MYCVAStory

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Locally, the prospect of selling a council camp(s) more utilized by our scouts than all 4 National camps is not sitting well particularly when Irving incredulously adds, "we share your pain".

My $0.01,

I hope that as a part of this bloodletting every LC will start to ask more questions and press their Execs for answers.   LCs need to be change agents.   With a nod to Santayana, anyone who wants to believe that history doesn't repeat itself truly is headed for seeing it repeated.  What will it cost next time?

30 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, the question becomes are victims now going to vote against a plan that is "only" $850 million (with insurance TBD) in a fit of anger and confusion that they are being short changed? Or will the message get through that $850 million is really the best/most that can be gotten out of the BSA and LCs and that the next fight against the insurance companies is where the "real" money is?

Absolutely true.  A couple things to consider are how this is getting communicated and the level of knowledge of the attorneys.  The "headline" that was easy to write just divided the amount of the settlement by 82,000 and said "Victims to get...."  That should have been accompanied by an asterisk that said "*For Now"  The TCC has been saying all along that it's been trying to wrench all it could out of the BSA, LCs, Chartering Orgs and Insurance companies.  Now the BSA and LC part of that equation has been addressed.  What has to be better understood though will be the fight of a victim's trust (which we've been told will still have Victim representation) and it going after insurance.  PURELY hypothetical so lets not put any down payments on anything, if the insurers have 100 Billion in exposure over the years then less than 1% of this has been settled.  Call it 50 Billion and we're less than 2%.    What I think the narrative is going to turn to very soon is going to be the insurance fight.  That was what the Town Hall was discussing, the trust sending some cases out to start inflicting pain on the insurers so they will settle.  As well, if I'm insurer #1 and settle for X dollars when my exposure was known then I've set the "standard" for other insurers to follow.  That was the problem with the Hartford deal.  It was SO low that it was going to set up other insurers for similar lowball settlements.  Now, the insures know the TCC and Coalition aren't going to take quick laughingly low settlements.  The bad news though is that this will take time and the insurers know it so they'll try to drag it out and cause more pain.  Only time will tell.  Bottom line though is that the ABSOLUTE LARGEST pot of money is with the insurers and always has been.  They know it and their crying that they've been excluded is pretty funny.  As the Hartford deal shows, they weren't excluded, some were just smart enough to know that a lowball "deal" was doomed to failure.  One other thing to consider is that there are attorneys who have been very involved with this bankruptcy, some who have worked hard to stay in the loop, and some who read the same headlines as us.  The media can always find opposing views and the most angry make for good copy.  While he does represent a lot of clients in some way Kosnoff's views from the beginning have been under the heading of "good copy."  His insistence that the BSA be burned down and other invective makes for good tweets and quotes but was NEVER the goal or realistic outcome of this bankruptcy.

What we need to do now if we were victims is catch our breath.  The money from the BSA and LCs was NEVER going to be enough.  Beyond no number ever being enough the BSA is a financially struggling operation with declining numbers that may rebound but we have to deal with today's reality.  The LCs are a part but their independence and while subject to "piercing the corporate veil" in court to force greater payments was an option it's time-consuming (like years) risky, and may have left some victims with NO payment from an LC in a bad SOL State or with little money.  Almost a billion dollars has been wrenched out of the BSA and LCs.  While not enough it's a start and the Victim's Trust will now have the most important piece of all of this, the rights to the insurance policies.  Take a breath, it's been 16 months since the start of the bankruptcy and unless you take the "opt out" payment it's going to be a while until the insurers cough up what's owed.  All of us want what's owed us and the years back that were taken from us.  Now's the time to stay positive and at least be happy that the headline wasn't "BSA and Insurers come to 2 Billion Dollar global settlement."  Check this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57692428   Now the fight will be taken to the insurers who were the beneficieries of our being members of the BSA and we can all prove that the "bogus claim" argument is just that, bogus.  I for one am looking forward to the "public" annual meetings of the insurers, and change in focus for the media,  when questions will be asked.  Take a deep breath and strap in.  There's much more work to be done but like most efforts the harder the work the greater the payoff.

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, generally, generally, VERY generally. But as anyone in legal settlement talks knows: it means nothing until it is finalized, signed, and approved by the judge (and even then, appeals happen).

There are numerous ways this can still derail:

1) BSA cut a deal with Hartford subject to approval by the judge for Hartford to pay out a certain amount. The TCC/FCR/Coalition has said they will never accept that deal. So BSA has to convince the judge to allow it to back out of the Hartford deal (by her not approving it). Hartford is going to argue that a deal's a deal and BSA cannot back out now. If the judge rules in Hartford's favor, the entire $850 million setlement is off and TCC/FCR/Coalition and BSA go back into negotiations/mediation.

2) Aside from the Hartford issue, the insurance companies can convince the judge (or an appellate court) this violates their rights in that it commits them to specific amounts with very little input

3) Some of the insurance companies have also argued that it isn't fair to give 82,500 votes to 82,500 people who CLAIM to be victims but may not be, therefore there should be determinations as to who is/is not a true victim before deciding who gets to vote

4) The victims or some may argue that this violates or interferes with their right to independently sue the LCs.

5) The U.S. Trustee, who is a DoJ appointee, may weigh in on behalf of DoJ and tell the judge the deal's unlawful for any or all of the above reasons. They already hinted at this in a prior filing, and it isn't unprecedented but it is rare. While the U.S. Trustee's position and views are not binding on the judge, judges will take their views very, very seriously.

6) The LCs have to come up with $500 million in cash and properties + $100 million in a promissory note. However, each Council gets to vote on how much they'll actually pay into the settlement. It is possible that there will not be enough LCs voting in support of this plan to get to those numbers.

7) This can go to a vote, and fail to get 2/3rds. In which case, the judge either lets this go back to Square One or orders a cramdown.

Etc.

So yes, there is a broad outline of a broad path towards a settlement. But there are at least 7 different ways (if not more) this can still wind up in a ditch.

Well....hate to throw cold water but...

1.  It was a deal pending a approval of a larger plan AND the court regardless would needed to agree that it met the best interest test.  The lowball offer by the Hartford and the BSA's attempt to show that it was part of "their" deal to all survivor made that unlikely from the jump.

2.  The judge will say "Go deal with that later."

3.  That's how bankruptcy works.  People enter a class and get a vote.  And....the reason bankruptcy isn't the place for sexual abuse. 

4.  Bankruptcy law allows for this exact channeling.

5.  While the Trustee certainly has an opinion the judge often considers it but doesn't pay much attention if the major parties and claimants are ok with the agreement. 

6.  Then it's likely that a specific LC might not receive the injunction or their "share" will be made up elsewhere or they will have their own promissory note.  Certainly if enough LCs disagree this could be derailed but there's every indication that the Execs of these LCs are supportive of keeping their jobs in the future.

7.  Could happen but remember that attorneys by right have the ability to approve or disapprove the agreement and sign for their clients unless advised otherwise.  The TCC has said that it will publish an FAQ AND continue town halls to educate so that victims may make their best decision.

Again, hate to throw cold water but while there are paths that could cause this to derail some are far less likely than others.  We all need to remember too that those on this forum are VERY engaged and far from the "typical" claimant.  The next month or two shall be interesting.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Moreover, my argument would be, why do victims around the COUNTRY get to decide or have anything to do with whether I can or cannot sue my LC?

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And the counter will be that 99.9% of victims cannot deprive that 0.1% of victims from suing their LC.

Moreover, my argument would be, why do victims around the COUNTRY get to decide or have anything to do with whether I can or cannot sue my LC?

Well....because bankruptcy law allows "non-debtor" entities to receive "non-consensual" releases from a class if in the eye of the court the relief provided (in this case by the LCs) is significant enough to get the debtor out of bankruptcy, and of course the class accepts it.    That's reason #72 why bankruptcy law was NEVER designed to address sexual assault issues.

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

In short, and as was laid out last night in the TCC Zoom call, the Proof of Claim document was just the start. The Trust Disbursement Plan (TDP) calls for two tracks:

1) Expedited: Your Proof of Claim gets you $3500 but you waive any and all rights. That's it. Done. No questions asked.

2) Trust Claim Submissions: You need to submit a brand new document with lots more information and be subject to interviews.

Some will be happy to take the $3500 and move on.  That decision should be respected and unfortunately it might be $3500 more than they had a path to seeing before this.  Should it be more.  Of course.  But in relation to number two, every victim and party to this should demand that only validated claims receive awards.  The TCC has made it clear that a dollar given to a bogus claim is a dollar that can't be shared among those that are real.  That deserves review.  How that's done will be the work of the Trustee.  Victims should at least take some solace knowing that there are professionals that specialize in this.  Because primarily of the Catholic Church bankruptcy there are procedures for validating individual claims.  The Trust should be spelling this out.  Will it mean more work and more wounds opened?  Unfortunately yes.  But, it isn't realistic to expect a check in the mail simply by filling out a form.  This IS also one of those areas where some victims, maybe many, will say My attorney earned their money" when they are tasked with submitting documentation.  Do I want to deal with all of this and relive what happened?  Of course not.  But I accept that I owe it to every other victim to provide appropriate documentation to share in whatever money is available.  For some that will be easy.  For others VERY hard for a lot of reasons.  But, until we have a lie detector that's fool-proof there's little alternative.

23 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Why would a claimant or attorney representing a large number of claimants in closed or Grey jurisdictions agree to this?

Because if you have thousands of clients and they receive relatively small amounts each it adds up and becomes a large amount for you.  Welcome to the world of Mass Tort Attorneys.  Asbestos yesterday, BSA abuse today, Something else tomorrow.  All those infomercials urging victims to come forward work.  I hope that the thousands of clients who now have thousands of questions about their individual cases are now getting their calls and email returned.  The TCC's professionals represents that class and not individuals.  As they commented last night they will produce an FAQ soon but if a victim has an individual question they need to ask their individual attorney,  For some, given the number of clients, that might be difficult.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

But LCs are not going thru bankruptcy and (here's my confusion) ... only getting a settlement / protection for abuse?  I'm not even sure how that happens structurally.  LCs will be the same company as before, but they are "protected parties".  Somehow they share a protection from BSA's bankruptcy / settlement.  So the question is can previous abuse / cases somehow get around the protection?  Approach from a different view / different concept.  Or perhaps currently time-barred SOLs ... if the SOL is extended ... then can get past settlement protection because they were not part of the settlement.  

They are protected because they agreed to contribute.  Essentially they have "bought" their permanent injunction.  Some attorneys have said they will object to this and the US Trustee will weigh in but at the end of teh day Bankruptcy Judges lean toward being able to say "If the vast majority of the parties agree this is a good idea who am I to disagree?"  Then, the judge can kick it to a higher court if that's where anyone wants to go.  The insurers are already eyeing that.

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

They would also need the trustee to allow them to sue BSA/LC. 

This is an important issue to understand.  If the agreement essentially said Anyone who wants to opt out can do so" it would produce an Oklahoma-style land rush on cases.  The effect of that would be to eliminate insurance proceeds from all but the cases that make it to judgement.  Essentially, the available proceeds will run out and leave victims with NO coverage.  The trust will now determine which cases are "slam dunks" and allow them to proceed.  THAT will place pressure on insurers.  They WILL come to the table to stop the bleeding.  As well, the trust will more than likely negotiate with those cases so that they will provide a percentage of any award back to the trust.  That's a win-win.

49 minutes ago, Rabid said:

Texas has no statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor. How is it that they are ‘Gray 3’?

That's for criminal prosecution.  Civil isn't the same.  Here's a great tracker from the Childusa site: https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-SOL-Tracker.pdf

17 minutes ago, Bronco1821 said:

I am having trouble finding the table that they reference tonight regarding the different states statutes of limitations.  They said all the states were grouped into 5 tiers.  Best to worst.  I can’t seem to find that table...any help?

All docs to be linked via TCCBSA.COM for those who don't want to deal with the Omni site.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

THIS is the Cleary-type reporting I was hoping for. Annual data on how often BSA is failing at protecting youth.

Yes, this has been the stated goal of the TCC since the beginning.  Going forward, transparency for the public AND publication of those who are a danger to the community.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Regarding Hartford: BSA wants out of the deal, but if the judge decides to require the Hartford deal (because BSA signed that deal) is part of the settlement, then the RSA falls apart.

RSA says LCs are paying $500 million. The TCC Zoom says $600 million.

Plus 100 mil promissory note.

34 minutes ago, yknot said:

Whenever YP comes up we seem to instantly sort into these completely polarized nuclear bomb positions. 

Yes, BSA has improved its YP. Yes, it is harder to abuse children in scouting today. Yes, child sexual abuse is a prevalent problem in society.

I have a hunch you're going to hear in the Town Hall meeting tonight how the TCC has addressed its YP concerns for change moving forward.

10 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The body language of the TCC people last night was unmistakable. The mediation has fully finally failed.

I disagree.  What they said, and it showed, was that they have been working hard on this, had hoped to say more, but because of mediation confidentiality had to wait a bit more before getting into details.  Failed mediation would have meant no agreement was near.  That wasn't the message.  At this point all parties have to wait for the BSA's filings.  The TCC said it hope that would be today but asked for patience.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

RSA = restructuring support agreement I believe?

Yes.  It basically means the parties are saying "We agree with this in principal and with the critical items.  Now we'll work on getting it ready for a vote."  It does NOT mean that it's a done deal however.  Parties  including insurers can still object.

Apparently the TCCBSA website mixed up the day/date for the next Town Hall.  It's been corrected and is Wednesday this month:

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 Wednesday, June 30, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. 

Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/88993247600 (no registration required)

or

Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 889 9324 7600

To be discussed:

• Status of Boy Scouts disclosure statement
• Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, local councils, chartered organizations, and insurers
• Other motions pending before the bankruptcy court
• The plan confirmation process

5 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Pretty impressive powers of prediction - almost to the day. Any thoughts on this week's Powerball?

I'm the wrong guy to ask for predictions.  I'm still waiting for my stock in Betamax, Enron, and Delorean Auto to come back.

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I am not sure it was a TCC lawyer who said that but rather a member of the TCC. I just reread the FAQ that the TCC put together and it isn’t exactly clear why one would need a lawyer though I do have one.  My understanding is that once the settlement trust is established that would be when a lawyer would be most helpful. I would like to hear some real expertise on this. 

The TCC has stated that this is a highly personal decision based upon many factors.  In States where victims may pursue cases against their abuser because the Statute allows it it's critical to have a case filed before any deadline AND an attorney specializing in abuse cases.  As well, if this goes to a trust to be sorted out for some the complexity may necessitate having legal expertise.  Again, it depends on the individual AND trust distribution plan.  I'll reserve comment on what is an "appropriate" fee or percentage to pay and only say that ALL financial agreements between clients and attorneys are negotiable.  What's "standard" is only so as long as it's accepted.  The most important point to all of this is that the TCC's attorneys/professionals and Coalition's counterparts represent those entities and NOT individual claimants.  Individual claimants MUST retain an attorney if they so choose for their individual situations.

FYI...Town Hall:

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, June 30, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. 

Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/88993247600 (no registration required)

or

Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 889 9324 7600

To be discussed:

• Status of Boy Scouts disclosure statement
• Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, local councils, chartered organizations, and insurers
• Other motions pending before the bankruptcy court
• The plan confirmation process

On 6/26/2021 at 10:56 AM, johnsch322 said:

The TCC has been extremely quiet.  Any idea about the next town hall?

 

Vegas odds say the next one will be Wednesday 6/30.  Stand by.

44 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

All well and good, given the code and absence of any objection, but that just seems absurd to me.

Well, here's more than you probably want to know below.  I'd guess that the attorneys representing a majority of claimants and have been involved with mediation would say that they are making a substantial contribution by getting to a settlement that the majority would vote for.  Please don't make me explain the thinking of attorneys beyond that!  It IS something that is objected to but the cost of the objection could add  the fees if the objection didn't prevail.  At any rate, here's the code in part from: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2012/06/construing-substantial-contribution-under-section-503b3d 

Administrative-Expense Priority for Making a "Substantial Contribution"

Section 503(b)(3)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code grants administrative-expense priority for the "actual, necessary expenses" incurred by a creditor, among other entities, in making a "substantial contribution" in a case under chapter 11. In addition, section 503(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code grants administrative-expense priority for "reasonable compensation for professional services rendered by an attorney . . . of an entity whose expense is allowable under" section 503(b)(3)(D) and "reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses incurred by such attorney." As explained by the AmFin court, these provisions are an "accommodation between the two objectives of encouraging meaningful creditor participation in the reorganization process and keeping administrative expenses and fees at a minimum to maximize the estate for creditors."

The Bankruptcy Code neither defines "substantial contribution" nor sets forth criteria to be used in determining whether a substantial contribution has been made in a chapter 11 case. The issue, therefore, of whether a creditor has made a "substantial contribution" is a question of fact, with the moving party bearing the burden of proof. Most courts narrowly construe what constitutes a "substantial contribution" in a chapter 11 case, and most have taken the position that substantial-contribution claims, like other section 503(b) claims, should be strictly limited. The principal test is that there must be actual and demonstrable benefit to the estate and creditors.

6 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Does this section mean what I think it means. Did BSA buy the Coalition’s votes for 10 million dollars?

In bankruptcy proceedings it is not uncommon for recognized mediation parties to "bargain in" certain fees as a part of a settlement.  The code actually allows for reimbursement of fees if substantial contribution to achieving a settlement by a party can be demonstrated in the eyes of the court.  If all parties agree then the court will usually allow it.  Ahhhh....the business of bankruptcy....   I think saying the BSA "bought" votes is over-reaching however and would require not only the TCC and  Federal Bankruptcy Trustee to look the other way but all other parties who would have to agree to not file an objection.  The BSA couldn't deliver that.  If you have a young son/daughter interested in law school have a conversation with them that starts like this..."You know, I've heard bankruptcy attorneys get paid pretty well at a certain level...."

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

How does the trustee get the non settled insurance company's to pay into the settlement?

An excellent question.  Here's my guess.  This is about to become ALL about the insurance and I wouldn't place my money on the Hartford "deal" (or better said Insult to Victims) even lasting too much longer.  So, how then to get the insurance companies to settle?  Well, that's where the trust comes in.  There are cases that are "slam dunks."  Horrible acts of abuse, States with viable SOLs, complaints about the abuser that weren't pursued, you get the idea.  If the Trust allows them to go forward and the insurers start to get judgements against them they have to pay.  If they pay enough then it becomes more advantageous to settle.  EVERYTHING in insurance is Time Value of Money.  Does this mean that every victim will be able to tell the trust "no thanks" and go pursue their own cases?  No.  The Trust is responsible for managing this process and against which insurers so that some will quickly realize it isn't worth it.  Does it also mean that those cases that go out to apply pressure will wipe out the available insurance proceeds for everyone else?  No, the Trust would more than likely negotiate terms ahead of time.  Will this take time?  Yep.  The insurers will put up defenses and even try to settle before making a more "global" offer.  At some point though the dam breaks for them and they want out.  Welcome to the business of bankruptcy.  It takes time.  I'm sure the TCC knows that victims want to know what's coming next.  Waiting to see if it announces a Town Hall meeting this week at TCCBSA.COM

6 minutes ago, yknot said:

It can't keep happening. 

Exactly.  Full Stop.

6 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I feared all along that there wouldn't be much money, given the number of claimants.  I say claimants because how in the world could a victim proof of loss be blank, yet valid?  I remember every disgusting detail of my abuse.  And, while the insurers will still have to settle out (which may take years) it appears that fear was well-founded. 

When all is said and done, there is nothing that can heal the damage the BSA and its camp employee did to my entire life.   Trust issues, 2 divorces, relationship issues--none of this can be undone and acting as if a pittance will somehow compensate me is nothing but an insult.  I'm not so sure you could buy a badly used car with the amount we may receive.  And for those who are represented to the tune of 40-50%, it is even more of a gut punch after all the talk of sizable recovery.

I don't want this to come down only to money, like a nominal class-action settlement.  If they are allowed to continue on, I would like to see the BSA memorialize the victims as part of this process.  I'm not sure if that is a place I could visit or a portion of the Charter that acknowledges us and assures it could never happen again.   I'm not a veteran, but I have seen how cathartic the Vietnam Memorial has been to those who were touched by the war.  Maybe something somewhere.  I was looking for closure and see none.  Years after I had done my best to bury the damage, this process ripped open the wounds again.  And I feel empty.

Your points are excellent and feelings understandable.  The very sad fact of this whole situation is that the BSA has put all victims into a bankruptcy process and not a justice process.  This has been about business and not justice and for many that hurts the most.  One thing to consider is that the TCC has mentioned that as part of this there will be "non-monetery issues" to address after the dollar amounts have been settled upon.  The TCC has specifically said that as a part of the BSA restructuring it is focused upon the IV Files so that abusers are known and not able to be a part of other youth-serving organizations, and changes to the BSA Youth Protection program.  Given tat the TCC is made up of nine victims I'd be surprised if they have forgotten about these issues.

Just a comment or two, the BSA plan is a "placeholder" that it needed to file to stay in synch with the court docket and make progress toward bankruptcy emergence.  Don't assume it's the product of wide-scale agreements.  Like past plans, the other parties will now comment and object or support all or parts.  While he has a large number of victims as clients, Kosnoff is not a mediation party.  If the TCC wanted to accomplish a global settlement with all the insurers by now it could have, at fractions of pennies on the dollar.  If a plan transfers the insurance policies to a Trust it puts the trust in charge of litigating to maximize all insurance proceeds it can on behalf of victims.  The fact that the TCC and Coalition aren't speaking suggests that they are working closely.  If the past holds form, now that the BSA has filed a plan the TCC may schedule its next Town Hall soon.