johnsch322

A thought came to me about just and fair compensation and how ridiculous the current offer is and let me explain. Survivors at a minimum suffer from PTSD, depression and anxiety. If the VA determined that you had these same conditions from a traumatic event (and the sexual abuse is considered (traumatic) you would be awarded a minimum of a 30% disability. A 30% disability would get you tax free approximately $500 per month or $6000 per year. In addition you would be entitled free medical and that could easily be seen as an additional $500 per month. If you got your VA award at the age of 30 and you lived until the age of 83 (hypothetical of course) you would have an award of $600,00. I know that we are in a bankruptcy but with an average award under the current plan to be about $39,000 or less (depends on who does the math) that is a pitiful amount compared to $600,000. If I receive $39,000 and had to pay no lawyers fees and my abuse happened at the age of 13 and I lived to be 83 I would have received it would come out to $557 dollars for every year that I suffered.

I just cannot get past the view of just compensation for a lifetime of pain is "greed" and that scouts who do "civic ceremonies and still go camping and have fun" creates a balance were I and other survivors (those who were abused by members of the BSA) and therefore we should get less.

?

That is why I like Uber and Lyft I know how much I have to pay before I get inside.

The biggest increase will come from the insurance companies when the current plan is rejected. I think the LC’s will have to double the amount committed and it won’t be tied to membership increases payable in 2035 (that part is pretty insulting).

My bad I meant a standalone BSA only chapter 11

If BSA national goes bankruptcy alone claimants will share in whatever in whatever BSA national puts into the settlement.

If this became a BSA National only Chapter 7 then all claimants will still get their share from BSA National. It would be less but not nothing. On the other hand, many local councils will find themselves in bankruptcy themselves and as more states allow claims to filed more LC's over time will face bankruptcy.

I would not be surprised if that was a question and debate going on behind closed doors right now. BSA may be asking themselves if they should just do a standalone bankruptcy. It would most likely save them some legal fees. Especially if the plan was rejected on appeal.

This is not an accurate statement. A NO vote does not necessarily mean that all legitimate claims (time barred or not) will not receive compensation. It only means that the plan as constructed will be rejected by vote. Afterwards a new plan most likely the TCC's will be put into play and the TCC is not against the grey state reductions. In fact if it is rejected and LC's, CO's and Insurance kicks in more money than each individual claimant will get more. That is if they are allowed to have liability releases within BSA's bankruptcy which is a big question mark after yesterday's Purdue ruling. Your statement follows along the lines of what the Coalition keeps saying which is full of holes and not backed by facts. TCC talked about working with BSA in last nights Town Hall.

So when I am looking at Los Padres (California) with 83 claims with a low range of liability at $31,875,500 and high range at $144,323,500 and $14,453,991 in unrestricted assets contributing $1,834,155 or 12.7% of net unrestricted assets VS Ventura Council (California) with 84 claims with a low range of liability at $30,178,500 and high range at $136,510,500 and $1,437,344 in unrestricted assets contributing $325,108 or 22.6% of net unrestricted assets I do not understand the data?

The number of claims can vary greatly. There are LC's with 2 claims giving a higher % than LC's with 300 claims. No rhyme no reason.

I have been browsing thru the TCC's Local Council analysis and I am amazed at the differences of % of contribution from unrestricted assets from council to council. Some give very little compared to what they have and some give a lot more and that can be within the same state.

The plan is not going to be accepted by the survivors and for good reasons. Los Padres the council where I have a claim has 83 claims against it and values Los Padres share of liability at $22,098 per claim. This is in California and open state and they want to contribute just under 13% of their unrestricted net assets to get a release of liability as if they had gone thru a bankruptcy or paid off their share of judgements or settlements. the councils cost of litigation would exceed the $22,098 per claim.

Well with that analogy I would say that it took a village to abuse me. The village consisted of BSA National, the LC, a CO, a Troop and an abuser hence as a village they are responsible and should pay.

I do not want to beat a dead horse but you make statements with insinuations without real numbers or meaning. It was just 2 simple questions. PS I know money and all survivors know money will not fix pain. It is compensation for the pain.

Sorry quoting wrong person.

So I ask you what are "impossible expectations" versus reasonable expectation in dollars? Also what are the "two wrongs do not make a right"? Are you saying the abuse was wrong and just compensation is wrong?

Copied from TCC website The next regular Town Hall of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants' (the “TCC”) in the Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy cases will be held on Thursday, December 16, 2021, 8 pm (Eastern).

A bad deal for BSA survivors became worse with the "negotiated" settlement with Century and became a sweetheart deal for insurance company's. This is starting to feel more and more like the BSA is settling with insurance instead of survivors.

I just watched the coalition town hall along with several others that I am on a chat with. KR started to get very heated at the end when we asked a lot of questions about what he was saying. The official question count was at about 26 and between the 3 or 4 of us we must have asked 30 questions. Not an a very accurate question count by the coalition. He also talked in a not nice way about Jim Stang and the fact that TCC has paused town halls until after voting. And once again he said big announcements were coming real soon.

Omni is back online.

My bad I meant survivors trust.

They are not representing victims on a contingency basis. TCC lawyers are Pachulski Stang Ziehl and Jones LLP. and they were hired by the TCC and paid for by the BSA.

Can you explain that please? My understanding is that the 10% is going into the settlement trust.