clbkbx

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Thank you for this post, @johnsch322.

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".

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.

https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis Looks like many of the LC analyses were published.

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

Yes, that is correct.

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.

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.

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!

Agreed that you should look at your retainer agreement. I would add that my recollection from the TCC meeting on October 14 is that you can notify your attorney that you are switching and it is up to the attorneys to work out any fee sharing structure. I was going to switch if my attorney (Jeff Anderson) did not recommend a "no" vote (which they eventually did). I hope everyone that has representation feels appropriately represented!