MYCVAStory

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Lauria's argument is basically the objectors (TCC, etc.) will never be satisfied, so let's get on with it.

Well, between that argument and the fact that a mediator didn't sign the last mediation report it tells you a lot about how well mediation went and how the Coalition and BSA have become strange bedfellows.

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Lauria says that attorneys representing 81.3% of abuse claimants now approve the new Hartford plan.

That number is self-proclaimed by the Coalition and the BSA uses it to its benefit.  Stang just went there...the Coalition wants this over because it stands to gain $400 million plus from settlements. 

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

As promised yesterday. In short, on average, most LCs are only putting up 17% of their total net assets into the fund.

Total Net Assets as claimed by LCs and posted in the BSA Plan documents. Next I'll look at Total Assets.

17.10%    Average
16.39%    Median
-165.96%    Min (deficit - Gulf Coast)
0.86%    Min (non-deficit - Rocky Mountain)
54.58%    Max (Greater Yosemite)
3    # of councils with % greater than or equal to 50%
5    # of councils with % greater than or equal to 40%
24    # of councils with % greater than or equal to 30%
83    # of councils with % greater than or equal to 20%

Well, it just might be closer to 13.8% and explain why the TCC is saying "enough is enough" and coming out swinging.  OK, for the data-geeks, a VERY deep dive on this gives additional perspective from a friendly accountant looking over my shoulder.  His comment:

The percentages in the summary appear to be mathematically correct based on the amounts reported by the BSA; however, it is important to remember that amounts reported in Exhibit 1 for “Land Buildings & Equipment” are book value. As a result, in most (if not all) cases the percentages calculated in the summary you shared are artificially high / inflated because book value is generally lower than current market value / appraised value.

For instance, in the case of Greater New York Council (#640) (which admittedly is likely the most extreme example), the calculated percentage of “contribution to total net assets” is 43.05% ($9,000,000 / $20,904,468). However, the balance sheet information for GNYC in Exhibit 1 reports “Land Buildings & Equipment” at $5,630,537. This amount is obviously well below the appraised values for the three primary GNYC camps and results in an artificially high percentage of 43.05%.

As a result, the summary is informative but also somewhat misleading because it gives more credit to the Local Councils than they deserve. I understand that the conclusion of whoever prepared the summary was that Local Councils were only contributing 17% of their total net assets (which is offensive), but that percentage is still too high.

In order to make a quick and dirty adjustment for appraised values, we can use the Local Council liquidation analysis (Disclosure Statement PDF Page 306), which uses appraised values for those properties that were valued by CBRE, JLL and Keen. If you take total assets of $4,011,716,000 reported in the Local Council liquidation analysis and back off liabilities of $234,198,591 (PDF Page 333), you get total net assets of $3,777,517,409. Using total Local Council Contributions of $519,588,542 as reported on Exhibit C, you get a total percentage of 13.8% ($519,588,542 / $3,777,517,409).

While the overall difference between 17% and 13.8% is not massive, certain individual local councils (e.g. GNYC) come off looking much better than they should.

One additional thing to keep in mind. Exhibit 1 shows total net assets of $3,303,228,450 as of February 2021 (PDF Page 333). Based on a review of June 2021 balance sheet data, total Local Council net assets have increased by approximately $80 million to $3,382,300,795. In other words, Local Councils certainly appear to be in an even better position in June 2021 than they were in February 2021.

44 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

TCC has consistently had the message that they want the BSA to survive.

No, the TCC has said that officially it is "agnostic" regarding the future of the BSA.  What it wants is what's best for victims.  If that means the BSA survives because it has restructured its finances and operations appropriately, or not, is secondary to the goal of getting the maximum compensation for victims.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Letter posted to Facebook from a law firm.

Link?

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

What follows are the main points of the TCC plan outline (I converted to numbered points, but otherwise no changes)

1. the TCC Plan does not include a fire-sale settlement with Hartford; instead, the TCC Planwill preserve the Hartford policies so that true value can be realized by survivors
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. the settlement trust will be overseen by a disinterested settlement trustee that has experience with sexual abuse.

Thank you for capturing this.  It's CRITICALLY important for this plan to see the light of day and the court allow victims to decide.  The more the BSA and Coalition object the more you know it's going to be a better option for victims!

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

I like the TCC Plan. A LOT. Quite an about face. It is a much clearer path. I’m sorry it has taken so long to roll out. It could well be a game changer. 

They tried to play nice and make it work.  The Coalition overplayed its hand and now must hope, and the BSA too, that this judge doesn't care a thing about victims.  The US Trustee's opinion will be interesting.

Yep. the TCC knew this was coming.  Now we'll see a group that might care about ALL victims.  Worth noting why the Coalition just might think the BSA plan is a good one.  The lawyers that are a part of the Coalition GET REIMBURSED 10.5 MILLION DOLLARS to pay their attorneys. PLUS almost a million a month until this is done.  That's money that could have gone to victims everyone.  The portion below....

19. Payment of Coalition Restructuring Expenses
On or as soon as reasonably practicable after the Effective Date, Reorganized BSA shall
reimburse state court counsel for amounts they have paid to the Coalition Professionals for,
and/or pay the Coalition Professionals for amounts payable by state court counsel but not yet
paid to Coalition Professionals for, reasonable, documented, and contractual professional
advisory fees and expenses incurred by the Coalition Professionals (the “Coalition Restructuring
Expenses”) from the Coalition’s inception up to and including the Effective Date, up to a
maximum amount equal to (a) $950,000 per month for the period from August 16, 2021 up to
and including the Effective Date (pro-rated for any partial month), plus (b) $10,500,000

So....Hartford gets off lighter and drops its administratvive claim...Coalition takes less than it should but its bills get paid...  THAT'S why the TCC is saying "Enough is enough." 

I think I hear wayyyy off in the distance the TCC's planes getting closer and closer to dropping a load of objections and motions onto the court.  I'm still guessing it's by the close of business today.  Whether that's the COB east coast or west coast is the question but they had to expect this and be prepared for this plan to be filed. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, in not so short, I don't see TCC wasting its time and energy filing such a motion and even if they did I don't see this particular judge granting it.

Perhaps.  But if the TCC files a motion it will be interesting to see the law cited.  This judge does like to follow precedent.

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Does it even need to do that or can it just let the clock run out? My understanding is that by law (11 U.S. Code § 1121  not just a court rule) exclusivity can NOT extend beyond 18 months from date of petition filing, which in this case is October 18.

Why not just let the clock run out? It would take 30 days to get a hearing on a motion to end exclusivity anyway

A hearing can be requested prior to 30 days.  It may make sense to end exclusivity quickly before people start believing all the "Settlement reached" headlines for a plan not supported.

34 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Betting odds, anyone? I can put up my Skill Awards collection, several vintage and rare OA pocket flap patches, a 12-year old’s personally carved woggle and an early 70’s Wolf Cub Scout Book sans the pages on tying a necktie. (I trashed them in frustration. No one would teach me and I kept failing utterly.) 

Hmmmm....since it was my suggestion that the TCC just might file a motion to end plan exclusivity so it can file its own plan I'll see your rare OA flap and raise you a rusted metal kneckerchief slide and that sweaty "Guardian Angels" red beret we had to wear for a while 🙂

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

  I'm also not 100% convinced the TCC will sign off on the deal if BSA has one with the Coalition.

If the TCC files a motion to end plan exclusivity, right after any new plan is announced, it's pretty much guaranteed that it has its own plan locked and loaded to be filed as soon as the judge accepts its motion.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Or, to anticipate Kosnoff, unless the new plan is valued at “everything that BSA and every LC owns”, TCC approval does not equal “as much as mediation could produce” but “proof once again the TCC has sold out victims.”

Of course!  But like my mother always said "Consider the source."

It's fair to

24 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

They need to learn to use words like tentative, conditional, subject to and pending official approval. This is not rocket science. “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!” Whoops. Never mind. 

Absolutely.  Anticipate the next BSA plan soon if history holds to form.  Then we'll see if the Coalition signs on to get its bills paid since the judge said "nice try."  Then...a good barometer of whether this is as much as mediation could produce, or not, is whether the TCC signs on too or says "NO WAY" and signals its plan is on its way.

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

We never got to the point of seeing the ballot statement, but I wonder if this talk of "more than one plan" means that the ballot will read one of two ways:

1. Vote for either Global Plan (BSA/LC or BSA/LC/CO), Toggle Plan (BSA Only), or neither.
2. Vote for yes/no for Global Plan. WARNING: A no vote will result in the Toggle Plan being implemented resulting in less payouts to claimants.

Or...remember that the TCC can motion to have its own plan considered.  Considering that the BSA panicked and got itself involved with a BAD Hartford deal that no one likes, and now hasn't figured out how to get out of it without an administrative fee penalty, the TCC may be eyeing its own plan that meets the best interest test in the eyes of the court.

4 hours ago, Muttsy said:

n his defense, I saw and heard things that sounded very much like the RSA/4.0 framework was a done deal. 

The Trust Distribution aspects were affirmed by Lucas and Stang with certitude. Lots of talk about the 3500 dollar benefits and how quickly those men could get the cash to pay their bills  The body language was telling as was the gratuitous comments by Chambers and Kennedy.  Paraphrasing …Money isn’t everything, ya know, and wait until you see the non-monetary conditions and safeguards that will be put in place.

 

Were you sitting with Kosnoff and watching the same Town Hall?!  PLEASE, either wait for the transcript or re-watch it at https://www.dropbox.com/s/7i01h4syy3vtgpb/BSA Town Hall 9-9-21.mp4?dl=0  and provide us with the actual words that bring you to this conclusion.  FYI, NO ONE named "Chambers" was part of this meeting.  The TCC has NOT said that anything is being accepted as stands and has stated that it will continue to fight as best as it can.  They could have said "this is a done deal" but there wasn't a whiff of that.  As far as the non-monetery, they brought up the IV files and reiterated that they are committed to having them become public.  As far as the $3500, they have also made clear that this may be an option for those who want out but NO ONE would be required to take it.  We're all entitled to our opinion but you were really watching a different meeting.

One other thing discussed last night that Kosnoff hasn't mentioned.  The TCC has posted a statement on mental health to include low-cost or free options for counseling.  It's at TCCBSA.COM  There are others but this is a start if you need help.  It's a good reminder when attorneys start screaming about money that there's real hurt out there that money can't fix and at least the TCC is trying to help that too.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

To come back around to this: Kosnoff's view/narrative

1) The abuse victims who make up the TCC are stooges or useful idiots for the evil Stang and other money hungry lawyers to manipulate. They aren't really fighting for victims, they are fighting to line lawyer pockets.

2) The only "real" fight ends with BSA eliminated from existence. To paraphrase his appearance and other statements: you don't negotiate with evil and the BSA is totally irredeemable. Nothing less than unconditional surrender of all BSA assets (and Local Councils, too) is acceptable.

Good description of his warped view of #1.  When the Town Hall video is posted at tccbsa.com people should watch it and decide for themselves whether the two survivors look and act like guys who are the least bit concerned with making attorneys rich.  I'm working now on getting one to do an "AMA" day on this forum when possible.  The problem is that the TCC is bound by mediation confidentiality and limited on what it can say.  That might frustrate people here who have been paying close attention. 

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

According to Kosnoff TCC has “caved” in the RSA and forthcoming plan 5.0

Warning foul language ahead 

https://twitter.com/sexabuseattys/status/1436152941468008454?s=21

My guess: the TCC accepted  the rumored $850 million Hartford deal as “best we can hope for”.

ABSOLUTELY untrue.  Spoke to the TCC...they have NOT seen a new plan and are preparing for it as well as other options.  THIS is an example of Kosnoff really working against the interest of ALL survivors to try and control the narrative for some reason.  Disgusting.  The TCC made it clear it is fighting and will continue to do so. an dis trying to say what it can while under mediation confidentiality.  It's a shame someone not included is damaging the hope of survivors.  Shame.

46 minutes ago, MattR said:

If the judge is talking about it, put it in the ch11.5 thread. If the judge is not talking about it but you think it's related to ch 11, put it here.

I recognize the challenge.  Perhaps we're in the 7th inning stretch (he says optimistically) and when more definitive developments occur we'll be able to focus upon them.  The disclosure statement will produce that focus as will a plan or plans. 

1 hour ago, MattR said:

Just a friendly reminder, but we split the ch 11 thread such that topics including tcc and bankruptcy plans would stay in the old one and all the other topics that came up about yp, moral vs legal, the future of scouting, etc, would go here.

Perhaps I'm dense or over-reading this but I've found this recent split confusing.  The title says "bankruptcy" but how that connects to YP, moral vs legal, and the future of scouting seem at times connected and at others disconnected.  Consider this one vote for starting a new thread after the BSA files a new plan to put things on a less confusing track. 

Friendly reminder below.  I suspect that if the BSA releases its next plan soon it will produce a TCC Town Hall right after:

NOTICE OF VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETINGS HOSTED BY THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF BOY SCOUT ABUSE SURVIVORS

The next TCC Town Hall will be held on Thursday September 9, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. 

Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/87520804555 (no registration required)

or

Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 875 2080 4555

44 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

CO's, if they want, could buy their way into the deal.  I expect the lawyers for the Coalition may be happy to leave them out as they can then sue them in state court. 

Well....the issue there is that many attorneys who deal with mass torts have retainer agreements that specify they will represent clients ONLY in the federal bankruptcy court, and not in State court (where it costs money to file a case).  The TCC has been begging claimants to ask their attorneys if cases have been filed in State court since that number in NY for example is far lower than the number of BSA claims.  So,  if an injunction goes away in a State that was open but now the window has closed there will be victims calling attorneys and being told "Sorry, our agreement said FEDERAL court only."   If anyone reads this and is asking themselves "I wonder if my State court case can or should or has been filed....CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY if you have one!

45 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Sorry, I am a "boots on the ground" kind of person and from what I can see at ground level... someone that donates $100K to a local council does not help my scouts in anyway.

I am REALLY sorry to hear you say this.  If you're involved get more involved.  Speak out.  Be the change you want to see.  Any volunteer-driven organization MUST be driven by volunteers if change is going to come about.  And if none of that is possible or works or you're ostracized, go find another organization where you and 100K can make a difference.  The world needs both.