clbkbx

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.

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.

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.

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.

Who moderates the Moderators?

A good reminder that CSA affects people differently.

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