Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

if you want a scenario where ALL abuse claimants are paid out, regardless of time-barred or not, $11,500 is probably as high as you can possibly go.

I really appreciate that assessment. Since so many are in the time-barred bucket, yes, I am asking about how everyone gets something. The guys with live cases and/or in open states will get a running start at the insurers. We likely will not, at least have no momentum and a greatly reduced upside. That said, you gave me insight into the possibility insurers will offer something to ensure a clean break.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What is legally right is not always morally right.

I would encourage everyone to not ask @ThenNow to rehash particular circumstances. They can be found by patiently browsing his posts. From what I read, they were far from legal. His claim would have b

Posted Images

46 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

"If $6000 isn't enough, is $50,000? $100,000 even if it crushes the organization...?" (paraphrasing).

Now, I want to address this separately and in reverse. The scenarios I used above focused on the means, not the end. But let's focus on the end.

Scenario A - $100,000 per claimant: 87,000 claimants means $8.7 BILLION. Even if you liquidated BSA National ($1.4 billion) and EVERY Council ($3.3 billion highest estimate I saw), you are maybe half way to this number. End Result: BSA and all LCs liquidated (and somehow magically do NOT have to pay pensions). Insurance companies on hook for $4 billion.

Scenario A.1 - $100,000 per claimant: 87,000 claimants means $8.7 BILLION. Cut BSA National in half ($700 million) and EVERY Council in half ($1.6 billion). End Result: BSA and all LCs literally cut in half. Insurance companies on hook for $6.4 billion.

Scenario B - $50,000 per claimant: 87,000 claimants means $4.35 BILLION. Cut BSA National in half including sale of most or all HA bases ($700 million) and somehow cut all LCs in half as well ($1.6 billion), you still come up $2 BILLION short. End Result: BSA and all LCs literally cut in half. Insurance companies on hook for $2 billion.

Scenario C - $10,000 per claimant: 87,000 claimants means $870 MILLION. This is pretty close to the BSA Reorg plan/offering now (Scenario 4 above). $6000 comes from BSA and LCs. $4000 comes from the insurance companies. End Result: BSA contributes $275 million. LCs $300 million. Insurance companies on hook for $300 million.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

87,000 claimants

Got it.

Personally, I think if the insurers get a crack at those claims, the number will be reduced. By how much, who knows. Will it be allowed, only the judge knows, as far as I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I really appreciate that assessment. Since so many are in the time-barred bucket, yes, I am asking about how everyone gets something.

Keep in mind, $11,500 is based on some massive assumptions and wild speculation. The likelihood is going to be lower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As I said before, without knowing for sure the numerator (assets) or denominator (claimants) for sure/judicially recognized, we are just guessing here.

But to speculate it out.

Scenario 1 - Liquidate National: ... Total to each claimant: $0

Scenario 2 - $1 Billion in Settlement from BSA + LCs, Non-Time Barred Claimants Only: ...  Total to each claimant: $33,333

Scenario 3 - $1 Billion in Settlement from BSA + LCs, ALL Abuse Claimants:  ... Total to each claimant: $11,494

Scenario 4 - $525 Million in Settlement from BSA + LCs, ALL Abuse Claimants: ... Total to each claimant: $6,034

Scenario 5 - The "$1.5 billion Settlement Fund", ALL Abuse Claimants:  ...Total to each claimant: $17,241

 

I'd like to understand ... how law firm interests will affect which scenario happens.  I know they are to work in their client's interest, but I'm already not sure that's really happening at all.

#1  For scenario #1, would law firms suing for abuse get any proceeds?  Or they are also zero because victims are zero?

#2  There was an earlier post reflecting those who filed claims.  Does the above scenarios reflect the order of those who filed claims (banks, institutions, victims, venders, etc)?  ... i.e. When BSA said it would kick in $300m to the bankruptcy, was that for all bankruptcy claims or just the abuse claims?  

#3  For all the scenarios, how much would law firms earn?  How much would victims earn?  Example:  Scenario #3 is $11,494 to claimant.  Or is it $3,448.2 to law firms and $8,05.8 to lawfirms.  For #4, would it be $6034 or $1810 to law firm and $4223 to victim ?

I just don't see how this case results in anything except more cumulative damage on top of previous damage.

 

 

 

 

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'd like to understand ...

#1  For scenario #1, would law firms suing for abuse get any proceeds?  Or they are also zero because victims are zero?

#2  There was an earlier post reflecting those who filed claims.  Does the above scenarios reflect the order of those who filed claims (banks, institutions, victims, venders, etc)?  ... i.e. When BSA said it would kick in $300m to the bankruptcy, was that for all bankruptcy claims or just the abuse claims?  

#3  For all the scenarios, how much would law firms earn?  How much would victims earn?  Example:  Scenario #3 is $11,494 to claimant.  Or is it $3,448.2 to law firms and $8,05.8 to lawfirms.  For #4, would it be $6034 or $1810 to law firm and $4223 to victim ?

I just don't see how this case results in anything except more cumulative damage on top of previous damage.

All of this operates in a (magical) vacuum where a) legal fees are not an issue and b) no other claims are pending against BSA. This is JUST looking at what it takes to get the abuse claimants money.

For everything else you just mentioned (legal fees, other claims, etc.) BSA and the LCs have to come up with even MORE money on top of what I just listed.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

All of this operates in a (magical) vacuum where a) legal fees are not an issue and b) no other claims are pending against BSA. This is JUST looking at what it takes to get the abuse claimants money.

For everything else you just mentioned (legal fees, other claims, etc.) BSA and the LCs have to come up with even MORE money on top of what I just listed.

Continue to be amazed.  Once entering bankruptcy, I didn't know a debtor could choose to route money to a specific set of claims.  Rather, the court would have to settle.  i.e.  the $300m BSA offered in first offer would be for all debt claims and only a portion would go to abuse claims.  Or was $300m part of a larger bankruptcy filing with more funds.  

Complexity of this case will be amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Well, I'm most interested to hear from those who agree that the current offer is unreasonable.

Yes.  The current offer is unreasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, David CO said:

Yes.  The current offer is unreasonable.

Since this relates to the nature, duration, degree and impacts of the abuse, I'm wondering if anyone looked at the point system metric from the RCC NM case. If so, thoughts? It more or less corresponds to information requests in the Proof of Claim. If you haven't seen the POC in this case, I would be happy to attach a digital copy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, David CO said:

Yes.  The current offer is unreasonable.

There is no reasonable in cases like this.  It's far, far, far too low and also too high at the same time.  I just don't see any good from this.  The only good is ending the case.

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites

Timely news ...  

"Lawyers involved in a massive settlement of civil lawsuits arising from the Flint water crisis would receive up to $202.8 million in attorney fees, plus nearly $7.2 million in expenses, under a proposal filed with a federal judge late Monday night.

Overall, attorney fees would consume about 32% of the total settlement of $641.25 million."


https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2021/03/09/attorney-fees-flint-water-crisis-civil-lawsuit-settlement/4626273001/

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

nearly $7.2 million in expenses

Having practiced in the 80's and 90's when expense accounts were flush and pass-through fees could be a bit wild, I'm always curious to see these. I recall a firm that billed for dry cleaning, new French cuff shirts and room service while in LA for a protracted negotiation. Not my firm. I am not at all insinuating that's the case here. Some fee pricing for mundane admin services are still crazy these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Having practiced in the 80's and 90's when expense accounts were flush and pass-through fees could be a bit wild, I'm always curious to see these. I recall a firm that billed for dry cleaning, new French cuff shirts and room service while in LA for a protracted negotiation. Not my firm. I am not at all insinuating that's the case here. Some fee pricing for mundane admin services are still crazy these days.

Saw that too thru IT automation.  Billing every phone call, every DB search, every piece of paper copied, every office expense, etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Saw that too thru IT automation.  Billing every phone call, every DB search, every piece of paper copied, every office expense, etc.  

In situations like this, not unlike a class action I was part of, I worry fees and costs are not examined very closely. They seem incidental in the grand scheme at the time, so they can easily slide. When you see $7.2M, reality sets in. I have no idea how they breakdown here, but that's a ton of cheddar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...