MYCVAStory

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

UMC just offered $30M.  They also agree to work on YPT and help fundraising with councils to hit $100M more to the settlement. 

To be a bit more specific because the non-denominational devil is always in the details:

·        This is an an agreement to try to raise $30 million from various Methodist entities.

·        Of that amount, $2.5 million will be used to pay defense costs when the Methodists are sued.

·        $2 million must be paid within 6 months after the plan effective date so long as the confirmation order was not stayed or appealed.

·        Methodists will have 3 years to raise the remaining $28 million.

·        Methodists will work with BSA to encourage other chartered orgs to collectively contribute another $100 million to the settlement trust.

So....the largest existing chartered org is going to TRY and raise 27.5 million, less than 10% will be provided within 6 months, the remaining will take three years.  The 100 million is a fundraising "campaign".  What IS guaranteed are the UMC releases.

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

It is critical for BSA's plan to be approved; however, even more critical, is that it is built in a way to survive appeals. 

So, that's one vote FOR the plan.  Here's another take, it's critical for this plan to be defeated or rejected NOW to allow the BSA to consider bankruptcy a failure and determine how best to stop the flow of money on this endeavor; money that is NOT going to survivors.   You can't "build" a plan in a way that does not conform to existing laws when your intent is to do the opposite.

45 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Finally, there are questions being raised as to how a single claimant class can have a vote right now when the plan is changing.  Some would have voted before and others after this change.  It sounds like this may be a major issue and now require a revote.  The DOJ raised this during the last hearing.  

This is a bankruptcy tactic.  Send something out for vote, promise that the settlement will only get better, and if you don't like what has happened in the interim, (the deals made make things worse or better) you use that as justification for the settlement having changed.  Yes, at some point the deal does change enough but the announced Century deal sounded like it had been expected.  What hasn't been expected is the DOJ fighting so hard to reverse the Sackler decision, and winning.  No way the DOJ doesn't fight third-party releases with the BSA bankruptcy.  So, consider that domino effect....the Judge acknowledges that the third cicuit doesn't bind her but she agrees with the DOJ stance and does NOT provide non-debtor third-party releases.  Then,  LCs have said that they won't contribute to the settlement unless their charter orgs are protected.  What do they do then?  Cut off their nose to spite their face and yank themselves out of the deal allowing the BSA national to go it alone, or national acknowledges this and does the same?  Or, do the LCs stay and say "Sorry" to the charter orgs?  Does the judge ignore all of it and eventually rules allowing the releases and let it get dealt with on appeal?  She's aware of this hurtling toward this 800-pound gorilla.  Tomorrow will deal with the delay but everyone will be looking to see if there are any tea leaves to be read on whether she believes she has jurisdiction over the releases.

19 hours ago, DayNoomp72 said:

Thanks. Who gets the report and what does it mean in for the process. Does the judge decide if everybody needs to use the results? I don’t really get how it is important. 

It's all used and entered if/when there's a confirmation hearing. 

31 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Estimation of Value. The TCC sought an “estimation” of the value of claims many months ago. That was a midstream effort to peg only that element - value of the claims - but it would have put a stake in the ground around which to negotiate settlements. Insurers fought that and won. In their minds, an estimation would smell too much like a determination of liability. (See, #3.). The TCC was looking to get all the data on past BSA child sexual abuse settlements to factor into that estimation, along with all the other independently available data on how much the cases are “worth.” However, neither “worth” nor “value” are liability either

We're about to hit "Expert Season" where every party hires experts to make their points or rebut those of others.  The TCC back in September moved  to hire Claro, a firm with expertise in assessing value of such claims.  It was approved in October.   It'll be interesting to see that report as well as others when they all start to see the light.  From the docket https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7deb7908-df9b-497d-9bf7-0fe922e7707a_6287.pdf

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

Obviously none of us have crystal balls but if this fails, the statute of limitations barred claimants risk getting nothing.

For many, the current settlement isn't much better.  Many just might want a fresh swing at going to their Stetehouses with new ammunition to change their statutes.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

There is some sort of formula we will probably never see.

Could be.  I think I remember the TCC saying that their calculations also included the LCs being able to maintain their credit rating.  Perhaps they'll discuss more of this tonight at the TCC.

TCC having a Town Hall Thursday night.  From its website:

A Town Hall will be held on Thursday, December 16 to discuss this week's developments, including the newly announced settlement agreements.

9 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If national files chapter 7, the local councils are on their own will likely go down the chapter 11 path that enriches attorneys and provides less compensation than claimants believe as we have seen for the BSA.

That makes a fuller understanding of LC available assets even more important.  Awaiting what the TCC can share and hopefully soon.  Amazing how the LCs said they had pledged all they could....and now here's another 40 million.  Is that supposed to buy the protection for all chartered organizations?

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

Far easier to compensate 500 than 82,500.  The entire BSA cannot provide the amount of money that many claimants feel would be fair.  

True.  THAT is why the insurers are so critical and the Hartford deal such a sin.  The USAG Nasser settlement is largely being paid for by insurers.  For perspective, average settlement is approximately $760 Thousand.  BSA average settlement, not so much....

Some important context on this insurance contribution from an attorney opposing the plan:

Like the proposed Hartford deal, this is an absolute windfall for Century and for the third parties who would likely get a release of liability for paying $0 out of their own pockets or from their separate insurers. 

Century insured the most claims in this bankruptcy -- about 40,000 claims.  With this settlement, the two insurers who wrote the most coverage, Hartford and Century, have now settled out.  If you do the math, this works out to an average of about $20,000 per survivor who had a claim covered by Century, and less than an average of $10,000 per survivor if spread across all survivors who filed a claim in the bankruptcy. 

This means the global settlement fund will now be around $2.4 billion.  If you look at the disclosure statement, the TCC provided estimated how much the average survivor would receive based on a global fund of around $1.6 billion.  For ease of math, you can increase those estimates by about 50%. 

If you were fondled under the clothes, you are estimated to get an average of between about $1,200 and $22,000.  If you were masturbated, you are estimated to get an average of between about $2,400 and $44,000.  If you suffered the worst type of abuse possible, you are estimated to get an average of between about $5,000 and $87,000. 

As noted above, the fine print of these proposed insurance deals is that survivors have to release their claims against any of the insureds of these participating insurers.  We have not yet seen all the fine print on this new proposal, but our guess is that it will require most claims against most charter orgs to be released for $0.  If you have a claim against a wealthy charter, the Hartford and Century deals likely means that claim is released for $0 from that charter. 
 

The members of the TCC made it clear that PSZJ, its lead attorneys, offered to pay 10% of its fees to a Survivor's Trust.  This offer was AFTER it was retained and NOT part of the decision.  PSZJ is the TCC's bankruptcy professionals and per bankruptcy rules paid by the debtor (BSA).  That system is in place in all bankrutcies so that the impaired classes (Survivors in this case) have advocacy/representation.  So yes, the BSA is paying its opponents attorneys in this case.  NO part of the PSZJ fees is contingent upon awards.  The Coalition's professionals have written their fees into the settlement agreement.  No percentage was offered to the Survivor's Trust.  The judge previously has made it clear she is not rubber-stamping those fees.  Lastly, the TCC has said that it has a sub-committee of its Survivors that review all of its bills before voting to approve them.

Bad week for the Coalition continues.  Judge just ruled that it can be deposed.  Insurers lining up to do just that.

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yup and the article even mentioned it.

Thanks....sometimes it's tough to digest every piece of some of the realities.  Gotta go onto Amazon and order my copy of "Late Career Change to Bankruptcy Attorney for Dummies."

Worth remembering, the TCC's lead firm agreed AFTER being retained to give back 10% of its fees to a Survivor's trust.  It's something, and not matched by the professionals from any other group.  I know, I too wish I had a different career choice at this point but still....

One piece of news from the TCC Town Hall is that the Local Council "Dashboards" were submitted with the expert reports and are expected to be posted on the TCC website by Tuesday.

5 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

As to point (3), perhaps the TCC has information on the Survivor Working Group from the BSA and Coalition? For example, has the group met?

 

Given the current sensitivity around mediation I suspect all parties will be VERY careful about what is said between groups "privately."  The Judge booted a mediator this past week.  I wouldn't want to be in her sights for breaking mediation confidentiality!

FWIW....TCC Town Hall tonight.  

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Tort Claimants’ Committee will hold a virtual town hall meeting on December 9, 2021 at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). Zoom: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) Dial-In by Telephone: 888-788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295. If asked for a “Participant ID,” just press # PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to section 1102(b)(3) and 1103(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, the TCC holds virtual town hall meetings for Survivors of childhood sexual abuse and their representatives Survivors who are not appointed to the Tort Claimants’ Committee to provide updates and access to information about the bankruptcy cases. The identity of participants shall be kept strictly confidential, but if you ask questions using the Zoom “Q&A” function, you might want to use your initials or otherwise abbreviate your name because the questions and any answers may be publicly visible or subject to discovery in the Debtors’ bankruptcy case. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this Town Hall will include: Topics Extension of Voting Deadline Communications with the TCC and its Counsel, Mediation Update, TCC’s continued goals of (1) more money for the trust, (2) independent governance of the settlement trust, and (3) meaningful youth protection.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

She must have read that entire document as no one objected to Carey.  Very impressive.

Objections to the plan and supplement are not due until the new year.  She knew they were coming.  This makes the TCC's unintentional email mistake seem minor compared to an intentionally agreed upon deal between the BSA and Coalition to try and install Carey as special reviewer (sort of a trust mediator and not Trustee).  The judge is going to hear a LOT more about mediation now.  Remember, the BSA and Coalition have been saying its been ongoing, intensive, valuable, productive etc.  The TCC has complained that its been excluded at times and non-settling insurers have said the same.  So now we have a judge that looked at the BSA's actions, in light of their contention about the value of mediation, and has said that at least one of the two remaining mediators was not impartial to the standard that the bankruptcy code required.  As well, she also brought up the possibility of eliminating the mediation altogether.  Why didn't she?  Well, there's one mediator remaining and his specialty is insurance mediation.  So, the BSA must now push that its plan was created "in good faith" when one of the mediators was working in concert with them to have a paid role in the Trust after confirmation?  That isn't good faith and the Judge knows it.  The BSA and Coalition have a VERY big problem now and we're still 48 days away from a confirmation hearing with objectror's expert reports and more objections still to come.  

Good day for Survivors in court.  The Judge said that the appointment of Kevin Cary, as a part of any trust, is a "non-starter" and now places the impartiality of the mediation in doubt.  The selection of Carey made her think about cancelling mediation!  But, because one is left, Gallagher, mediation may continue.  Carey is no longer a mediator!!  So the only mediator left is one who specializes in insurance mediation.  The judge is completely amazed that the BSA and Coalition would try this.

23 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

But wasn't the U.S. Trustee against sending this plan out for a vote and confirmation?

The Judge and Trustee are two entirely different entities.  Remember, a hearing or two ago the Trustee suggested a solution was for teh three AIS firms to stop contacting their clients entirely!  

The judge is trying to do everything possible to eliminate arguments at confirmation.  So, this deletes "we didn't have enough time."

54 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Did they push out all dates 2 weeks?  

Not exactly.  Voting report is 1/6, confirmation hearing still 1/24 start, various objection deadlines altered slightly.  BSA spoke about reserving the right to challenge reporting requests.  Sounds like they may not want to report out where the $3500 elections came from as applied to Council.

And with that....voting deadline extended two weeks.  If you thought calls from an attorney were about to come to an end, you were wrong.  If you wanted time to get a ballot and change your vote, you've got it.

Noticed this:

NOTICE OF DECEMBER 2, 2021 VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETING
HOSTED BY THE OFFICIAL TORT CLAIMANTS’ COMMITTEE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Official Committee of Tort Claimants’ (the “TCC”) holds weekly meetings to keep survivors of abuse (“Survivors”) and their representatives informed. The next meeting will be on December 2, 2021 at 8:00 p.m. (ET). The details for the next meeting are below.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Tort Claimants’ Committee will

hold a virtual town hall meeting on December 2, 2021 at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
Zoom: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required)
Dial-In by Telephone: 888-788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295. If asked for a “Participant ID,” just press #
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to section 1102(b)(3) and 1103(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, the TCC holds virtual town hall meetings for Survivors of childhood sexual abuse and their representatives Survivors who are not appointed to the Tort Claimants’ Committee to provide updates and access to information about the bankruptcy cases.  The identity of participants shall be kept strictly confidential, but if you ask questions using the
Zoom “Q&A” function, you might want to use your initials or otherwise abbreviate your name

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this Town Hall will include:

Topics

Communications with the TCC and its Counsel
TCC’s continued goals of (1) more money for the trust,
(2) independent governance of the settlement trust, and
(3) meaningful youth protection.
Voting Deadline and Confirmation Timeline
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Town Hall meetings will occur on every Thursday at 8:00 p.m. (ET) using the same Zoom link above and dial in information.  Recordings and transcripts of all Town Hall meetings are posted after they are concluded at  www.TCCBSA.com.

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

9) The ruling on discovery only goes to venue, not substance. She ruled it is permissible and proper to propound discovery on attorneys who signed proofs of claim. She warned them when they begged her to allow them to do it. Now, as she warned, they have made themselves targets. The basis was POCs are evidentiary in nature in a bankruptcy proceeding and the signatories are affirming they have knowledge of the truth of the statements and do so under penalty of perjury punishable by up to $500,000 and 5 years in the slammer or both; and

10) The Coalition has hired a Mr. Robinson, a high-power US Supremes attorney to fight the discovery. He asked for a stay threatening her being overturned on appeal and she denied.

This was the important takeaway of the day.  Whether the TCC refiles its motion or not several parties stated that a fight is coming over the validity of some votes.   The last matter though, and the Judge making a decision, was telling because the Judge made it clear that attorneys who signed claims were to have first-hand knowledge of the claim.  This can come via discussion directly with the client, reading a client's report of what happened, etc.  She signaled this long ago when the issue first came up.  She made it clear then that she ONLY wanted attorneys signing claim forms for their clients when they had enough knowledge of the claim to do so.  So, the discovery then will look like this "Mr. Attorney, tell me about the process you used to determine that claim 12345 you signed was accurate and truthful."  If, and that's a big IF but I suspect it's the reason insurers are pressing this, Mr. Attorney bought clients/claims and didn't do any due diligence then it's going to put those claims and votes in question.  As ThenNow pointed out, it appears to be the reason the Coalition brought in a heavy hitter like Robinson.  It doesn't want the discovery.  In court, always look to see what a party is fighting or preparing to fight the hardest.  It's often its biggest weakness.