Eagle1970

8 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

Could you tell me what PBGC means please sir? 

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.

13 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

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:

ated as $600,000 x 1.5 x .75 x 2.0).

Indeed, that is detailed in the TDP, which I have read several times.  What I meant to relate is that we don't know much about how the scaling factors will be applied and how much abuse will fit into each category.  There are wide ranges for each of the aggravating factors, as well as the SOL factors and we don't know what that will all look like in the final distribution.  Granted, we know how many claims are in each SOL range, but we don't know, for instance, if a Grey 3 claimant will receive .10 or .25 factors within the scale. 

Again, the possible factor for my abuse could be anywhere from 1.0 to 2.0 and theoretically could be even lower or higher.  I would have been more comfortable with this if there were no ranges for the individual factors, especially pro se.  It begs the question as to whether an attorney might be able to obtain higher factors, with their ability to cite case law on SOL tolling and such.

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

14 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

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. 

So many variables.  60k sounds reasonable.  And give or take 10k, you can probably take it to the bank.  But how many take the $3500?  If the additional verification process and questionnaire are detailed, I would guess that many will.  If 20,000 take it, that only takes $70m from the trust, with minimal administrative costs.  However, most are represented, and I can't see a lot of law firms going for the $3500. 

We also know very little about the scaling factors, other than SOL.  With my own abuse claim, I can make a case for 1.0 to 2.0.  I will take a wild guess and say it is funded at about 20%.  Maybe future insurance settlements will prove that to be too low.

2 hours ago, 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.

I'm sure it's not the case here, but legal cases have never moved very fast in the Summer, for me.  Thanks for the update.  As with a few others here, I am pro se, so have nobody to call.

3 hours ago, clbkbx said:

My best guess analysis linked above. There was a data set after the last vote which included the alleged abuse (so a tier could be determined) and alleged location (so SOL's could be factored in). I'm confident that it's less than fully funded. 

 

Thanks.  I know there are a lot of variables.  I was thinking 10% or so.  Not really sure why they used such high base amounts, given that probability.  Meanwhile, Nassar's victims want another few million more each, from taxpayers.

I have read the TDP and have a pretty good understanding of how it works, if this is approved.  What I have little handle on is what the payouts might be.  I understand $3500 and done is one option, and I understand the Independent Review Option.  The balance are subject to the Matrix, which has Aggravating and Mitigating Factors.  If this were fully funded, and claimants received what the Matrix called for, there would still be decent settlements.  But the part I cannot grasp is the extent to which claims will be funded. 

Obviously, this is an unknown that will be based on the number of claims and the final claims factor, and will be applied to the money currently received in the Trust and that to be received in the future.  So, with all that said, for the sake of example, if a claimant's abuse was in the top tier ($600,000) and for simplicity has a 1.0 scaling factor then fully-funded he would receive $600,000.  It would appear the Trust will be tremendously underfunded.  But, to what extent.  Will the referenced $600,000 turn into $60,000, $30,000.  Thoughts anyone?

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

I simply quoted the OP.  Frankly, it is not worth my time to try to find it in the numerous pages of things on this forum.  Most on here over the last year or more have surely seen some of the indicators of exaggeration and possibly supposition by K, as well as some other "legal" line walkers.  Reality is that most of the legal people involved often make me pretty skeptical.  

Look at my post above with the link.  I posted the article with attribution to Kosnoff, from NPR.  Click the link, view the article.

11 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Why is the answer Kosnoff when he did not write the article nor was he quoted in the article?

Boy Scouts sell off camps under strain from sex abuse suits : NPR

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Can you provide a link where Kosnoff is quoted saying that?

 

Boy Scouts sell off camps under strain from sex abuse suits : NPR

10 hours ago, skeptic said:

"Just wondering about this.  I have seen several articles lately about LC owned camps being worth $10 Billion, apparently according to Kosnoff."  And he is NOT the champion of the people some seem to think, as should be obvious from some of his actions and his meddling with parts of the procedure and being warned by the judge.  I suspect you actually know this.

This particular article did not attribute the valuation to Kosnoff.  I read a couple of others that did.

Just wondering about this.  I have seen several articles lately about LC owned camps being worth $10 Billion, apparently according to Kosnoff.  My obvious question is why the LC contribution is so much lower than that.  

https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/bankrupt-boy-scouts-may-have-10-billion-in-land-and-developers-want-it/article_bfd254e3-6517-5695-b12f-db2fe5b79029.html

1 hour ago, MattR said:

I'm just curious, but, for the survivors, has talking helped?

It has not helped me.  And the more this case has reopened the memory, the worse it has become.  I'm in a SOL state, can't prosecute my monster or sue anybody.  There might be finality when the case is over.  Knowing there is nothing more I can do, there is no other path.  Knowing my abuser will face no penalty leaves me somber.

17 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Chartered Organizations are directly responsible for the units where abuse occurred.  So, they will face liability in individual cases.  How liable they are will vary case by case.  Now, I believe only 2 chartered orgs are fully freed from pre 2020 liability (LDS & Methodist) if this deal goes through.  The remaining chartered orgs are free from ~1976 and prior liability but could face lawsuits post 76 to present.

Councils ... similar.  They were responsible for providing oversight to units ... so could be found liable for the abuse.  Again, that will vary case by case.  100% of councils are buying coverage through this bankruptcy for abuse pre Feb 2020.

So am I correct in my understanding that since my abuse was pre-1976 (Catholic Church Sponsor) and they will not be released, that I will receive a mitigating factor in the calculations?  Even though under State law they are protected by SOL....

48 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This wait seems very long.  I still lean to her approving the plan, but I wouldn't be surprised if she has found some issues and is making it very clear where the issues (and where there are no issues).  We will see...

All of this seems like it is taking forever.  But, in reality, even simple cases can take substantial time in court.  And this is no simple case.

11 hours ago, ThenNow said:

The first time it was posted, I couldn't watch all the way through. I felt like it was too sensationalized with the Hitchcockian score, over wrought camera angles and typical American film schmutz. Decided to watch it through 10 minutes ago. I still despise how American filmmakers and TV producers troll the bottom for easy enticement and dramatization, but was taken off guard during one snippet. It really threw me. It was when the abuser was in a dark family room with the boy. They sat side by side on the sofa. The man put his arm around the boy and it was like someone sucked the center mass out of my body. "Just like that..." I could literally feel the negative energy impact and and the air left me. Wow. The Body Keeps the Score. To state the obvious, I was abused in my SM's home, in addition to Summer Camp, camping trips, Scouting events, and other interactions at diverse locations. 

Yep, I really didn't need the audio at all.  It was over the top.  But the video was so on target, I thought for a moment it was my camp.  

Just found the trailer and viewed it.  I didn't need any audio to take me back to that summer.  The camp, the lake... it was just like that for me.  It is clear that while I probably need to watch this and other programming to continue to work through my abuse, I will die with the bad memories.  And, no, there are no good memories.  Now I look at every event with question.

5 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

https://generalliabilityinsure.com/small-business/youth-groups-insurance.html

 

Abuse and molestation exposure is very high due to activities being focused on children. No coverage is available to the abuser. While there is some coverage available in the standard market for the youth group where the abuse takes place, it may be very restricted.

More complete coverage should be purchased through specialized markets. The youth group must take all possible care to protect children from predatory adults and older children through criminal background checks, training, monitoring, and supervision, and report all allegations of abuse to the proper authorities.

Insurance companies, believe it or not, are only interested in money.  If I were underwriting BSA exposure, at least based on history and the current situation, there would be no way I'd sign off on the risk without a huge premium.  And the same goes for the Catholic church.  Granted, neither is able to cover up abuse as they could in the past, but the potential is still there and is going to be there.  I really don't know how you would even price the exposure.  One claim could cost millions.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA must have made their insurance payment in February.

Unrestricted liquidity dropped to $118M.  Note that $66M of that is a retirement fund ... so in reality, they have $52M left in the bank.  When they started the bankruptcy, they had $115M in the bank and they also burned through 100% of an endowment of $54M.  BSA will contribute some of that $52M to the settlement trust.

BSA's liquidity remained flat until June ... July & August sees pretty big negative cash flows, probably on the order of $30M or so.  I think BSA, if they leave bankruptcy by end of April should leave with about $30M in cash in the bank.  

SO.... around September, BSA will be out of cash.  That assumes the bankruptcy goes through as planned.  Recruiting helps in Sept - Jan + BSA should be a bit better off as they won't be paying big bankruptcy fees.  So they probably won't hit $0 in Sept ... but could be close.

f4a81bfa-d54b-4da2-b599-945c95d1997f_9538.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Thanks for all of your detailed posts.

In a sense, an enterprise should not leave bankruptcy with much more than zero.  Do you have an idea of the total non-liquid asset value they will retain?

14 hours ago, scoutesquire said:

There literally has been zero proof of fraud.  The insurers would have paraded it around the Courtroom.  There might have been people that didn't fill out the claim form completely--does that mean Fraud?  No.  It might mean they had a change of heart.  It might also mean they don't remember the details because it is suppressed.  Where is the fraud?  Why didn't they present fraud at the trial?  Signatures have nothing to do with fraud.  You all have bought into the insurers arguments.  

While I haven't bought into insurer's arguments and have no interest in debating the topic, there is typically a percentage of fraudulent claims in mass tort cases.  It would be highly unlikely this is an exception, with the around-the-clock tv and fb ads telling the world there is a ton of money awaiting.  

14 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

This proceeding has backed the Judge into a box.  Typically by now the parties have danced around enough that they are coming to agreements and the Judge can "tweak" them a bit by making it clear where the issues are.  Then, after some hallway negotiations the Judge is asked to bless a mutually consensual plan.  This is anything but.  Between the MASSIVE insurance issues, third-party release challenges that she clearly signaled yesterday, and a host of others there are REAL challenges in place and she could very well say "I'd like to agree that X issue can be agreed to but my hands are constitutionally tied."  All of this is showing that the BSA NEVER should have entered into bankruptcy.  That advice led them into a trap where the mass tort attorneys opened the floodgates.  Instead, the BSA WITH ITS INSURERS should have dealt with cases as they arose, even with that number increasing significantly.  How did their attorneys NOT warn them of the flood they'd create?  Next week's arguments should be interesting and allow for some tea-leaf reading but then it'll be 2-3 weeks until we know anything.  Then, we'll see if the insurers appeal...or maybe the TCC if she tries to cram anything down, and if so, would the Coalition say "We'll take what we can get to pay our bills at this point."  It's a mess and while I suspect the Judge wants to do the right thing, the bankruptcy code thing might get in the way.  Hoping I'm wrong.

 

I believe the proof of claim process was flawed.  Had it required personal completion and real signatures with much more detail, many weak or even fraudulent claims would have never been filed.  Now they have to do what they can on the back end, after law firms have substantial money invested.  Regarding the need for bankruptcy, I see it as BSA didn't have much choice.  A couple dozen crazy high jury awards and they would be back in the same box-especially if the look back windows and sol revisions held up.

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

What is the meaning of the acronym IRO?

Independent Review Option

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

A psychologist for certain insurers was pushing to require all TDPs to go through a certain specific level of testing prior to payment.  She made some very interesting points, including that around 40% of the individuals she has dealt with were false claims (at least based on certain standards).   Her main point is that self questionaires are almost worthless in ensuring claims are valid.

That said ... what she is asking is unprecedented.  In addition, it would take on the order of nearly $200M and 187 person years of work.   It would probably work on a very small scale, but wouldn't fit this case.

Very nice woman who is very concerned that money will go to fraud vs actual victims, but her solution is probably not feasible.  (My opinion after listening to cross).

 

There must be middle ground that washes out claims lacking credibility without further traumatizing valid claimants.  If the payout was 7 figures, I would fully expect serious testing.  If, however, a Grey state victim is headed for 4 or low 5 figures, they can't really expect much.   And as we know, $3500 will require nothing.

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

This a previously discussed insurer concern.  Months ago?  Year+?   Insurers saying they are being thrown under the bankruptcy bus without the policy holder helping triage / defend the claims.   Instead, the policies will be held by a trust who's interest is to get the most possible from the insurer.  

Question:  Is this really different than other huge insurance claims.  Bankruptcy is like the insured going out of business.  Further liability is passed up to the insurance company?  Once the insured maxed out how much to pay, the insured stops defending the claim.

I never saw a policy that stated the insured could do everything he wanted to worsen the claim.  Mostly, they require full cooperation of the insured.  And not necessarily for a lower rate, as was previously mentioned.  So, yep, it is standard procedure.

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Today's hearing has been pretty interesting.  Certain insurers are saying their policies REQUIRE the owner of the policy to help in the defense/review of the claim.  That allowed insurers to offer their insurance to BSA at a lower premium.  Now, the witness is saying, the debtors and claimants worked together and violated the contract terms of the insurance policies.

I think the issue is that in the plan TDPs and neutral there is no provided defense to help the insurers as required per their contract terms.

It is unfortunate that, while valid and necessary to go through all of these motions, they may lead to a substantial delay in payments to victims.  My entire career was insurance related, and every day of delay is more profit.  Many of us are already in our late 60's or 70's and may not live long enough to see this process to conclusion.

2 hours ago, JBWest said:

Today's testimony from Charles Bates was interesting to armchair tort lawyers such as myself.  Surprised to see how many claimants provided no information in their proof of claim: no unit number, no name of the abuser, not even a physical description.  I'm not sure it had a substantial bearing on the case, and I noticed minimal objections from the creditors.  His data was fascinating from an actuarial / finance point of view, however.  If this continues tomorrow I suspect the number of Zoom participants may drop below 300.

The upcoming questionnaire will require much more detail.  I wonder how many proofs were submitted on behalf of claimants that just didn't bother to interview them versus those who simply don't remember anything.