clbkbx

If anyone is considering the Independent Review option and is happy with their counsel, would you drop a recommendation to me by message? Thank you.

I know there’s no good way to do this when it’s the finest letter you can buy from a PR firm… but it’s pointedly not just to survivors.

I wouldn't put too much on feedback from someone that hasn't been part of Scouting for at least 50 years. It's been half that for me and I couldn't tell if you if was fun anymore. The proof will be in the pudding: does Scouting thrive compared to today's alternatives.

The article says "the committed amounts to be paid under the plan total more than $3.0 billion" which is news to me... the last I recall was around $2.5 billion. That two plus years of negotiating with the biggest insurance companies yielded $1.6 billion but "additional funds from non-settling insurance companies could add another $4 billion" always seems laughable. A restated conclusion: A payment in full plan—100%—would be impressive. I hope this plan goes into effect but I think many are willfully delusional about the required level of funding. Again, hope I'm wrong!

Agreed this is not a helpful website but I’ll beat a dead horse: not even their own informational website assumes it’s currently fully funded.

Thank you for the clarification on the alternative path, I thought that was earlier in the process. The snippet above reads to me as: it's fully funded but... uhhh.... there is also potential additional funding. The Matrix amounts wrt known claims, the various expert estimates, the funding amounts, etc. just don't square with each other.

That's a good point about the TCC supporting this version plan. I also wanted to note that, at this point, I'd like it to go into effect. You're also right about history fans: my recollection is that the TCC wailed that the settlements were "historically low" and then started to support the plan after the YPT sections were changed. That's always been a disconnect in my mind. [You've also heard me wail that youth protection had to be negotiated doesn't sit well.] I don't think what I posted is cherry picking. Both judges leaned on the Bates testimony. It's referenced repeatedly, prese

Ouch. All that analysis for naught.

Wouldn’t the LCs then be looking for bankruptcy protection individually as the lawsuits against them would move forward? I don’t think it’s quite like a non-culpable franchise member.

It’s so odd to me that we have not heard anything from the TCC in a long time. I emailed them a few weeks ago and wrote: it’s been a month since the ruling, you’ve noted in the past that you’ve been locked out of negotiations, we are interested in what you think about the ruling, can we get an update? No response.

Not certain this answers your question but you might look at the role of the Future Claimant’s Representative. They (at least) represent people who haven’t filed a claim due to age or repressed memories.

Third Modified Fifth Amended Thread

That is how the Settlement Trust Contribution payout timeline is determined.

There is a Settlement Trust Contribution from BSA that includes a note, cash, artwork, oil & gas leases, etc. (+/- $250 million is the most recent estimate I can find... not sure if that has been updated). After that is paid there is a Settlement Growth Payment (see #267 in the most recent plan), which I believe is what you are referencing. Up to $100 million additional based on membership rates above 1.5 million scouters or 0.5 million volunteers. The $100 million would be realized if they have 5.5% annual growth.

This is just what I wanted to know… is there a normal ratio of expenses to settlement amount? From what I’ve read and this discussion, it seems to vary quite a bit.