clbkbx

Do you have a reference for this? I can’t seem to find anything online. My current theory is that CSA has not been well researched (not to say there’s not been a lot of effort in some studies) and that that is purposeful.

https://onmyhonormovie.com/experts

Glad we agree on that point, but that's exactly what the report does.

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 cohesion, victim vulnerability, and varying levels of investigative experience and vigor. So, a lot more caveats. Just in a first pass review, there is no reference to the gender makeup of abusers and victims in the Boy Scouts and how that affects reporting. There are 82,000+ claims in the current bankruptcy. As in the Warren report data, the comparison isn’t direct but I think it’s fair to say the Warren estimates are low. Maybe after the bankruptcy there will be more clarity (given more data) on whether CSA was “less of an issue” in the Boy Scouts. I’m very [insert synonym for skeptical] of some Warren report conclusions.

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.

If helpful: There's also section indicating you "declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct."

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.

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. I agree with this... law firms not vetting the claims (and, of course, the people making those claims) has made this process much more difficult.

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.

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, we all know the Trust amount of $2.7B (current, assuming no additional money from the non-settling entities). So, it seems reasonable to me that we should assume in the neighborhood of 1/3 of any claim can be paid from the Trust (really, less if we think there will be more than 43,000 paid claims). Maybe that will go up meaningfully if other entities settle, but pretty sure there's not another $6B out there. If anyone would like the excel sheet that I modified with states/SOL scaling factors, I can set up a dropbox link. Also, I'm open to feedback on the methodology. BTW, the SOL limitations closes off about $6B more in claims.

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 included in the 56,536 number and only briefly looking at the SOL column, about 4% of my open state council claims were shown as barred. If there's any analysis someone would like done, I can try to figure it out. The columns I think are most interesting are: expedited distribution selection, abuse allegation, SOL (barred or not barred) and local council. I'm going to try to assign open, grey, closed to the councils but that will take some time. I think it would inform the answer to the question of whether the open vs closed SOL condition affected voting choice.

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.

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 modest payment off-ramp (expedited distribution) that can be used for real abuse cases but also should capture most (all?) of the fraudulent claims. To have a distribution from the TDP or IR processes, there are mechanisms to mitigate fraud. I'm working this through because I think this is a great point. Let's say 10% of all claims are fraudulent (no idea if this is the case but it doesn't seem unreasonable and maybe biased high) and they all take the expedited distribution, that would be 1% of the $2.7B amount. Totally gross and unfair but: for a survivor, what's 1% when you're paying 33.3-40% to counsel? and for the debtor, what's 1% when you're paying billions less than your liabilities? So I'm not sure the unsavory parts will ever end with bankruptcy as the best (from the debtors' standpoint) option. The best that can be done is to manage it.

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.

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 protection, enabled independent recommendations and started implementing them. The BSA sent out a plan with insufficient* youth protection to survivors of childhood sexual abuse and asked them to vote yes (and if it they did, it would be implemented at a later date). The asterisk is because I'm not an expert on what should be implemented but presumably the TCC didn't agree with what was included in the first plan that was sent out. So, yes, much better to have it but I cannot believe this is what it takes to have it.

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 from too little youth protection is unbelievable. This is a BSA failure. that the first plan was sent out with "lesser" and presumably not appropriate youth protection is unconscionable. This is a BSA, a TCC and a court failure. If it wasn't sufficient, it should not have been sent out. The BSA is an entity that wants to survive and I can understand (but vehemently disagree with) their choices around money, settlements, debt, etc. But when that entity is youth-oriented and needs to negotiate with outside groups to make sure the youth are protected... disgusting. That is a really interesting idea. We'll see!

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.

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).

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 changing their position from reject to accept). Does that make sense to others?

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, I have looked for this information and not been able to find any good source... has anyone ever come across anything useful? At least the author caveats the BSA's assets with "self-reported."

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:

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 sent a follow up to my attorney to try to get clarification. I'm wondering if it's because all the entities I could sue are settling as part of the Plan (whereas, pre-1976 cases apparently have a different threshold... I don't fully understand this). I.e., the IR analysis condition is post Plan acceptance.

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:

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 truthful and, after the plan was voted down, used to increase YP efforts (which is sad... this should have been a base level, not a negotiating tactic) and put some additional pressure on non-settling entities (which, even if realized, will not add up to anything near what experts have estimated). Hence my question: why is the choice between accepting the plan or BSA goes through Chapter 7? The settling insurers and to a lesser degree settling LC's/CO's are the entities being benefited by the "still historically low" settlement.

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/LC/CO's agree to a global settlement so they don't have to keep paying out through the IR process. That settlement goes to the Trust. One comment from my attorney was that it is unknown if there are enough people to make the IR useful, i.e., are the gates too narrow? From the TCC update last night, they touted that they have a veto over the new settlements in this Plan, which they will use to maximize any additional settlements (as indicated in my initial comment, I'm already underwhelmed at the current settlements so I don't know what this veto power is "worth" but, all things being equal, it seems better than not having it.). A follow up question (as yet unasked) that I have is: what does that mean for potential IR cases after these settlements get moved to the TDP track? That seems unfair to people with potential IR claims. @ThenNow, I also did not understand these limitations from the current plan. (That it would only be a few people and that currently non-settling entities can become settling entities to limit their payouts through IR. Maybe the "state court" limitation is meant to be read as only cases before 1976 but I was not clear on that.). So my overall understanding is that the IR is a cudgel to get more entities to a settlement which could help further fund the currently-underfunded Trust amount. That there are potentially a limited number of people that can do this is a concern as well as the unfairness to the end-of-the-line IR folks. Happy to have clarifications from others as they analyze the Plan and get feedback from their attorneys.