clbkbx

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

What’s a few zeros at this point?! You are, of course correct. It was something around $500 million.

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.

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.

I've often wondered this (what is a typical fee to settlement ratio) and never found a good source. If the above is normal, wouldn't the fees in this case be about 50% less than normal? $2.7B x 0.25 = $675MM and $2.7B x 0.3 = $810MM. Currently at $368MM. (BTW, I'm not a lawyer!)

Revised plan filed. Redline here: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7f73fba1-1980-4766-a6b3-d80e203fd73f_10263.pdf

Thanks. Two comments on the article. 1. I thought the case was going to be appealed. This article says it’s uncertain. I wonder if that’s just because of where the case is or if it not being appealed is a possible outcome. 2. One of the interviewees said “For some victims it’s a great result,” which is something I haven’t heard from anyone. Is there a scenario where someone is getting a great outcome?

The TCC today posted a "preliminary statement" at tccbsa.com.

I was wrong about this. The most recent version includes related entities.