Eagle1970

On 6/13/2025 at 11:51 AM, MYCVAStory said:

Well.....if you want to see this move ahead, it's nice when there's a bit of good news.  The Circuit declined the en banc appeal:

Docket Text:
ORDER (CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, FREEMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, CHUNG and RENDELL*, Circuit Judges) denying Petition En Banc and for Panel Rehearing filed by Appellant Lujan Claimants. Krause, Authoring Judge.[*Judge Rendell’s vote is limited to panel rehearing only.] (SB)

So.....the appellants now only have one recourse left, a hearing before the Supreme Court.  If they take it that far a couple things to note.  One, SCOTUS rules relatively quickly whether they will put it on their docket.  Two, it would be unusual for them to take this on after the Circuit had a unanimous decision and then refused a full circuit review.

 

So, is it correct that this would end the litigation on/about July 13 (assuming no SC action)?  I wonder what the timetable will be for the next distribution and if all of the initial distributions will have to be made first.  Obviously, it will take years for all insurers to settle.  But we also know that litigation costs can be high for them.  So, I would guess some settlements will be made, sooner than later.

39 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Thanks @BadChannel70.

June 1 update: average $566,526 per TDP claim. [This has gone up every month, contra to what I thought.]

• For the TDP, 53% claims determined and 29% paid (17,009 paid)
• For the IRO, 26% claims determined and 9% paid (18 paid) 

It looks like the Expedited Distribution is just about finished (less than a percent undetermined, 92% paid). This would represent about $20MM for 6,000 survivors. Less than 1% of 2.4B, for 10% of claims.

If the Trust were to stop here, just based on claims paid amounts (not determined), they would need just over $9.5B, with 35% of the claims paid. 

Without factoring in non-Matrix IRO payments, the Trust needs about $33B to be fully funded at these averages. The Trust of course, having determined 58% of the claims, could probably give a better estimate. 

 

The Trust is not in a hurry to give an updated estimate, as it is highly unlikely that the end result will be anything even remotely close to your $33B or greater figure.  Insurance claims will have to be settled for far less than potential, as it can take a decade to otherwise reach a conclusion.  I have seen on a Facebook group that some believe they will receive $2.5M cash and are setting up trusts for grandchildren.  Good luck to them on all of that.  While it will still be significant I suspect it will be a small fraction of "fully funded".

As you might remember from our very early conversations, I was very tempted to not file a claim.  And in the end, the amount I was awarded was not enough to have gone through these 6 years.  In the beginning, I was told by the first administrators (far before the Trust) that this would be subject to Federal SOL so everybody would be equal.  So I jumped in.  Then the Trust swooped in and assigned low factors that left many of us with little.  And it's not just Missouri.  I have heard from folks in many of the more conservative states who were dealt the same hand as I was.  Missouri, btw, was a 10-25% SOL state.  However, the administrator would have none of that.  "10% and you're lucky at that because you would have 0% chance in court".  It is what it is.  Thank you for the kind thoughts.

And congrats to you, as well.  In the end, absolutely nothing mattered other than the Statute of Limitations.  I am Tier 1 with almost all the aggravating factors.  But the administrator was adamant, no matter how much caselaw and settlements I showed, that Missouri was a 10% SoL state.  So, in the end, each of those factors that would have been very important in the calculation hardly mattered, as every one was reduced by 90%.  I am happy for you and others who can move on.  I will remain bitter towards this process as long as I live.  There is no peace and there is no justice for those who were abused in a state where the insurance companies and Chamber of Commerce can come in to the process and block a window from opening.  I no longer live in Missouri and as I watched this process and other local politics play out, moving away was a good step.  Ironically, I moved to a state which is 100% open.

@thenNow I'm very happy for you.  I was tier one, and reduced by 90% in Missouri (SoL).  But I don't ever wish ill on anyone who benefits more than me.  So, I am happy for you.  Thanks for your support and the very best.

I don't have time for trolls.  Here is an update from last month:

https://survivingscouting.org/bankruptcy/2025-04-email-to-the-us-trustee?fbclid=IwY2xjawJdArpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHq1BYplGns7EEIawXnLoxIfC7WlP3b3WW1gwAinTdax4NR_hkOyx54rRsVh__aem_Qk-LecL4RoVixXdmIRtWsg

My 17 years of schooling came up with, based on these as averages, about 6% total payout from the current fund.  I agree that averaging this probably won't be accurate.  But it's all we have.  I have heard and read wild guesstimates for future insurance settlements putting the final number at 20-50%.  Should the 3rd Circuit affirm the plan, it is time for the Trust to come clean to claimants.  I see guys in one group absolutely certain they are getting their $1.5M, won't listen to anybody presenting hard numbers and making all kinds of plans with it (purchases, trust funds and so on).  I was very disappointed when my settlement was reduced by 90%, after initially being told that SoL would make no difference "because this is a bankruptcy".  And several years ago I was still optimistic.  Now, I really don't care if I never see another cent.

Thanks for the input.  As with everyone else, I check daily to see if there is anything new on the 3rd Circuit.  Hopefully it will be very soon.  Survivors are aging out by the day.

I had read that if the Third Circuit tosses the Trust, most of us get nothing.  I can't find any detail online regarding Kosnoff's plan if it is rejected.  Can you elaborate?

I also voted no.  As soon as I learned that my claim would be mostly wiped out by the Matrix SoL, there was no point in supporting it.  Then, to make matters worse, although I submitted a lot of case law the administrator reduced the claim as much as possible.  The matrix had made the state where my abuse occurred a 10-25% factor.  You guessed it...she used the 10 and wouldn't begin to adjust it in "reconsideration".  The whole thing is a sham.

My claim was reduced by 90%, so I'm not getting much anyway.  But all this talk about claims being paid at 100% look like intentionally false statements.  50% funding would have been bad, but at least something.  But this may end up at 15%.  How could they possibly get it so wrong?

The appeal is pending and ruling due soon.  If it is overturned, they will demand back any payments.

I would agree with your premise that the higher value claims pushed their way to the front of the line.  Certainly in the Open state cases with attorney representation.  The average will very likely drop.  It looks like your over/under on eventual percentage to be funded is around 30%.  That is more/less the number I had in mind for some time now.  It would be great if the trust would be a little more transparent on this issue.  Hopefully, once the appeal is cleared, that will happen.

I do believe the trust had a better handle on this, all along.  To indicate to victims that their cases were worth triple what they will actually receive is another gut punch.  They had to have a basic idea of claim value and potential recovery.  At this point, I hope they put some real money into the hands of victims, as many are aging to the point it won't much matter.

My favorite part of the oral argument was the statement referring to requiring survivors to pay back what they have received.  Last I heard, only a few thousand had received anything.  And my total "award" to date is far less than a single Social Security payment.

So for you super educated legal eagles:  If the case at hand is dismissed, relative to the 3rd party releases and whatever else may be, can another Chapter 11 be filed?  Or does it force a liquidation?  Or any other possible paths?

After having my award reduced by 90% I don't have much to lose if it does fail.  The administrator could have used a 75% reduction, as the state of my abuse is in the 10-25% SOL factor.  But she chose 10% (90% reduction) and was inflexible upon reconsideration.  But I am curious.  What occurs with survivors if the plan is killed?  Liquidation?  

9 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I wish she was trauma-informed enough to realize how offensive her repeated self-aggrandizement is to us. How much is she (not) earning per month, again?

Tried to PM you with relevant info that may be of help, but you are set to not receive messages.

I listened to the town hall, last night.  Or at least the first half.  That was about all I could take.  There is no money for release to victims beyond the 1.5% of the allowed amount, which is already paid.  The Purdue case has thrown a wrench into the Appeal to the 3rd Circuit of the Bankruptcy Plan.  The next step is briefs from both sides of the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on Purdue to the BSA plan.  That has clearly slowed down the 3rd circuit.  No estimate of when the 3rd circuit will decide on the SC ruling applicability and further no indication on when the 3rd circuit will resolve the BSA case.  Then there is no indication on whether THAT will be appealed to the SC.  The trustee congratulated the trust on getting so much done in under 1.5 years.  However, WE have been waiting nearly 5 years.  Just wondering how many will not outlive distribution or if the plan will even be permitted a path forward.

18 hours ago, swilliams said:

I'm such a skeptic.  This, sadly, sounds like another lawyer trying to cash in with more promises that may not end up matching reality.

No, you are a realist.  Years ago, I was involved in a case in which a similar claim caused a hold in the release of funds.  The larger law firms actually had to pay a 7-figure settlement to the objecting firm in order to get the process completed.  Guess what?  If you are not willing to pay a contingent fee, either represent yourself (good luck) or pay the hourly rate.

On 7/27/2024 at 7:19 PM, MYCVAStory said:

I wonder.  I wonder how many claimants called a toll-free number that turned out to be an "aggregating company", had big dollars waved in front of them, had their "lead" sold to a firm, received the bare minimum of service and will be satisfied with the monetary outcome.  It's going to become real when a more accurate picture of the award percentage is known!

I suspect that the claimants in open states will be much more pleased with their 60% than the pro se claimants in closed states, something I can personally speak to.

On 7/24/2024 at 9:44 PM, MYCVAStory said:

I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys.  Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form.  The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out.  The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it.  Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form.  The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form.  Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00.  There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules.  Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness.  My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve.  Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!"

I represented myself.  It was a substantial undertaking.  Years of filing forms, meeting deadlines, keeping educated and, oh yeah, filing an appeal.  The attorneys will spend far more than $150 to get a case through the process.  I've seen objectors clog up settlements before, causing long delays.  Claimants knew about the 40%.  In an open state, I would have been represented.  However, in my pitiful state, there was not enough to pay an attorney 40% and come out with more than chump change.  I'm sure that most represented claimants will be glad to have their 60%.  I'm not a fan of this action and would not participate in it.

• The Trust is aware of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma. The impact of that decision, if any, on the Boy Scouts’ plan of reorganization will be decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the pending appeal from confirmation of that plan in due course. In the meantime, it is business as usual for the Scouting Settlement Trust. My team continues its work evaluating and determining the claims that have been submitted to it.

Respectfully,

Hon. Barbara J. Houser (Ret.)

Trustee

Source Link: https://www.scoutingsettlementtrust.com/s/

Is it likely this will pause the BSA plan?

2 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

If you feel that the amount isn't fair you can appeal. You can go to the settlement trust website and click on the the settlement plan for more info. 

You can "request reconsideration" along with a check for $1000.  If they deny "reconsideration", they simply keep the $1000.  More abuse.

I have received a determination.  The claim was allowed.  But the amount allowed was under 5% of the maximum for the bracket and just over 10% of the minimum.  This is all due to legal technicalities of the state where I was abused.  I probably will appeal but can see where it's headed.  And I'm sure it will be years if I ever actually receive even that amount.  Not surprised.  If they only pay 10% of that amount based upon recovery, this will not even begin to have been worth it.  Just wanted to update others that determinations have begun.