdf (i) the Debtors = BSA (ii) Reorganized BSA = the BSA that emerges from bankruptcy (iii) the Related Non-Debtor Entities = Arrow WV, The Boy Scouts of America Foundation, etc. (iv) the Local Councils, so long as the total amount given into the settlement is at least $500,000,000 ("For the avoidance of doubt, if the aggregate of the Local Council Settlement Contribution is not contributed to the Settlement Trust as set forth above, then no Local Council shall be treated as a Protected Party under the Plan.") (v) the Contributing Chartered Organizations (vi) the Settling Insurance Companies, including Hartford (vii) all of such Persons’ Representatives; provided, however, that no Perpetrator is or shall be a Protected Party.

To be clear: other than BSA, there is no "pooling" of victims. That is why this is going to take years/a decade to sort out. Each claim will have to be reviewed, one at a time to determine 1) Facial validity: is there enough information to even gauge which LC, CO, and therefore which insurance policy or policies are involved here? If not, is that amenable at this point? In other words, can claimants file amended claims? The insurance companies have said in some of their documents they don't think so, but then again, they would. 2) Detailed validity: did the claimant provide enough information to prove the claim or demonstrate a claim? How much information/evidence is enough? That's for the trustee to decide. 3) Based on #2, how much is that claimant entitled to, using the abuse claims matrix? 4) Who has to pay what, exactly? The cleanest example I use is that the trustee determines that the claimant is entitled to $1 million, that amount divided between the BSA, the LC, and the insurance company. BSA has said it will contribute around $6,000 per victim (I know, that's oversimplified, just work with me a second). Then let's say the specific LC is producing $10,000 per victim. $1 million - $6000 - $10000 = $984,000 judgement against the insurance company. Repeat that process 82,500 times.

This was posted in another thread, but this section is relevant to this discussion. It is part of a statement from the Greater Hudson Valley Council and confirms that, due to NDAs, no LCs can say quite how much exactly they are going to have to pay into the settlement.

So, remember how I said it was interesting and somewhat odd all the Catholic dioceses had not shown up? They just did. Notice of Appearance: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d754f950-fa71-4a4e-80c7-6a588fc4b8aa_5420.pdf Verified Statement: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7a62ffb7-ae7b-44d5-9355-e497ca133d02_5421.pdf

Mediators Report #3 said mediation sessions occurring around June 3 included "one of the Chartered Organizations." https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e97b2e05-5d1f-47ac-a4e2-541eb269322c_5219.pdf As I said at the time: the only CO that matters worth a bit would be the LDS. The Methodists would have been reported not as a single CO but as the "United Methodist Ad Hoc Committee." The wording ("one of the") leads me to think that meant LDS. It gets trickier with the Methodists and the Catholic Dioceses because there is no one, single, central authority for either here in the U.S. In other words, if I wanted to negotiate with the "head" of the Methodist Churches, there's no one to call. And each Catholic Diocese is independent and autonomous from the others which is why you have the situation where SOME dioceses and archdioceses have appeared, but others have not. But the LDS? Yep, that's one phone call to one person. For example, I am outright shocked the Archdiocese of New York has never filed an appearance where the Archdioceses of Los Angeles and San Francisco and the Diocese of Brooklyn all have.

The reason for many councils doing 10, 20, and even 30 is because with summer camps shut down last year you are correct that there was no physical costs, but there were still salaries to be paid for many of these camp staffers who in many cases are year-round employees. Those fees were simply to try and make up for the loss in revenue to avoid outright layoffs. You also saw some of these turn into complete merit badge mill with 100+ scouts in a zoom session. Again, the purpose was to make money, not keep integrity.

Boy Scouts May Drop $650 Million Insurance Deal Absent Victims’ Backing https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-may-drop-650-million-insurance-deal-absent-victims-backing-11624467587

I was told by my Key-3 EVERY Council signed the NDAs in order to see what was/was not being discussed and debated and to participate in some of the Zoom calls and other things. That does NOT indicate who is or is not going to participate. I suspect there will be several councils that, having seen what the price tag is they are being tagged with, are going to say "no thanks". As I understand it, Councils have been given their price tags (from the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils) and told to vote by July 9 if they are in or out.

This is a separate argument and one that I think worth having. To what extent do high hourly rates and high contingency fees deny victims what they are due? I don't know where that answer lies (20%? 25%? 35%?) but agree there's a debate there. (deleted) I very, very much get the impression that some people in this forum simply wouldn't be happy with any outcome that involves BSA, the LCs, and/or the COs paying one dime and that any costs over that 10 cent piece is "unreasonable" or "unfair".

Right. Again, this is the part that is very quickly glossed over. BSA didn't voluntarily change its ways: it was forced to via lawsuits filed by lawyers (deleted) on behalf of victims. I believe I know what the answer will be: BSA pays nothing or next to nothing because that was "back then".

This times a million. If it had not been for several lawsuits, and especially the Oregon one, BSA would still have stifled and stuffed the IV Files away. They appealed all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court to try and avoid releasing that information. The victims and their lawyers (deleted) were the ones who forced those files open and forced BSA to admit at least a little bit what it had done. BSA wasn't about to admit anything. If it were not for the victims and their lawyers (deleted) in the prior BSA sexual abuse cases (and I will say secondarily the Catholic sexual abuse cases which prompted a lot of re-examinations in this area) BSA wasn't about to lift a finger to help anyone.

response to unacceptable comment deleted along with originating comment by Moderator

Yes. In the end, tort law is about who is liable for the damage and what is the value of that damage. In the context of property damage, it is easier to choke down (what is the value of damage to the car in the fender bender?). In the context of human lives, it is harder but the language remains the same. What is the value of an arm severed in an industrial accident? The value of mesothelioma in a person exposed to asbestos? And here, yes, the value of certain sexual actions committed against minors. In the legal filings they are called the "Base Matrix Value" or "Maximum Matrix Value".

No. I was told way back in January that a (earlier) version was out there but it was/is considered privileged legal information and not to be shared.

6 months to deal with the insurance companies is remarkably optimistic. And if this is a "global" deal, any COs that contribute to the settlement are going to be covered. See Exhibits C and D. "Contributing Chartered Organizations" https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/75cad6f2-cc34-4b0c-896f-0d26815b1189_5368.pdf And the trustee review process could take years.

Possibly. The other factor is that not every insurance company knows which claim belongs to them. Remember that BSA and the LCs used various insurance companies over the years. So, depending on the year that abuse claim may be against Hartford, or Century/Chubb, or some other ins. company. That's why I think some are waiting because they aren't clear what liability they have here yet.

Under the terms, the $200 million can be offset, dollar for dollar, against cash. Some LCs with minimal property (no camps, 1 camp, etc.) may have to just simply come up with raw cash. Others that have property AND cash may decide to use cash in lieu of selling the camp, leaving them with minimal cash flow but with their properties intact. That's why LCs are getting to vote. I guess I can see the argument for some LCs that they'd be better off being cash-poor for several years rather than giving up their camp(s). Others may not have a choice.

The idea is that the decision of the trustee is LEGALLY BINDING in and of itself just as if the bankruptcy judge herself made the decision. You don't need a separate lawsuit. If the trustee says the insurance company owes $1 million, that's an enforceable judgement. The insurance company could then appeal to the bankruptcy judge, but they could not simply say "Screw you, we refuse to pay." If they did, the trustee would notify the bankruptcy judge who would then seek contempt proceedings and/or simply order assets of the insurance company seized to pay the judgement.