ThenNow

Boy Scouts Says Abuse Claims Likely to Be Paid in Full, With Lowered Liability Estimates The Boy Scouts of America said it now expected it will likely be able to pay in full on the sex-abuse claims that drove it to bankruptcy based on new and lower estimates of how much it owes abuse victims. The youth group on Tuesday said it now projected the total value of claims eligible for payouts to be roughly $3 billion, the midpoint in a range of $2.4 billion to $3.6 billion...The youth group, which has apologized to the victims, says new calculations showed its liability wasn’t nearly as bad as it thought. #### Richard Pachulski, a lawyer for a committee representing abuse victims, told WSJ Pro Bankruptcy on Tuesday that the Boy Scouts’s statement that claims would be paid in full under its plan is “grossly misleading.” The group’s calculations were based on a “flawed analysis that significantly undervalues claims,” he said. If the group is so confident survivors will be paid in full then it should provide a guarantee of that to them and be released from liability only if all claims are fully paid, Mr. Pachulski said. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-says-abuse-claims-likely-to-be-paid-in-full-with-lowered-liability-estimates-11641952637?page=1

This is what I don't get in the "before" and "after" Reports snapshots, regardless the numbers. The Claims Valuation Matrix was said to be based on the data I've highlighted. So, the Claro and Rebuttal Reports have redefined or uncovered new data? Was ist das? I realized it states, "allowed," but baselines are nonetheless used, supposedly derived from the data noted. The Base Matrix value column for each tier represents the default Allowed Claim Amount for an Allowed Abuse Claim assigned to a given tier, in each case based on historical abuse settlements and litigation outcomes which included release for all BSA-related parties, including the BSA and all other putative Protected Parties to such actions, prior to application of the Scaling Factors described in Article VIII.D (the “Base Matrix Value”). The maximum Claims Matrix value column for each tier represents the maximum Allowed Claim Amount for an Allowed Abuse Claim assigned to a given tier after Claims Matrix review and application of the Scaling Factors described in Article VIII.C (the “Maximum Matrix Value”). The ultimate distribution(s) to the holder of an Allowed Abuse Claim that has received a Final Determination may vary upward (in the case of a larger-than- expected Settlement Trust corpus) or downward (in the case of a smaller-than-expected Settlement Trust corpus) from the holder’s Allowed Claim Amount based on the payment percentages determined by the Settlement Trustee.

What changed since 12.5.21 is the Claro Report, which (to my knowledge) we only have by inference via this rebuttal. Absent the Claro Report, I can't see this new one being issued. I may be naïve in that perception, though. Claro apparently created an opportunity to present this updated comparative analysis. But, then again, what do I know...? Okay. The vote also happened, which I shouldn't have been so dense as to omit in my first reply.

In his absence, I am becoming more cynical. Prior to this report, I had not seen anyone pound so hard on the comparative negligence angle. If one thought too long about it, one may be inclined to the see this as a set up for the separation of third-party non-debtors (to whatever degree and by whatever name). BSA: "This is our responsibility and we will pay it in full. The rest of it? Well, see those groups over there? It was really their fault, just look at the historical data! I guess you'll have to go get the rest from them."

What sort of people are qualified to do this work? It's a straight up question. I'm ig'nrnt. Also, why in the world would I want someone else's attorney(s) or their handpicked folk advising a Settlement Trustee on how to pay me (or not)? Another honest question. As with this tight cadre of high-level bankruptcy attorneys and professionals, is there a short list of these peeps milling around in a Delaware hotel ballroom somewhere? If so, I'd rather look in the bar or select from the honorable staff members taking care of guests. This industry is a quagmire.

In fairness, this is a Rebuttal Expert Report refuting the Claro suppositions, valuations and conclusions. He is re-examining the entire landscape based upon the data and exemplars presented in the expert report commissioned by the TCC. As with any rebuttal, the door was opened and he is walking through it, using any and all "facts, statements and evidence" to enhance the case of his client. To that end, I think he did a compelling, professional job. From my seat, he's clearly not an intellectual rube. (This is not a substantive comment, just putting the report in the proper light. An iterative process like this is a terrible context in which to have to vote on something. The plan had four major changes after I placed my vote.)

Meh. Another week of twisting and turning like a Nashville Hot rotisserie chicken.

Yup. Mr. B didn't care for it none either.

Yup. Hard pill indeed. I think it's commonly know as Ipecac. Is there precedent for such? It's seems all manner of wonky. I can think of all sorts of unseemly analogies. My point exactly, but I think it's just sophomoric. I have seen her roll her eyes. Patterson and Mr. Buchbinder set the high watermark for decorum, in my book.

From the filing currently under discussion, with thoughts to follow. (Emphasis added.) "13. As a result of ongoing mediation efforts, the size of the Settlement Trust now stands at more than $2.69 billion. The Debtors and other parties in interest are continuing to mediate on a daily basis, with additional in-person mediation scheduled for this week to reach settlements with parties preliminarily voting against the Plan and to continue to grow the size of the Settlement Trust. The TCC and certain of its aligned state court counsel will attend, and the Debtors sincerely hope they will pivot from blindly attacking the Plan to a constructive dialogue that supports all survivors. 14. As always, the Debtors welcome any guidance the Court wishes to provide to the parties in this case. The Debtors believe the Plan is confirmable, and intend to continue to work at reaching further settlements and increasing support for the Plan, in accordance with their duty to the estates, survivors and all parties in interest." When I've been in negotiations, I've tried to suggest (and not always successfully) that parties quickly find ant points on which they agree. All of the discussion is about "grow(ing) the size of the Settlement Trust," but there is no acknowledgement of the two pachyderms dancing in the parlor. Namely, YP reform and independent Settlement Trust governance. Why are they unable to find any conciliation in these two important areas? I've heard precious little substance from anyone addressing them.

Sorry to quote ThenNow. (Wait. I am ThenNow.) I was referring to the parties and not usns on this thread!

I do wish everyone on both sides could dispense with, "Mom! She's touching me...no I didn't! He stole my juice box...!" How did the value of the claims magically shrink to near the amount of the current kitty? Honestly, I plainly and simply want honesty. Let's find out definitively and see who did what right and/or wrong and let the tree shake out what gives way to gravity. Let's have a fair fight. Lord may we please have integrity in the vote? To loosely quote Mr. Buchbinder, "This is about survivors and not bondholders." Don't tell me you're for me and s/he is not. Show me. Pretend I'm from Missouri. Clients aggregated without proper vetting? Let's see it. Signatures affixed unethically in any context? Bring it on. Master ballots were or were not wrongly used or implemented? By all means send forth the evidence. Does e-ballot stand for egregiously errant? Pull back the curtain. Please. I'm tired of pin the tail on the Donkey Kong and Wack-A-Mole. Sick. Tired. Nauseated. Disgusted.

Hopefully, this is on topic, though there are several wondering through these 20 pages. DEBTORS’ RESPONSE TO THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS’ STATUS REPORT RE: SECOND MODIFIED FIFTH AMENDED PLAN https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/87262082-a853-42e8-8cca-b7e120c2836c_8234.pdf

I'm going to risk reposting this here, though it appears elsewhere on a newly created thread. I would appreciate being allowed to say this on one of the most active threads. It means a lot to me and is relevant to all things BSA Chapter 11 as concerns Scouters and survivors engaged in conversation. My previous post reads thusly: "I have said this before but not for a good while. I'll repeat it now. I (we?) greatly value this forum, platform and conversation. I continue to be grateful for the outlet, even on the occasions I feel somewhat less than resoundingly welcomed. I know when I abruptly came out of lurking and chimed in many moons ago, I interrupted your Scouter conversation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, you have sidled up to listen, heard with an ear to understand and are willing to engage productively. Yes. It's hard for you and hard for us. I resist saying harder, but some will allow me to imply as much."

If posts are being moved, would someone please advise??

I tried to post this earlier with a nice, long intro. It was so good I can't replicate. Anyway, this is worth a read for any who want to brave the dark waters to better understand the survivors in your midst. I have said this before but not for a good while. I'll repeat it now. I (we?) greatly value this forum, platform and conversation. I continue to be grateful for the outlet, even on the occasions I feel somewhat less than resoundingly welcomed. I know when I abruptly came out of lurking and chimed in many moons ago, I interrupted your Scouter conversation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, you have sidled up to listen, heard with an ear to understand and are willing to engage productively. Yes. It's hard for you and hard for us. I resist saying harder, but some will allow me to imply as much. I will hush up now and just say this is a difficult, but worthy read. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/life/health-wellness/2022/01/10/summer-camp-child-sexual-abuse/8650964002/

Anyone have any new inclining whether yea or nay on this request? I recognize the vote tally may be in flux, but I tend to think a significant swing is less likely than others have opined. As we all do, I hate waiting given the gravity of the moment. Doing my share of prayerful intercession for this to get a move on. "Hear us, your honor and speak from on high. I will give you a nice, fat Starbucks gift card to keep you in Venti lattes." Is that a bribe to a judicial officer? Rats. Sir SiouxCity, might be time for the robes of supplication to come off the shelf?

Deleted. Can't figure out technology...Grrr.

I believe you're correct. Also a lyric from the song of the same title by the famous puppet, "Lamb Chop." I don't know if it's a cover, but I dare not listen to check. Okay. I shall not continue, but you started it. "This is the end. My only friend, the end" of this post.

Not sure if this has been posted. Over objections, the fast track appeal of McMahon's upending the Purdue plan is moving forward. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/purdue-pharma-can-appeal-rejection-bankruptcy-plan-2022-01-07/

As a survivor and someone who was briefly on an Executive Board viewing the initial stages of the case (before being scrubbed), I don’t think there is any such “tacit recognition,” as stated. If we received overwhelming recompense - compensation is a bit crass to me, though I’m certain you mean no offense - those who wish to see Scouting continue would be no less intent on YP improvements. The two goals exist independently and intensely so. I would be ashamed of myself if I received an award of any amount and watched BSA emerge without advocating for YP reform. Our opportunity for significant leverage is now. If we don’t seize it and end up squandering the moment, that would be an awful thing. That said, BSA has to come to the table and “make it so, Number One.” (Nod to Captain Picard!)

I am unable to access it, if this is a link. I am a “cotton-headed ninnymuggins,” however so that may be in play. (Nod to Buddy.)

This may be just me, but if you want to get the best take on his passion for clients you need to watch him on video. People I respect don’t care for him and think he’s to be avoided, but he is the first “professional” I saw tear up when talking about representing or caring about survivors of child sexual abuse. Some tell me this can be the result of good acting, but I disagree. I did more than a little acting and have been attuned to stage and screen for about 50 years. Crying scenes or portraying pain and remorse are not easy. Though not an example of this emotion, I found his deposition compelling. Then again, I may be a schmuck. That accusation has been flung in my direction. I duck and dive pretty well most of the time.

That’s the standard per the bankruptcy code. 75% is the unique marker derived from the asbestos cases, but not otherwise codified for mass torts based on other injuries. “I simply state what was told to me the Chinese plate.” (Nod to The Duel, by Eugene Flied. This is a reference to not knowing the answer firsthand, but passing on what one believes to be correct on the basis of the veracity of the person (plate) from whom one received the information. In this case, The Stang.)

That was the settlement (resolution) reached with the TCC in full view of the court, taking it out of an adversarial proceeding.