Jump to content

clbkbx

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by clbkbx

  1. Glad we agree on that point, but that's exactly what the report does.
  2. The Warren report relied on the IV files and estimated there were 12,254 victims between 1944 and 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/nyregion/boy-scouts-sex-abuse.amp.html That the analysis was based on the provided files is a huge caveat throughout the report. This is the sentence before the claim that the rate was lower in the Boy Scouts: In making these comparisons, it is important to note that the two “prevalence studies” are different in intent and thoroughness and many factors can help explain the different rates of child sexual abuse including social class, family cohes
  3. My recollection is that insurers asked to further investigate some claims earlier in the process but it was not allowed. That act could have other effects but for the insurers it would be difficult to show proof if not allowed to look for evidence.
  4. If helpful: There's also section indicating you "declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct."
  5. Thanks! Do you have concerns with the validation process? I haven't read the TDP completely but assumed this was part of choosing a competent person to administer the trust.
  6. Has anyone heard a good estimate of the number of fraudulent claims? An expert this week said her experience was something a bit over 40% but I don't know if it was a comparable group. More importantly, at least to me, is the breakdown by class. If all/most fraudulent claims are for the expedited distribution, that would be annoying to me and it's likely illegal, but ultimately wouldn't affect other outcomes to any great degree (my calculation is less than 1% of $2.7B). If there are fraudulent claims in different classes, they will need to provide more information for review.
  7. For sure. I should have been more clear that it is a guess based on the current plan under consideration and using the voting tallies from the recent vote. Both of those major items can change.
  8. How underfunded is the TDP? That's a question I have had and with the provided excel sheet, I tried to make an educated guess. This includes: all non-rejected claims and all claims with a council listed (i.e., if no LC was listed, it's not included)... this is somewhere around 43,000 claims. The basis is $3,500 for all who selected the expedited distribution and the base matrix value with no scaling factors except the mid-point of the different SOL scaling factors for all others. As you can see below, the total amount (with the major assumptions above) is about $9.5B and, of course
  9. There's a lot of information in that pdf and the excel sheet here: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a3fa6777-ba03-42a0-a73b-5c9a90600938_2022-03-11_FINAL_REDACTED_Supplemental_LC_and_CO_Voting_Report.xlsx Here is the breakdown by class of listed allegations for both the 56,536 counted votes and the 49,223 counted but did-not-elect-the-expedited-distribution: (fyi, I'm not writing out the types... if you can't figure them out, they are in the excel sheet). Caveat: the data is a tiny bit messy... I think there is one more claim with a counted vote than was
  10. The author the Forbes article writes "since the bankruptcy, these 1700-odd claims (which already seemed like a lot to me) exploded to over 100,000" @johnsch322was highlighting the biases of the author.
  11. Hi @ThenNow, I think it's because bankruptcy court is an imperfect venue for tort claims but companies prefer it as they pay pennies on the dollar against their liabilities. The insurers pay lip service to potential fraud but are also getting rid of their liabilities for a defined amount. The entities with the assets don't really care if there's fraud, that's not what they are trying to manage. The entities that are aggregating/advertising and not vetting/validating are trying to maximize the number of claimants under their umbrella. Collectively, they attempt to manage it by giving a mo
  12. Hi @skeptic... there was more in the original post (that I don't recall) but that was the shared link. I still had it open and thought others might want to read it. We disagree on whether the article is spot on.
  13. Yes, I completely agree that it is better. I've been trying to think of a good analogy to describe what seems like bizarro world to me. The best I've come up with USA gymnastics. From the same month they filed for bankruptcy: "We have the majority of the Deborah Daniels report recommendations either implemented or in progress, and we are committed putting all of the recommendations in place. " https://usagym.org/pages/post.html?PostID=23015 also see https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/recommendations.html. So a youth-oriented group recognized a problem associated with youth protec
  14. I scream every time I see something about negotiating for "better" youth protection. [This has nothing to do with the points in your post, @johnsch322.] I may have mentioned this earlier but that (better youth protection) was the chat answer I received from Doug Kennedy of the TCC as the reason to vote for this plan. appropriate youth protection should have been implemented as soon as it was determined to not be sufficient. This is a BSA failure (and is presumably an on-going failure until a bankruptcy case is over). that it is being negotiated as part of a bankruptcy stemming fro
  15. Sorry to hear that, @NJScout1980. I read and responded to your post. While we may disagree on some things, I don't recall anything not appropriate for this forum. For what it's worth... I hope you keep posting. Here's the article that was shared: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2022/03/08/bankruptcy-and-the-boy-scouts/ I urge everyone to brush up on their critical readings skills if they do read it.
  16. This is also what I understood from my attorney (after I previously voiced displeasure on this forum that the insurance company amounts were terrible and should be renegotiated).
  17. Approximately 3,000 additional people had their votes counted (how that squares with the difference from the non-counted vote appendices is more effort than I'm willing to put in at the moment). Of the counted votes, approximately 9,000 more people voted accept and 6,000 less people voted reject. I'm assuming the bulk of the 6,000 fewer reject votes are changed votes and the 3,000 additional counted votes were predominantly to accept. Further, I'm assuming the bulk of the changed votes are the 5,000 additional yes votes are from those voting by master ballot (i.e., certain law firms chang
  18. Thanks for sharing the article. I'd suggest reading it critically (and not only because it's an op-ed by a member of the Federalist Society). Here's one example: I agree that fees should be kept to a minimum but who cares how much the "original trust" was worth and why should it be a basis for comparison? In fact, the author is making a point in the opposite direction: after experts and lawyers were part of the negotiations, the current trust is going to be over $2.7B. I mean, that's a return on investment! Spending $2 to get $24 is a good deal. A 1217% ROI! To the second point,
  19. I've discussed this further with my attorney and it seems it may not be as "narrow" as it was originally meant to be. Here is the TCC summary of the IR requirements:
  20. Hi @fred8033, Article XIII of the TDP lays out the IR process. My understanding is that it is like bringing the case to court, but under a retired judge, not an actual court. (Not sure where I read this, but heard this may be a complication because insurance companies can say they are not compelled to pay as it's not a real court.) Having watched the TCC video and reread the TDP section, I still don't see that the IR is 1) only appropriate for pre-1976 claims, 2) for high value claimants only and 3) meant to pressure non-settling entities to settle, which is how it was explained to me. I
  21. Thanks, @ThenNow, I had forgotten about that. I keep hearing: Chapter 7 is bad, vote for this plan. It seems my real gripe is that the settling insurance companies are contributing so little. I'd love to hear if others are able to confirm if the IR is a way to get non-settling entities to settle. Here we go, TCC IR video:
  22. Yes. This was formerly front-and-center from the TCC but now they are supporting the plan. It's not just attorney's fees being spent... there has been a significant effort to estimate the value of the claims based on the Proofs of Claim submitted to date. You can read through the estimates, rebuttals, etc through Omni and the links others have posted on this forum. Those estimates are much less than the amount currently in the Trust and much less than any reasonable estimate of potential additional insurance settlements. The TCC's previous "historically low" settlement comment was truthf
  23. Hi @fred8033 and @ThenNow, I was also trying to figure out why the IR might be better overall. @fred8033, yes, I mean the TDP as claims using the matrix with scalars and IR as the review of a specific claim by a Neutral. Here is my understanding of the mechanism, using the example from my attorney: The Plan is adopted as is. A limited number of people are eligible to go through IR. Person #1 goes through and the Neutral approves a large settlement that is paid by non-settling insurance/LC/CO's. Person #2 goes through and the same thing happens. Repeat until the non-settling insurance
  24. I agree with this. What I don't understand is why the possibility of Chapter 7 is not so bad for settling insurance companies that they won't change their settlement amounts. It seems like BSA national is at or near being maxed out and the LC/CO amounts are lower than expected but significant. The TCC's team spent a lot of money looking into this. Insurance coverage is not a panacea but, to me, they seem to be getting off the easiest. On the TCC q&a last night, I asked something to the effect of "if the TDP amounts are historically low and underfunded, and given that YPT must be addr
×
×
  • Create New...