MYCVAStory

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Amendment to the plan was posted recently to the docket

8950ce76-0b70-4e57-a957-d4d9cc3d51c8_10189.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

That's a link to shorten the notice period.  Here's the link to the ammendments:

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6907113e-9265-4b5f-9d7d-e9e61e182818_10188a.pdf

35 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Bankruptcy Professor Melissa Jacoby just tweeted out thoughts as to why the BSA plan hasn't been approved.

The link:

Nothing anyone following this probably didn't already know or expect.  Confirmation of complexity.  Welcome to day 99.

This is a historic case.  Historic in its amount if abuse and historic in the complexity of finances, third-parties, and insurance involvement.  The wait is especially excruciating for Survivors, most of whom have been waiting for decades for some degree of resolution, who after 2+ years of a bankruptcy process, hope daily for good news.  If her ruling is lengthy and complicated, well-considered and logical, we'll understand why it's taken so long.  If it's short and head-scratching or widely panned by those experienced in bankruptcy law, and ripe for appeal, we'll all shake our heads at the length of this wait.   I know a Survivor in tough shape physically.  I think about him every day.   I hope for his sake the wait is coming to an end.  Another day has passed....but another day closer to a ruling I suppose.  For some though those days are limited.

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I'd argue it's definitely also the plaintiff side too.  From my understanding, if it was a BSA only bankruptcy, the pot of money is much smaller and would be distributed to the victims.  Instead, the bigger bankruptcy effectively lets the BSA money finance getting money from insurance companies, LCs, etc.

The pot would be MUCH smaller at this point.  It's hard to see Century and The Hartford contributing much, if at all, if they still had exposure at the LC level.  These two insurers NEVER want to hear about the BSA again.  A comprehensive bankruptcy addressing all of their expositor is their goal too.

5 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I also believe there should be no double dip. The firms you are talking about belong to the coalition and they are not presently billing hourly instead there are millions that BSA has agreed to pay them if the plan is approved. 

This was in order to get there yes endorsement on the plan which kind of sounds like bribery to me.

I have no connection to the Coalition.  Coalition firms have not billed the BSA, nor have their legal professionals.  They were allowed to be a mediation party but must get the Judges approval for any reimbursement of expenses because they made a "substantial contribution" to getting a plan confirmed.  The BSA said that was okay with them and the TCC said it wasn't taking a stand because to do so would effectively be an endorsement of that and would not put itself in a position to endorse fees for professionals other than their own.  Yes, the judge can confirm a plan and NOT approve payment to mediation parties or require separate proceedings for that.  If she denies payment the Coalition firms would presumably be on the hook for paying the fees.  This is an interesting issue since the Judge seemed skeptical at times of the whole Coalition organization and role of its hired professionals.  Remember too that at least on one occasion a Coalition attorney tried to engage in debate and the Judge shut that down because he had representation.  "Bribery"....well, it's part of the "Deal making" in Bankruptcy.  A shame but "if you want your plan confirmed and the votes of our clients we'll support it if you support our fees for helping out" is the viewpoint basically.  Welcome to Day 91 of waiting.

16 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

At what point do the lifeguards need to spring into action?

Reach..throw....row...go!  We've reached the point where a ruling seems way overdue.  Hey Judge, throw us a bone and make up your mind.  However, there may not be the gentle stream to merrily row down for her as she writes her opinion.  Looks like it's time for me to go cross another day off on the calendar.  🙂

21 minutes ago, Tron said:

Considering the rollercoaster coming out of SCOTUS the past couple weeks is there any chance that the judge is waiting on a determination from 1 of the 4 outstanding SCOTUS opinions before handing down her judgement?

Little.  There are some issues that are anything but "cut and dry."  Bankruptcy Judges know their decisions will be reviewed, and potentially appealed.  This one has insurers with appeals ready to tee up.  She's taking a long time to be thorough, wrestle with issues, and given the time it's taking possibly dealing with portions she will approve and portions she will reject. 

I'll leave arguments over whether the rates charged are appropriate or not.  I find that lots of arguments can be made.  "Compared to X, Y is outrageous."  "Well, we pay our professional athletes at the top of their game this so why shouldn't professionals at the top of theirs be paid a lot?"  Lots of justifications are available and for me, and perhaps a product of abuse, is working hard to determine what I have some sort of control over before I ramp up my outrage to the white-hot level.  Just offering this though:

1.  There is a fee examiner in this bankruptcy.  He is required to go through all bills and ask for clarification.

2.  Some of the largest bills, potentially THE largest, are yet to come.  These are the bills from all the depositions prior to the confirmation hearing AND then the weeks of confirmation.  All those attorneys and every professional on Zoom watching confirmation were billing.

3.  I remember reading once something to the effect of "Bankruptcy is expensive.  It should be.  Debtors need to know that it's going to cost a lot so that it's a deterrent to declaring bankruptcy."  Twisted logic but logic nonetheless.

I'd also like to offer a prediction, something I don't do often unless I'm pretty sure of it.  In this case I just have a hunch.  IF this bankruptcy plan is confirmed in some fashion there will be a lot of people seeing it as some sort of "resolution."  That may or may not be the case and people who aren't Survivors will be on both sides; Survivors too I imagine.   But still, the whole thing will be abstract because resolution is an abstract concept.  But then, there will be an echo to the result of this stage.  That echo will come back in the form of awards.  Money is tangible.  WHEN Survivors start seeing awards THEN they and especially the general public will truly understand the result and impact of the bankruptcy.  We're making judgements about fees because they are tangible and we can weigh them against services performed.  If checks start hitting mailboxes that will happen again and there is a real chance that Survivors AND ESPECIALLY others will look at all of this through a tangible lens that might cast a new light on ALL of it.

54 minutes ago, Tron said:

Are those outright owned assets or assets leverages with mortgages and inversions? There are 2 sides to every balance sheet. 

In case you haven't taken a look, while a bit dated and not reflective of recent property sales, here's a link to the extensive Local Council financial analyses the TCC had its financial professionals BRG Group complete: https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis

They're educational.

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Thank GOD the first vote failed and the Survivor Working Group and TCC got a crack at rewriting what BSA had in that initial plan to "enhance YP." Their successful efforts force enforceable changes both culturally and organizationally. Again, THANK GOD! 

Thank you to the Survivors who voted to reject the first plan and THANK YOU to those that voted to approve it and were then patient while the BSA was pulled back into mediation to strengthen YP as part of a second plan.  While I might not be happy where we are, I know it's a better place for any child going into scouting in the future.

54 minutes ago, Tron said:

am literally telling you how the law works. No one needs to go back and read anything. It is really as simple as explained.

Bankruptcy is a lot of things.  Simple isn't one of them.  Proclaiming absolutes doesn't make it so.  This case is historic in many ways.  In the level of abuse and the complexity of the relationship between the debtor, LC's insurers and others.  History, the worst sort on many fronts, is being made here.  The past might be a small glimpse into what happens but it is in no way an absolute guide.  Simple?  None of this is.  If it were, the judge would have rendered a decision already.

11 minutes ago, Tron said:

What you're talking about is an out of court agreement which prevents the bankruptcy from going into Chapter 7. Once a bankruptcy is accepted into Chapter 7 everything gets arranged into categories, then ordered in those categories for priority of repayment. To be clear, once a bankruptcy judge authorizes Chapter 7 it becomes a bankruptcy of winners and losers by order of importance and age.  As an example, if BSA were forced to file Chapter 7, and if it was accepted for Chapter 7 all secured debts/claims get absolute priority over unsecured, and older debts against those secured assets get priority. Using any BSA national properties with a mortgage as an example. Those mortgage lenders get priority before everyone else immediately; unconditionally, they just go to the top of the pecking order to get restitution on that debt; those mortgage lenders could potentially consume all of the value and leave nothing for lower prioritized secured debt holders (like 2nd or 3rd mortgages) and unsecured debt. 

Well....no on a lot of counts.  First, and most importantly, a non-profit CANNOT be "forced" into an involuntary Chapter 7 proceeding.  Second, and again, any order is moot when agreements are made to expedite payment to some at lower amounts to include others.  Regardless, the BSA isn't going to be "forced" into bankruptcy and will do everything to avoid it.  As well, its creditors and local Councils will do the same.  Getting "priority" doesn't help if that gets you a property like the Summit where $400 million has been poured into it and it has been appraised at $40 million.  A LOT of this has been covered in the past and I too would encourage you to go back and check a lot of the threads over the past two years.  LOTS of excellent analysis by many.

2 hours ago, Tron said:

There really isn't much battling though; if it would go to Chapter 7 a pecking order of age of debt would quickly set the winners vs losers; especially if there are multiple mortgages on properties.

Not necessarily at all.  In bankruptcy EVERYTHING is negotiable.  There are a whole host of factors that impact relief.  In some cases those "earlier" in line may agree to less quicker and avoid lengthy and expensive appeal.  There are a number of websites that cover this.

23 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

It is the government pension oversight organization.  I'm no expert on this, but I believe the Pension fund would have fairly high priority in a Chapter 7 liquidation.

ALL secured creditors, of which pension recipients are one, would get priority over unsecured creditors.  Survivors are unsecured creditors.  As well, remember that JP Morgan and any other lenders are secured.  So, the mortgage that the BSA took out against the Philmont Property for example places JP Morgan in line ahead of Survivors.  This is why the "Just liquidate the BSA" argument makes sense emotionally for some but certainly not financially.  All of that said, any legal proceedings re Chapter 7 wouldn't fund secured creditors at 100% either.  They'd just be battling over assets ahead of others.

4 hours ago, Tron said:

No I was shooting for this. Specifically point 3. Finally. If I, or someone of my same opinion on the matter were to have said this there would have been no upvotes and hoards of bellyaching comments. This is great, thank you.

For some context, her comment at the first hearing I believe (or close to it) was that the "....mission of the Boy Scouts is of paramount importance."  While this was widely seen by Survivors as overly "pro-scouts" in discussion with experienced bankruptcy professionals it was viewed as reflective of being supportive of the debtor voluntarily entering bankruptcy.  As well, the judge at that point had no idea of the enormity of this bankruptcy and number of claimants that would come forward.  My observation is that over time she demonstrated the impartiality that Survivors expected.  While her ruling will be the ultimate arbiter on that her decisions over two years in my mind have not been slanted one way in an egregious way.

On 6/13/2022 at 9:43 AM, Eagle1970 said:

How these factors are applied could be a huge factor in any individual case or the settlement as a whole.

Agreed and why the Trust administration and communication are so important.  Survivors must have "trust" in a Trust to ensure a level playing field and an understanding of the administration of claims.  It'll be interesting.

8 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

We also know very little about the scaling factors, other than SOL. 

SORRY FOR THE LENGTH BUT..... 

Actually, the scaling factors are in the Trust Distribution Procedures.  From: ARTICLE VIII CLAIMS MATRIX AND SCALING FACTORS the portion found below the abuse matrix is:

B. Scaling Factors. After the Settlement Trustee has assigned an Allowed Abuse Claim to one of the six tiers in the Claims Matrix, the Settlement Trustee will utilize the Scaling Factors described below to determine the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for each Allowed Abuse Claim. The Scaling Factors are based on evidence regarding the BSA’s and other putative Protected Parties’ historical abuse settlements, litigation outcomes, and other evidence supporting the Scaling Factors. Each Allowed Abuse Claim will be evaluated for each factor by the Settlement Trustee through his or her review of the evidence obtained through the relevant Proof of Claim, Trust Claim Submission and any related or follow-up materials, interviews or examinations, as well as materials obtained by the Settlement Trust or the Direct Abuse Claimant through the Document Obligations. These scaling factors can increase or decrease the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for an Allowed Abuse Claim depending on the severity of the facts underlying the Claim. By default, the value of each scaling factor is one (1), meaning that in the absence of the application of the scaling factor, the Base Matrix Value assigned to a Claim is not affected by that factor. In contrast, if the Settlement Trustee determines that a particular scaling factor as applied to a given Allowed Abuse Claim is 1.5, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim will be increased by 50%, the result of multiplying the Base Matrix Value of the Allowed Abuse Claim by 1.5. The combined effect of all scaling factors is determined by multiplying the scaling factors together then multiplying the result by the Base Matrix Value of the Allowed Abuse Claim. See Article VIII.F for illustrative example.
C. Aggravating Scaling Factors. The Settlement Trustee may assign upward Scaling Factors to each Allowed Abuse Claim based on the following categories:
(i) Nature of Abuse and Circumstances. To account for particularly severe Abuse or aggravating circumstances, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 1.5 to each Allowed Abuse Claim. The hypothetical base case scenario for this scaling factor would involve a single incident of Abuse with a single perpetrator with such perpetrator having accessed the victim as an employee or volunteer within BSA-sponsored scouting. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Value in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. By way of example, aggravating factors that can give rise to a higher scaling factor include the following factors:
a. Extended duration and/or frequency of the Abuse;
b. Exploitation of the Abuse Claimant for child pornography;

c. Coercion or threat or use of force or violence, stalking; and
d. Multiple perpetrators involved in sexual misconduct.
(ii) Abuser Profile. To account for the alleged abuser’s profile, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 2.0 to an Allowed Abuse Claim. This factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario involving a perpetrator as to whom there is no other known allegations of Abuse. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Value in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. An upward Scaling Factor may be applied for this category as follows (the Settlement Trustee may only apply the scaling factor of the single highest applicable category listed below):
a. 1.25 if the abuser was accused by at least one (1) other alleged victim of Abuse;
b. 1.5 if the abuser was accused by five (5) or more other alleged victims of Abuse;
c. 2.0 if the abuser was accused by ten (10) or more other alleged victims of Abuse; and
d. 1.25 to 2.0 if there is evidence that the Protected Party knew or should have known (i) the abuser had previously committed or may commit Abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the survivor from that danger, or (ii) of the prior Abuse or the foreseeability of the risk of Abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the survivor from that danger.
(iii) Impact of the Abuse. To account for the impact of the alleged Abuse on the Abuse Claimant’s mental health, physical health, inter-personal relationships, vocational capacity or success, academic capacity or success, and whether the alleged Abuse at issue resulted in legal difficulties for the Abuse Claimant, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 1.5. This factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario of a victim of Abuse who suffered the typical level of Abuse-related distress within the tier to which the Allowed Abuse Claim was assigned. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Values in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. The Settlement Trustee will consider, along with any and all other relevant factors, whether the Abuse at issue manifested or otherwise led the Abuse Claimant to experience or engage in behaviors resulting from:
a. Mental Health Issues: This includes anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, addiction, embarrassment, fear, flashbacks, nightmares, sleep issues, sleep disturbances, exaggerated startle response, boundary issues, self-destructive behaviors, guilt, grief, homophobia, hostility, humiliation, anger, isolation, hollowness, regret, shame, isolation, sexual addiction, sexual problems, sexual identity
Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 170 of 459
18
confusion, low self-esteem or self-image, bitterness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and hospitalization or receipt of treatment for any of the foregoing.
b. Physical Health Issues: This includes physical manifestations of emotional distress, gastrointestinal issues, headaches, high blood pressure, physical manifestations of anxiety, erectile dysfunction, heart palpitations, sexually-transmitted diseases, physical damage caused by acts of Abuse, reproductive damage, self-cutting, other self-injurious behavior, and hospitalization or receipt of treatment for any of the foregoing.
c. Interpersonal Relationships: This includes problems with authority figures, hypervigilance, sexual problems, marital difficulties, problems with intimacy, lack of trust, isolation, betrayal, impaired relations, secrecy, social discreditation and isolation, damage to family relationships, and fear of children or parenting.
d. Vocational Capacity: This includes under- and un-employment, difficulty with authority figures, difficulty changing and maintaining employment, feelings of unworthiness, or guilt related to financial success.
e. Academic Capacity: This includes school behavior problems.
f. Legal Difficulties: This includes criminal difficulties, bankruptcy, and fraud.
E. Mitigating Scaling Factors. The Settlement Trustee may assign a mitigating Scaling Factor in the range of 0 to 1.0 except as specifically provided below to each Allowed Abuse Claim to eliminate or decrease the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for such Claim. Each mitigating factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario of a timely asserted Abuse Claim with supporting evidence that demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, Abuse by a perpetrator that accessed the victim as an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, as a registered Scout or as a participant in Scouting within BSA-sponsored Scouting. If statute of limitations revival legislation occurs in a particular jurisdiction, the Settlement Trustee may modify the applicable Scaling Factor (as described below) relevant thereto on a go-forward basis and determine Proposed Allowed Claim Amounts for Abuse Claims in such jurisdiction thereafter based on such modified Scaling Factor. Included in the hypothetical base case scenario is that the applicable period under a statute of limitations or repose for timely asserting such Abuse Claim against any potentially responsible party will not have passed. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Values in the Claims Matrix tiers and would not receive a decrease on account of these factors. Such factors may include the following:
(i) Absence of Protected Party Relationship or Presence of a Responsible Party that Is Not a Protected Party.
a. Familial Relationship. A Protected Party’s responsibility for a perpetrator may be factually or legally attenuated or mitigated where the perpetrator also had a familial relationship with the Abuse Claimant. Familial Abuse—
Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 171 of 459
19
even if the perpetrator was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, and the Abuse occurred in connection with BSA-related Scouting—should result in a significant reduction of the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount.
b. Other Non-Scouting Relationship. A Protected Party’s responsibility for a perpetrator may be factually or legally attenuated or mitigated where the perpetrator also maintained a non-familial relationship with the Abuse Claimant through a separate affiliation, such as a school, or a religious organization, even if the perpetrator was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, or the Abuse occurred in settings where a Protected Party did not have the ability or responsibility to exercise control. Factors to consider include how close the relationship was between the perpetrator and the victim outside of their Scouting-related relationship, whether Abuse occurred and the extent of such Abuse outside of their Scouting relationship, and applicable law related to apportionment of liability. In such event, the Settlement Trustee shall determine and apply a mitigating Scaling Factor that accounts for such other relationship and the related Abuse. By way of example, if the Settlement Trustee determines after evaluation of an Allowed Abuse Claim and application of all of the other Scaling Factors that the perpetrator, who was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party for BSA-related Scouting, also was the primary teacher (at a non-Protected Party entity or institution) of the Abuse Claimant outside of BSA-related Scouting, and if numerous incidents of Abuse occurred outside of Scouting before one incident of BSA-related Scouting Abuse occurred, the Settlement Trustee shall apply a mitigating Scaling Factor as a material reduction of the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount.
c. Other Responsible Non-Protected Party. The Abuse Claimant may have a cause of action under applicable law for a portion of his or her Direct Abuse Claim against a responsible entity, such as a Chartered Organization, that is not a Protected Party. By way of example, if the Settlement Trustee determines after evaluation of a Submitted Abuse Claim that (i) a Chartered Organization that is not a Protected Party is responsible under applicable law for a portion of the liability and (ii) a Protected Party(ies) are not also liable for the same portion of the liability) (taking into account the relevant jurisdiction’s prevailing law on apportionment of damages), the Settlement Trustee shall apply a final Scaling Factor to account for such non-Protected Party’s portion of the liability.
(ii) Other Settlements, Awards, Contributions, or Limitations. The Settlement Trustee may consider any further limitations on the Abuse Claimant’s recovery in the tort system. The Settlement Trustee also should consider the amounts of any settlements or awards already received by the Abuse Claimant from other, non-Protected Party sources as well as agreed and reasonably likely to be received contributions from other, non-Protected Party sources that are related to the Abuse. By way of example, the Settlement Trustee should assign an appropriate Scaling
Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 172 of 459
20
Factor to Allowed Abuse Claims capped by charitable immunity under the laws of the jurisdiction where the Abuse occurred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where an Abuse Claimant has obtained a recovery based on the independent liability of a third party for separate instances of Abuse that occurred without connection to Scouting activities, or on the Non-Scouting portion of a Mixed Claim, no mitigating factor or reduction in value will be applied based on that recovery.
(iii) Statute of Limitations or Repose. If the evidence provided by the Abuse Claimant or otherwise obtained by the Settlement Trustee results in the Settlement Trustee concluding that the subject Direct Abuse Claim could be dismissed or denied in the tort system as to all Protected Parties against whom the Direct Abuse Claim was timely submitted (as set forth in Articles IV.A) due to the passage of a statute of limitations or a statute of repose, the Settlement Trustee shall apply an appropriate Scaling Factor based on the ranges set forth in Schedule 1 hereof; provided, however, the Settlement Trustee will weigh the strength of any relevant evidence submitted by the Abuse Claimant to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled or deemed timely under applicable law, and may apply a higher Scaling Factor if such evidence demonstrates to the Settlement Trustee that tolling or a finding of timeliness would be appropriate under applicable state law.
(iv) Absence of a Putative Defendant. If the Direct Abuse Claim could be diminished because such claim was not timely submitted against BSA or another Protected Party (as set forth in Articles IV.A) (a “Missing Party”), such that in a suit in the tort system, such Direct Abuse Claim would be burdened by an “empty chair” defense due to the absence of a Missing Party(ies), the Settlement Trustee shall apply a mitigating Scaling Factor to account for a Missing Party’s absence. By way of example, where a timely submitted Direct Abuse Claim was not timely submitted against BSA (i.e., the Abuse Claimant failed to timely file a Chapter 11 POC) but was only timely submitted against the Local Council and/or another Protected Party (as set forth in Articles IV.A(ii) and (iii)), such absence of the BSA due to BSA’s discharge would be the basis for such a substantial reduction. Any Direct Abuse Claim that is reduced due to the absence of the BSA under this mitigating Scaling Factor shall only be payable, as reduced, from Settlement Trust Assets contributed by the applicable Local Council or Chartered Organization, pro rata with all other Direct Abuse entitled to share in the Settlement Trust Assets contributed by such Local Council or Chartered Organization.
F. Allowed Abuse Claim Calculus. After the Settlement Trustee assigns an Allowed Abuse Claim to a Claims Matrix tier and determines the appropriate Scaling Factors that apply to the Claim, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim is the product of the Base Matrix Value of the Claim and the Scaling Factors applied to the Claim. In no event can an Allowed Abuse Claim’s Proposed Allowed Claim Amount (or Allowed Claim Amount) exceed the Maximum Matrix Value for the Claim’s assigned Claims Matrix tier. By way of example, if an Allowed Abuse Claim is determined by the Settlement Trustee to be a tier 1 claim (Base Matrix Value of $600,000) with a Scaling Factor of 1.5 for the nature and circumstances of the abuse, and a mitigating Scaling Factor of 0.75, and no other Scaling Factors, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim would be $675,000, calculated as $600,000 x 1.5 x 0.75 = Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 173 of 459
21
$675,000. As a further example, if, in addition to the above Scaling Factors, the same Allowed Abuse Claim had an additional aggravating Scaling Factor of 2.0 on account of the abuser’s profile, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim would be $1,350,000 (calculated as $600,000 x 1.5 x .75 x 2.0).

33 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Actually, the BSA must submit a business plan that shows that it can survive the next five years.  The plan must be based upon reasonable and likely projections. 

Yes, it has.  But with no parties in opposition objecting to that, and they haven't, the judge isn't going to become a financial analyst.

On 6/9/2022 at 3:40 PM, PaleRider said:

I just got off the phone with my lawyer and he said he caught wind that the judge will not be making a decision untill the end of June.

ANY suggestions of when a ruling will come down is a guess.  Period.  It might be the end of Jun it might be tomorrow.  It also might be scheduled and we all hear her read it and it might get posted to the docket without her verbalizing it.  It also might be a part of a hearing where she essentially says "I'm good with this but I'd like to give some parties 48-72 hours to see if they can resolve that."   I'm struck by the irony that after decades Survivors find themselves waiting, again.  But, there will be more of that.  If a trust is established then expedited checks will go out with relative speed; relative to two years of bankruptcy proceedings that is.  For those filing a yet-to-be-developed award form and submitting documentation the wait will be MUCH longer AFTER a Trust becomes operational.  Then....there will also be litigation against non-settling insurers....and the insurance industry is masterful at delay since it's all about time value of money.  Let's hope in the meantime more Survivors don't fall prey to the "structured settlement" lenders that prey on people that need their money now.

On 6/9/2022 at 11:01 AM, clbkbx said:

The rough estimate I made was that it is in the neighborhood of 30% funded (as compared to liabilities) with no additional contributions. As @MYCVAStory noted in a response, there are known changes (my estimate: 10% to administer the fund) and suspected changes (how many people will follow through, fraud, etc.). Re: how many claims will be paid, this analysis estimated about 43,000. 

Has anyone else made an estimate? 

The expense to run any Trust is an important issue.  It's also a  function of the size of the trust.  There's economy of scale so the larger the trust balance the smaller the percentage to go to expenses (but quite possibly much more in total).  A good target is 5-7% but start-up expenses are often large.  THIS was why the TCC was fighting the "trust governance" issue so hard with the first plan.  If a small group of attorneys, say a "coalition" if you will, then there are few checks and balances on everything from professional fees to claim administration.  If there's a trust then Survivors MUST demand transparency and assurance that THEIR money is being spent appropriately. 

As far as total claims, this will be interesting.  In many "mass tort" cases claimants just sort of disappear.  They are non-responsive and don't follow-through.  But, many experts I've spoken too say that it's different with sexual abuse.  Fewer claimants try to make bogus claims and follow-through is higher.  Time will tell.  The Bates report threw out the 43,000 claimant figure but it is VERY important to remember two things.  One, it was not his original figure.  The original was much higher.  Two, THIS number was produced after the first failed vote I believe to provide "Trust fully funded" headlines.  It's easy to fund a trust when you just decreased the denominator! 

I don't like making guesses unless I have enough data to make an educated one.  Or, I'll admit that it's a wild-a$$ guess.  This is sort of the latter for me.  I'd think about starting with the close to 60K people who voted, and then increase that number because there's a financial motivation to participate.  Final number?  Beats me but I'd be surprised if it's 43,000.   Remember too....it also comes down to validation. 

On 6/8/2022 at 9:04 PM, Tron said:

So with all of these losses/projected losses what happens 10-20-30 years down the road when research and books like this start getting published? 

Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories

This author has staked out a space highly defensive of the church so there must be some perspective.  For example, here's a comment from: https://beyondthesestonewalls.com/blog/gordon-macrae/catholic-media-join-sex-abuse-pile-david-f-pierre-jr

As I have written in the past, “credible” could mean as little as that the abuse was geographically possible, that it can be shown that the accuser was merely at a parish at the same time as an accused cleric. The “credible” bar is a very low one indeed.What do we truly know about the McCarrick scandal? We know he had a beach house. We know that he often invited priests and seminarians there. We know that McCarrick often shared a bed with a guest. We know a lot of clergy were uncomfortable with it.People ask, “Why didn’t people say anything?” Well, here’s an idea: Maybe there was no abuse. Maybe the whole beach house thing was gay, creepy, and wildly inappropriate, but no one ever felt that the interactions rose to the level of “abuse.” Has anyone ever thought of that?Yes, gay seminarians and priests should not be sharing a beach house. But was anyone really surprised by this public revelation?

Uh-huh...."Why didn't people say anything?  How long have Survivors been hearing that? 

On 6/10/2022 at 5:00 PM, RememberSchiff said:

For Chapter 11 reorganization plan confirmation doesn't the judge also have to believe the plan will not lead to Chapter 7?

No.  That's the debtor's problem.  While the Judge has expressed support for "continuing the mission" of the BSA it's ultimately up to the debtor to propose a plan IT feels will work.  Inherent in that is the agreement of the other parties that the BSA will survive at least long enough to pay any amounts owed.

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Anyone else having trouble getting on the Zoom hearing? It's never happened to me before this.

Did you get on?  There was a bit of a delay in their admitting people to the hearing today.

On 5/19/2022 at 11:53 AM, Cecille25 said:

**the boys in the troop have the shirt with the big 58 in many colors. 

I'm catching up but I noticed that you posted that comment and then photos of Scouts and adults.  I'm also assuming that these are not all your family.  If that's the case I believe they should be removed from this forum.  Unless releases were signed or there was express consent that photos taken during a Scouting event would be shared with a larger audience I suspect those pictured and their parents believed this was for private and not public use.  If It was my child I'd ask that you use photos he wasn't in to make your case.

All of that said, I hope you will be as aggressive as you believe is warranted in addressing your YP concerns.  When it comes to youth safety, mental or physical, there's no excuse not to be zealous. 

On 5/20/2022 at 8:42 AM, Eagle1993 said:

... do you know if the youth protection changes from bankruptcy require BSA to include an anti-retaliation policy?  

Short answer: Apparently not.    Long answer: I haven't seen this in writing but that shouldn't be taken to mean that it isn't important or could be part of new YP measures.  I think all parties (TCC and SWG) were focused on creating a structural mechanism for ongoing evaluation and changes.  This was the right tact to take.  If the non-monetary demands were too granular then there would have been an excellent chance that any "laundry list" would have had omissions AND not able to address needed changes in the future.  So, the non-monetary agreements are for a YP Executive and Youth Protection Committee along with a third-party entity that will ALL be responsible for YP evaluation and changes now AND in the future.  Can a non-retaliation policy be put in place then if it's brought to the attention of the YPE and YPC?  Absolutely.