clbkbx

44 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

be nice if the same thing happens to the lawyers

That is exactly what happens for most of the lawyers. They get a percentage of the distribution.  
 

@Eagle1970Thanks for sharing and sorry to hear that. The state by state difference is terrible. 

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

There is nothing healing in this process.

For you, maybe.

Some survivors (including myself) do find on balance that it is healing. It got me back to therapy and there will be some sort of finality.

How many people actually post in this thread regularly, 20? Are even half of those stating they were abused in BSA? It's just such a small representation of the number of victims.

I'm glad to see @Bzzyadding a voice and it's crushing to know this is not the case for everyone. That was me for a good portion of the bankruptcy process (mad at the underfunding, inequity of distribution, the lousy lawyers, the amount of time, etc.)

That some victims will find some peace through and around this process is a good thing. The Boy Scouts could have done this better and there would have been more positive outcomes.

13 hours ago, Ojoman said:

This was and is about a huge 1 Billion $+ payday for lawyers and law firms. 

That’s not really fair, especially after a post from a survivor saying he thought it would bring a measure of peace. It’s a big mess and about protecting assets and making money for lawyers, etc. but it’s not only the bad parts. 

4 hours ago, Tron said:

summary really broken down to the council

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0q1ox20xqw5mmzjz4i5im/a3fa6777-ba03-42a0-a73b-5c9a90600938_2022-03-11_FINAL_REDACTED_Supplemental_LC_and_CO_Voting_Report.xlsx?rlkey=t7x65kvcmqmypuvp5zhedg4tl&dl=0

That is the excel sheet that was provided after the vote that was accepted. I don’t recall whether the question was for current council or at time of abuse. There’s a lot of empty cells and it only reflects the data from people that voted… but maybe you can use it. 

On 12/11/2023 at 10:31 AM, Ojoman said:

BSA was doing youth protection training way back

Hey @Ojoman, I know you’re tapping out and I’ve done the same at times so I’m just using your post as a jumping off point. I’ve learned a lot in this forum both confirming and disproving what I thought previously.

Here is my (and everyone’s) actual recent experience: the Boy Scouts negotiated around and waited to implement YP measures during the lengthy bankruptcy process. My point of view is that this indicates that they are not always acting in good faith and they err in balancing their desire to protect their brand over preventing abuse. 

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

are being disingenuous

Can you post them or provide any documentation like @SiouxRangersuggested?
 

BSA knew when my abuser was arrested in the late 90’s and didn’t do anything helpful. Radio silence. They didn’t offer to help in any way (to me, family, police). Hard for me to believe they would have involved the police when they wouldn’t even engage to help an abused scout when there was a credible accusation. 

On 12/9/2023 at 6:24 PM, skeptic said:

but it does not control those outside it, or even completely control those within

Here’s a comment about the Boy Scouts’ current actions: the only substantive change from the last bankruptcy plan voted down to the approved one is more youth protection. Negotiating on the level of protection clearly shows that they are a corporation trying to protect themselves. Agreed there is always risk but they are foremost managing the risk to themselves and hard to believe this approach has only changed recently (to be more cynical).

The person that abused me did go to prison. Before then, a Boy Scouts employee told an ASM his suspicions were unfounded (continuing the abuse), at least two Boy Scouts employees allowed him to take me to camps that were closed where I was raped, no one at the Boy Scouts reached about after this became public, etc.

It can’t be both ways: it’s always going to happen and we’ll only do what we need to do to in order to be a viable business. 

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.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

letter to survivors

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.  

45 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

71 years old retired cop

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. 

3 hours ago, PaleRider said:

pays-all-claims-in-full-100

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!

9 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

does NOT take into account any scaling factors that would increase or decrease awards and assumes that all claims can be funded at 100%.  It's merely a simplified way to look at the matrix and apply it to open and closed States.

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.  

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

That leaves a few claimants who could likely not afford the experts and analysis to prove Bates wrong.  

I believe in addition to YPT the TCC also got the agreement for the alternative path.  That path technically allows full payment of any claim removing the limits of the matrix. 

I think it is too early to know if it is 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. 

13 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Sure, but time will tell what percentage claims will be paid in the end.  As well, it's important not to cherry-pick statements as the objectors did.  The TCC didn't provide any expert testimony/evidence related to valuation at the plan confirmation hearing for one simple reason, the BSA, which the TCC and Coalition joined as plan supporters, provided it.   The Judge also cited the expert opinion of Bates as convincing so that move was the right one.

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, presented as "payment in full" and then typically qualified, like so: 

"Payment in full... uncontroverted evidence" to "no clear error" that it will "likely provide for payment in full" in three sentences.

I've posted this analysis before but... if you take the at least reasonable claims (no invalid votes, has to show a council) from the last vote (approx 43,000 claims), arrange them by claimed class, multiply by the matrix base (no scaling up or down) and weight by the SOL... the amount is $9.4B. Happy to share this or hear any feedback on the method. 

The Plan says that the "Trust Distribution Procedures’ Claims Matrix, Base Matrix Values, Maximum Matrix Values, and Scaling Factors.., are appropriate and provide for a fair and equitable settlement of Abuse Claims based on the evidentiary record offered to the Bankruptcy Court as required..."

So the Trustee is going to have to find 75+% fraudulent claims, scale down every claim or (as I think most likely) not pay any where near the full value of the claims. I hope I'm wrong!

Ouch. All that analysis for naught. 

16 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

that does not automatically doom the franchise members or transfer franchise corporation debts to the individual franchise members.  

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. 

53 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

the Official Committee of Tort Claimants’ will hold a meeting

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. 

18 hours ago, fred8033 said:

My question had to do with claims failed between the claim deadline and BSA emerging bankruptcy.

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. 

56 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

naming contest

Third Modified Fifth Amended Thread

57 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

pay $150 per attendee

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

Quote

Such annual principal payments shall be equal to the sum of the following calculation: (a) $4,500,000; plus (b) $3.50 multiplied by the aggregate number of Youth Members as of December 31 of the preceding year up to the forecasted number of Youth Members for such year as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan; plus (c) $50 multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base Participants during the preceding calendar year; plus (d) $50 multiplied by the aggregate number of Youth Members in excess of the forecasted number of Youth Members for such year, excluding the portion of the excess that is comprised of members under the ScoutReach program, as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan; plus (e) $150 multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base Participants, excluding those attending events with a registration fee of less than $300. 

5 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

Not sure if it is in the current one.

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. 

33 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

$368 is simply the direct bankruptcy costs paid by BSA.

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.

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

$500k?  Thousand or million?

What’s a few zeros at this point?! 
 

You are, of course correct. It was something around $500 million. 

32 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

@clbkbx ...   What portion of the $368m are BSA side legal fees versus victim representative fees vs other fees ? 

If the court approves the fees, then it's the cost of the bankruptcy and reduces what was available at the start of the bankruptcy.

Hi @fred8033... to the first question, I only know that's broken down in the filings including the by-firm table that was posted above which gives a good overall sense.

I thought that in your initial post you were saying something along the lines of: an entity pays X fees to get to Y settlement (basically, what is BSA going to pay out of pocket to get through bankruptcy) and that X is normally 25-30% of Y. It seems like I might have been mistaken. 

For the second part, I think we are saying the same thing. The BSA is putting a certain amount ($500k iirc) into the Trust regardless of what payments they make to get through the process. Everything they pay out for the bankruptcy reduces what's they have available for operating going forward.

46 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

• How much further will it go?  six months more?  a year? 
• How much to setup and administer the trust?   Assuming trust goes for years.
• What percent of individual awards go to the individual lawyers? 

Thanks @fred8033. I didn't think the bottom two should be included when weighing the typical range but, like I said, I haven't been able to find any good reference for that. Administration is estimated around 10% and lawyer contingency fees are typically around 30% so right away you're at 40% not being paid out to survivors (assuming most are being represented by counsel). 

The BSA costs always seem to me to be about it's continued viability. They're not adding or subtracting to the amount they put into the Trust based on what it takes to get through bankruptcy.