clbkbx

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

supposedly narrow gate

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: 

On 2/25/2022 at 4:27 PM, fred8033 said:

Is "independent review" a euphanism for the victim's right to bring their case to court?

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. 

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I don't believe that's the choice.

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: 

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

it is grossly underfunded. It has to be seen in context. I believe that is the point.

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. 

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Before I wade in, it would be good to have clarification

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.

10 hours ago, NJScout1980 said:

liquidation will not happen and even if it did it would take years and years

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 addressed under any scenario, what is a good reason to vote for a plan where the TDP hasn't changed?" and DK responded that youth protection was enhanced. 

I understand from my attorney that the Independent Review option is limited to some pre-1976 cases and is meant to bring other insurance companies to a settlement, which will go into the Trust. So that might make the TDP less underfunded. 

The recent refrain to vote yes because the only other option is Chapter 7 rings hollow to me. Hartford changed their announced settlement even before the plan was voted down. 

Am I missing something or is it really "vote yes or it will be a painful Chapter 7"?

I received an email from Anderson & Associates earlier today and they are now recommending a "yes" vote. It seems the reasoning is similar to what the TCC has said. I'm still thinking it over. 

1 minute ago, SilverPalm said:

I hope a little good has come from all this evil. I hope you no longer feel so alone.

Thanks, SilverPalm. This was the case for me… going back to therapy, being able to talk about it more with my wife, better understanding how it affected me. I also really appreciate this forum. 

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The largesse some believe councils possess is just not there.

Wasn’t this the point of the TCC’s local council analysis? I’m not sure there is or is not but I think this can be known. 

2 hours ago, MattR said:

Anyway, welcome back.

Who moderates the Moderators?

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

This does not surprise me at all given the long term effects of Child Sexual Abuse on ones psyche.

A good reminder that CSA affects people differently. 

On 1/11/2022 at 4:13 PM, Eagle1993 said:

Also, when they were 60% liable .. many times COs were the other liable party but they never included that value in the settlement. 

Having had the chance to revisit the Bates report, it seems that third parties in the bankruptcy case were often another liable party and their share is not included in the analysis. Below are some excerpts to support this (emphasis mine). 
 

I think it would fair to say, the Bates report indicates: the BSA-only share is less than 10% of the total value of the claims and that share is about $3B. (Unsaid is that the BSA’s expert thinks the total value of claims is over $30B.)
 

From that, the lawyers take all the amounts in the current plan and say: see, all BSA claims will be paid in full. 
 

But as structured, the other main entities (TCJC, LCs, COs) that would/could pay any of the remaining 90% of the value of the claims will receive a release of liability. 
 

#26 “The appropriate evaluation of the reasonableness of the Settlement Trust is whether the Settlement Trust pays Abuse Claims, fairly and equitably, reasonable amounts relative to the harm to the survivor, the responsibility of the BSA, accounting for state laws apropos of each Abuse Claim.”

#28 “The Trust simulation modelling exercise indicates that if the average level of the BSA responsibility share scalars of the Trust is about 10 percent for Abuse Claims for Single Survivor Cases and the net of aggravating and mitigating scalars for repeat abuser Abuse Claim is 125 percent, then the Trust will spend about $3.4 billion paying claims at values consistent with simulated BSA-entities responsibility shares needed to match the historical filing and settlement pattern.”

#30 “For these reasons, I believe that the average BSA responsibility share for Abuse Claims is more likely less than 10% than greater than 10%.”

#79  “As the Claro verdict study group reveals, the institutional share of responsibility is a critical factor determining the value of a sexual abuse claim against an institution.”

In Sections III and V, there are discussions of the TCJC and LC responsibilities but is not incorporated into the BSA-only calculation  

Lastly, the Bates report, also at #30, indicates that in reference to whether settlements should be lower: “… there are over 27,000 Abuse Claims unrestricted by statute of limitations that could have filed a lawsuit but did not. ” I’m guessing this is disingenuous as many SOL laws only recently changed. It also adds “[t]hese survivors are typically high school graduates in their mid-fifties, half of whom are unemployed or retired.” That is surprising if true. 

43 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

but believe $100K should be the average settlement for child rape survivors

Is the Bates analysis using discounted BSA settlements when they were determined to not be fully liable (see #18) but then not taking into account that there are third party releases contemplated? 

E.g., "In the third case, the BSA was held 60 percent liable for its failure to not prevent a repeat abuser from abusing several children, with the local council being assigned 15 percent liability share and the Mormon Church Entities being assigned a 25 percent liability share."

Every one of these entities is part of the bankruptcy, but (as I understand it) only the 60% is included in the analysis. 

Hope someone here can read this report better than me, but it sure seems like they are taking the benefit both ways.

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't believe that is true.  :Hurley McKenna & Mertz represent 4,500 abuse survivors.  What you are seeing is a subset from their master ballot.  My guess is that they submitted a master ballot with all 4,500 claims but some of their clients didn't indicate accept/reject which is why these are showing up.

Thank you. 

Given that there is a lot to digest in the vote breakdown… it jumped out at me that almost all of the Hurley McKenna & Mertz, PC entries are “Holder did not indicate vote to Accept or Reject the Plan.”

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

I do not feel that the survivors should not be helped and given recompense.  But that cannot be limitless, and it should not be built on the backs of other innocents. 

Now survivors want "limitless" recompense? Sounds like a different term for "greedy."

I was innocent before the abuse that happened to me. The BSA knew this was an issue, did not make the program safe for kids and continued operating successfully. That was built on the backs of me and others who were innocent.  

At the start of this, I assumed BSA would continue. But now I think, who cares? Is there something great about scouting, yes. Is there something great about the BSA organization itself, certainly not in the current iteration. The BSA isn't meaningfully changing for the better, is looking out for its own best interests (which only partially overlaps with the interests of the youth scouts) and continues to act in bad faith.

I'm not sure this will convince you otherwise, but the "balance" is not between survivors and innocent kids but between survivors and a lousy organization. 

8 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I will tell you that survivors come from all walks of life and have walked a myriad of journeys.

Thank you for this post, @johnsch322.

37 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I just cannot get past the view of just compensation for a lifetime of pain is "greed"

I completely agree with this. A fair representation of wanting an outcome with compensation closer to, but still much lower than, claim values determined by experts is not "greed".

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

The fallacy in your view is that the local councils will accept the TCC proposal.  As they have inferred a doubling or tripling of the contributions will not be accepted in my opinion as a local council executive board for over 25 years.  The TCC is not being realistic or reasonable.  Obviously none of us have crystal balls but if this fails, the statute of limitations barred claimants risk getting nothing.  

Understanding that you think the LCs will not pay more... the current plan addresses more than just those entities. Accepting this plan means agreeing that LCs, insurance companies, COs, BSA all have their best and final offer (for money and YPT), which is surely not the case. 

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

local councils cannot contribute two to three times the current amount

https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis 

Looks like many of the LC analyses were published. 

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Not sure if these have been posted, but here are the first two BRG Dashboards:

https://8ccee3aa-ea25-43bc-b0a6-5e0a565e1bf2.filesusr.com/ugd/c1f98e_b3f0e214c3ab4a70bc1a7c3bd2c9248b.pdf

https://8ccee3aa-ea25-43bc-b0a6-5e0a565e1bf2.filesusr.com/ugd/c1f98e_26837acf3e0e44e09ee662682d901ff5.pdf

Thank you. https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

The firm is representing you in the Chapter 11 and state court, assuming your SoL context allows for that?

Yes, that is correct. 

24 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Jeff Anderson

This is my attorney and they have been good to work with. Definitely responsive and almost always the point of contact is an attorney. They set expectations early on that it would be a long process and they send timely email updates when there is something to share.  I had many questions early on and, looking back, I appreciate what they could and could not answer directly or specifically. My understanding of what is happening in the case is better informed by the TCC videos (and this forum) but I feel confident about the representation. 

49 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

One of the things I didn’t want to see going into this is the setting of one man against the other.

Thanks for sharing this, it seems like a laudable goal in all of the craziness that comes from a bankruptcy proceeding. Maybe this is also an insight into the TCC's approach and why they don't agree with the LDS terms.

17 hours ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I don’t see how ER can continue to “represent” me when there’s obviously a conflict of interest now in their firm representing me.

Agreed. To my thinking, any attorneys recommending a "yes" vote are not being honest with themselves about the most likely outcomes and are no advising their clients appropriately. Glad to hear you are getting good representation!