MYCVAStory

Re the questionnaire being available...

1.  FOUR months to submit, and not six.  Attorneys with thousands of clients scrambling.

2.  Check this interview from today's TODAY Show: https://www.today.com/video/former-boy-scouts-can-now-file-claims-in-sex-abuse-settlement-191094341570

If I were the Trustee I would NOT be telling Survivors that they will receive EXACTLY what was spelled out in the claims matrix.  Regardless of ONE expert's opinion on this, and that opinion changed significantly during this process, my response would have been" "I am committed to seeing that Survivors get every penny available but we won't be able to best determine that until we understand fully the abuse and the number of Survivors that complete our questionnaire."  If this moves forward AND doesn't turn out well financially she'd better prepare her answer to the question "You said that Survivors might get up to $2.7 million.  Now it appears that none received that much.  Why not and why did you make that statement?"

Bottom line, this is all about scrambling the egg but the race is on to complete the questionnaires and move things along at the same time that the end result is still very much up in the air.

The Dumas and Vaughan attorneys, representing 69 clients, have filed for a Stay with the third district court of appeals.  Unsurprisingly, Purdue and its issues, most notably third-party releases, was cited as cause.  The requested Stay would of course pause things until the Supreme Court rules by next June.  What a pause means though is not known right now and would be litigated.  It could mean a pause on awards or a pause on all Trust activity, or somewhere in-between.  Briefs objecting to the Stay motion will be due in October from Plan Supporters.  One interesting issue is the requirement to provide a Bond while you get your stay.  The Bond is also litigated and serves to protect the Trust against any losses during a Stay.  If the court rules for a bond amount that D&V can't secure the Stay goes nowhere.  Regardless of all of this, I haven't spoken to an attorney who practices in bankruptcy who expects the Court of Appeals to rule before the Supreme Court does.  So....the post-Purdue pause expected Stay motion has been filed.  This will heat up in late October or sooner if all briefs are filed beforehand, and Survivors will again wait to see whether it is granted, and if so, what gets paused.  If you like the plan, stay worried.  If you don't like the plan, know that there's an effort to have the Supreme Court's Purdue decision impact it.

15 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Not one lawyer representing a claimant in the bankruptcy (outside of the TCC lawyers) has received a dime as of now.

Just reminded me.....Judge Silverstein still hasn't ruled on the Coalition's "Substantial Contribution" request for reimbursement by the BSA. 

3 hours ago, yknot said:

This documentary is one of at least three that have been in development for some time. One was Leave No Trace, which aired last year on Hulu, this one on Netflix, and there is a third but I can't remember who it is affiliated with or when it will air. 

I understand that the third was from the "Tiger King" production crew but Covid hit and it didn't move forward.  At least for now.  I have a hunch the Netflix project was completed mid-bankruptcy so perhaps that's a story waiting to be told, someday.

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

I would have far less issue with this if it actually did make any real effort to go beyond the BSA and the sensationalism. 

So not having seen it you've formed an opinion huh?  Sorry, but I fall into the camp of "Let's see what it has to say" before I form any sort of opinion.  If it moves the needle at all to prevent what happened from re-occuring then good.  As Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  The fullest understanding of what happened and why will be the best way to step toward preventing its being repeated.  I don't think you're black-hearted.  I just hope ALL of us will do our best to watch with an open mind and consider its values and faults.  Too much was secret for too long.  This is a part of the reckoning.

7 hours ago, SNEScouter said:

There is a HUGE difference between BSA and Purdue, which is that BSA's plan has already gone into effect.  Purdue's plan is now stayed and cannot go into effect, if at all, until after SCOTUS rules on the validity of non-consensual third-party releases. 

Not as much as you think.  While the BSA plan has gone effective it is still under appeal.  So, it is reversible.  One of the reasons the Trust is moving quickly is because sometimes a Court of Appeals will effectively say "The egg has been scrambled so any ruling we make shouldn't undo what has been done.  In this case, the Court of Appeals is expected to NOT rule since it knows that the Supreme Court is addressing a key portion of the BSA plan, the third-party releases.

7 hours ago, SNEScouter said:

That said, IMHO, the most likely outcome is that the Third Circuit receives all briefs and decides that the appeals of Lujan, D&V, Certain Insurers, etc. are equitably moot.  Briefing has already begun and so it seems like the Third Circuit ruling could come before a SCOTUS ruling in June '24, but who knows.  Therefore, even if there was reversible error in the BSA Plan approvals, the Third Circuit will likely find that it is powerless to reverse those errors because the plan has already gone into effect.  BSA is now a reorganized debtor and lots of assets have been paid to the Settlement Trustee in exchange for the third-party releases (largely by insurers and Local Councils).  The Settlement Trustee has already started incurring substantial operating expenses against those assets, and might very well start paying at least the expedited $3500 claims before either the Third Circuit or SCOTUS issues any rulings.  There are a lot of other aspects of the plan which also depended (at least indirectly) upon the third-party releases.  It would be virtually impossible for an appeals court to unscramble that egg. 

I agree but remember that the settling insurers are NOT required to make a large portion of their payments until ALL appeals have been settled.  So, the egg may not be as scrambled as it could be.

The bottom line I believe is that this is still up in the air a bit more than most recognize.  IF the appeals are denied tomorrow then ANY Supreme Court rulings later on won't matter.  As well, should this be denied on appeals it CAN be paused if the objectors can get the Supreme Court to accept a writ doing so.  Given its move to do so with Purdue, it very well might grant that as Purdue unfolds.  Again....things are still in flux.

19 minutes ago, BadChannel70 said:

What about survivors like myself who voted "no" on the plan because we didn't agree with the 3rd party releases. I saw no reason why sponsoring organizations should receive the benefits of a release. And likewise with the local councils. 

You point out well the problem with addressing mass torts through bankruptcy.  It reduces every individual to one "class" and sacrifices individual rights for collective agreements.  That's what the Supreme Court has to decide since to this point different circuits have ruled differently.  It's a shame that the issue wasn't long resolved before now. 

On 6/22/2023 at 11:58 PM, johnsch322 said:

In an email from my lawyers today I was informed that in their opinion it will take more than a year before appeals are exhausted. Hartford and Century do not have to put money into the settlement trust until after the appeal process however the claims review process will be taking place during this time.

Hartford and Century have made partial payment.  Approximately 150 mil total if memory serves.  It's in the confirmed plan.  Optimistic assessment:  Yes, the remainder must be paid after appeals but at least the Trust is funded to a level that allows it to start its work.   Pessimistic assessment: Yes, let's hope that the plan isn't overturned on appeal at the same time the Trustee and Trust professionals burn through the initial contributions and become the only recipients of Trust money!.

On 5/7/2023 at 1:47 PM, Eagle1970 said:

My question for the group regards the "Proposed SoL Scaling Factors".  So, are they set in stone with the Trust having moved forward?  Missouri is listed as 10-25% in that chart.  But when I compare what is likely to be the new SoL, it would become longer than some states that have a 50% factor.  What other factors are involved with those rather arbitrary percentages?

To the best of my knowledge the scaling factors will be modified to the "current" State of the SOL landscape.  That's also why there's a 12-month holding period for Survivors who anticipate changes for their State.  Just my guess.  But, a couple other points:

1.  The Trust has a LOT of explaining to do regarding processes.  The Judge has said she's going to answer questions.   We'll see if she knows what that means. A claims processing company will be retained.  It will get a lot of questions.  For now we all have questions and the questionnaire is in development.  THEN, there will be six months to get that in.  So, there's a LOT of time for a LOT of issues to come up and hopefully be addressed.  As well, there are 4,000 pro se claimants and the Trustee knows it so there will need to be assistance for unrepresented Survivors and those who aren't happy with their attorney communication.

2.  And, a "Don't shoot the messenger" message.  Remember that the Third Circuit still has this to be considered under appeal.  All it did was refuse to continue the stay.  That allowed the Trust to move forward since the plan allowed it after District Court affirmation.  So, while the Trust is motivated to get things going ASAP since the Circuit will look at how much progress has been made and will consider that before overturning anything, that may take a year considering the Circuit's pace.  Non-settling insurers are happy to wait.  THEN, if they don't prevail they submit a writ to the Supreme Court to have it consider their position.  Getting that accepted is anyone's guess and then the time to any hearing is also an unknown.  What all of that means is that Survivors will get an award "letter" but any award "payments" are more than likely a multi-payment proposition that will take more than a year and the percentage of the award value is still a big unknown.

Sorry, I know this didn't answer your question directly.  It's just meant as some encouragement that a LOT of questions are to come AND there is a lot of time for this to still play out.  What did I hear, 10,000 claimants over 70?  I just want to be alive when this is done playing out.  The fact that many Survivors haven't made it, and still more won't, is tragic and I hope some day that story becomes part of the narrative that changes how the bankruptcy laws are being used to address what happened to us.

8 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

This is such a poor and untrue choice of words. They should never use this. The better phrase would be something about an organized distribution of funds so that all get something. Not anywhere near fully paid, nor is the debt incurred ever gone. Yeah, they should stop saying that. 

Agreed.  The reality is right now anyone covering this, and the BSA as well, have only the BSA's "expert" Dr. Bates and his report to point to.  The reality will only be known when checks start hitting mailboxes.  Even then, that will only be part of the story.  There are still non-settling insurers and the LDS to factor in.  So, that 100% comment we see will be replaced by reality.  And if the Bates prediction isn't correct?  Well, I'm looking forward to his explaining that because there will be eyes on this for a very long time and I suspect the story of this bankruptcy and its effect on Survivors is a long way from being over or filmmakers/documentarians/journalists losing interest.

3 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

So, what about the non-settling insurance companies that didn’t agree? How does that get resolved? Is that only upside? That is more money into the trust? Who lays the legal part of getting those to settle? 

The Trust may now engage in settlement discussions AND litigation against the non-settlers.  There are years when Survivors have claims, and the covering insurers didn't settle, that the Trust will now allow to "go to court."  There's a formula in the settlement agreement discussing how that works if there is a positive outcome.  But, the Trust still acts as a gatekeeper so the best examples of "slam dunk" cases will move forward.  The STAC has a hand in that determination.  The strategy is that a handful of verdicts against an insurer will be good motivation for it to settle and stop the bleeding.  The Trust will employ insurance litigation experts with all of this.  Remember that there are not only primary insurers in a given year but also "excess" insurance.  It's complicated and will see insurers do what they do best.  Delay.

Sorry....yes, plan may now go effective.  Fat fingers.  

Circuit has denied stay.  Plan may now go effective!

Hearing Info for Wednesday, Docket 1113. 

Hearing essentially addresses substantial claim request for the Coalition and the effort to provide "startup" funds for the Trust.  The startup funds would help demonstrate to the Circuit that work is underway.  Interestingly, the BSA now is not a "movant."  Disappointing but perhaps an attempt by the debtor not to seem too presumptuous to the Circuit.  Fingers crossed Silverstein allows it.  After years of waiting ANY effort to get some work done in a more timely manner would be a nice change.

NOTICE OF AGENDA OF MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR
HEARING ON APRIL 19, 2023, AT 10:00 A.M. EASTERN TIME
This hearing will be conducted in-person. Any exceptions must be approved by Chambers. Parties may observe the hearing remotely by registering with the Zoom link below no later than April 19, 2023, at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

COURTCALL WILL NOT BE USED FOR THIS HEARING. Please use the following link to register for this hearing: https://debuscourts.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIsfuqprDspHXdbRPTd0fYN_1ebjiD6sJ0

After registering your appearance by Zoom, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the hearing. Topic: Boy Scouts of America Time: April 19, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (US and Canada)

10 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I question it myself. Latest payment calculator I looked at calculated penetration in an open state claimant would get $57,000.  Yikes that is payment in full?

That website assumed ALL claims were credible and would be pursued.  That article is the opinion of one attorney who from my observations has little to nothing to do with this bankruptcy.  It reads at best like someone who scanned the DC opinion and just rehashed it.  Ultimately, payments will come down to two things, the numerator and denominator.  We know part of the numerator now, 2.6B.  Additional monies will come through insurance settlements and litigation against non-settling insurers.  The denominator will be determined by how many Survivors complete the questionnaire and have credible claims.  The Bates numbers made assumptions for each.  We'll know the denominator better after the deadline for the questionnaire passes AND THEN as the Trust starts reviewing claims.  Until then, any of these "articles" have to be taken with a very big grain of salt.

1 hour ago, SNEScouter said:

Now we wait for the Third Circuit to rule on the stay requests in the coming days (weeks?).  If stay motions are denied, expect the plan to go effective & BSA to emerge from Chapter 11 shortly after.

The District Court's stay denial included more than the usual statement.  It provides a bit of a roadmap and reasoning for the Circuit to say "makes sense to us" and deny a permanent stay pending appeal.  When I asked a legal type how long it could take before the Circuit says something next the guess was 2-4 weeks.  Not bad in the grand scheme of how long this has taken.  Fingers still crossed.

7 hours ago, SNEScouter said:

In other words, the effective date will likely be delayed until the Third Circuit denies all stay requests, assuming that are eventually denied.  Of course, if it grants a stay (or if the District Court does), then the effective date will be delayed for a long time.

Well said.  There was also an automatic 14-day period after DC approval in the order so that takes it to the 12th.  Yes, the plan going "effective" is contingent on four things as written into the plan:  1.  Bankruptcy Court approvel (done), 2. District Court Approval (Done)., 3. No stays in place and 4. No motions to appeal in place.  So, we are waiting for a stay decision at the DC and if that fails then the Circuit can take up a stay while the motion to appeal is in place.  The hope for Survivors needs to be that the DC in the next day or two denies the stay.  Then, the Circuit Court grants a temporary stay of a few weeks.  That would provide a window for the plan to go effective.  Even better, the Circuit denies the Stay!  If the Circuit puts into place a permanent stay until the appeal is heard it could take, given the pace of appeals already docketed....wait for it....a year.  There are a lot of moving parts and "what-ifs" but the focus will next go to the Circuit Court if the Judge Andrews denies the Circuit stay as expected.  Keep your fingers crossed.

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Just adding on to the above.  Lujan, insurers & Dumas/Vaughn all filed for an emergency stay.  Basically, if the stay is not issued by April 12, it looks like an automatic stay will expire.  In any case, it seems like all parties are aligned that April 11th will be the last date to issue a stay, or the plan goes effective, and appeals could become an issue as they are equitably moot.

During the Town Hall last night the Coalition's attorney David Molton all but said that the District Court would NOT issue the stay.  This prediction came about because the District requested supporter briefs very quickly, and objector replies the next day.  In other words, the District just ruled and there were few cracks in the plan to expand an objection so why belabor the issue.  "Get me your paperwork and I'll keep the "Denied" stamp inked up."  This will then continue the rush to get enough into place so the Trust can go effective.  Lots and lots of discussion of the steps/stages of all of this during the town hall.  Link:

No, and this is supposed to be discussed at the Town Hall tonight.  The Effective Date is when Judge Silverstein rules that everything is in place and the Trust may do its work completely.  It's a "legal ruling." and what the objectors are trying to stop right now.  BSA is trying to get the Effective Date work done by 4/12 according to one attorney's email.  Fun fact....if a Trust goes effective and THEN a higher court rules that some portion of bankruptcy law should be interpreted a different way it does NOT impact the existing Trust.  You can't "unscramble" the egg.  So....everything right now is about getting an "Effective" order, or stopping it.

45 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I'm following efforts in Missouri and Ohio for windows and other SoL reform.  One article refers to states having 1 year from the final approval of the Plan (assuming after all appeals are exhausted) and then they will receive a change in factor for SoL.  Can anyone point to this in the Plan?

Page 166:

H. Claim Determination Deferral. For a period of up to twelve (12) months from the Effective Date, and by an election exercised at the time of the Trust Claim Submission, Direct Abuse Claimants whose Direct Abuse Claims may be substantially reduced by the Scaling Factor described below in Article VIII.E.(iii) (statute of limitations defense) may elect to defer the determination of their Proposed Allowed Claim Amounts to see if statute of limitations revival legislation occurs, provided, however, that this claim determination deferral window shall close for all Direct Abuse Claims twelve (12) months from the Effective Date at which time such Submitted Abuse Claims shall be determined based on then applicable Scaling Factors.

40 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

They both go to the same site.

Interesting.  www.bsarestructering.org goes to a "site not found" message for me.  Regardless, neither are very accurate! 🙂