Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[ThenNow 1373]

10 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is the potentially huge part. Commissions on a house are very very different. There isn't a windfall potential in that case. The value is more or less known, upfront, without a chance to blow up by 1000%. 

I can't think of many other commission situations that result in windfalls beyond the work put in. 

I’m not quite sure what this entire line of objection is really about. A moral objection to making money from doing “nothing,” like investing in Amazon when it went public? A moral, cultural and economic objection that teachers work hard and get paid too little? I know high level brokers and commercial real estate people who do pocket deals that reap huge rewards with little time invested. Other deals, just the opposite. It’s fine to indict the system of contingent fee (legal) representation, as opposed to calling professionals who utilize it “vultures,” but include all who utilize it and recognize a very valuable service goes away if it does. Namely, taking on cases/deals that won’t otherwise be advanced under a time and expense structure. 

[Eagle1993 2160]

Ok, I'm unlocking this topic.  I removed a comment made about lawyers and some of the back and forth about that comment.  I left on the tort discussion and that back and forth as it seems applicable.

Let's try and stay on topic and avoid calling people names.  Also, it would be good to have some patients with each other as this is a difficult topic to discuss in an online forum.  Lets keep it scoutlike.

My apologizes if I deleted something you believe as critical to this topic.  You can always repost if you like.

[ThenNow 1373]

11 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The tort system and a sense of trying to achieve justice are not doing well at this time.  My attorney friends laugh derisively when I talk about justice - they tell me that the first day of law school they were told that law has nothing to do with justice.  I would like to think that they are a poor sample or are not truthful.

Agreed. The BSA did not offer me justice, they invited me here to receive “equitable compensation.” I gave up on justice long ago and no have absolutely zero delusion about finding it. I’ll take the money. 

As to your lawyer friends, I’ve heard that. I was told to “wash everything in the cynical acid of the law and truth.” I went to a Jesuit law school, though. My belief is that my calling is to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly...”

11 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Our professions are similar though when patients arrive at the hospital and need care, I cannot turn them down for treatment and must provide the same standard of care to all.  Attorneys can turn down any case.

I see almost no other profession, other than law enforcement, firefighters and EMTs like yours. Completely different. One is about life or death in the moment and going forward. They are simply worlds apart. Attorneys are more like brokers than they are physicians. 

11 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Financial compensation, in the experience of my patients, brings much less satisfaction.  May the end of this process, whatever the outcome, bring you some peace and resolution.  

Yes. You’ve said this before and I appreciate your experience. What this wreckage has cost me and my family can’t be repaid. I agree on that and see my first answer above. I’ll take some money just the same, thank you very much. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Ok, so back to the subject at hand: math.

Quote

During its claim reconciliation process, Bates White established that there are approximately 82,500 unique, timely Proofs of Claims seeking personal injury damages on account of Abuse. Bates White estimates the value of the Abuse Claims is between $2.4 billion and $7.1 billion.

$2.4 billion / 82,500 = $29,090

$7.1 billion / 82,500 = $86,060

There's no way I know of about how they came up with that when so many of these abuse cases have had $1+ million payouts. But that's ok, we'll take their numbers for now.

Show of hands: how many people here really, really thing that the abuse victims, or 67% of the abuse victims, are going to take on average $86,060 and say "thanks" and let BSA National exit bankruptcy?

There's at least 870 active pending cases against BSA National that are NOT time-barred. Assume 1 victim each (that's not true, some have multiple plaintiffs). That's $870 million in liability at least right there assuming $1 million per victim.

$7.1 billion is an asinine low ball, which may have been the point of course. Now TCC and BSA have staked their ground.

BSA wants to go to $7.1 billion and no higher.

TCC wants at least $102 billion.

And now we'll drag this out some more.

But at least for the first time ever we've got numbers to work with.

 

 

[Eagle1993 2160]

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/887735_2672.pdf

Interesting find in the Future Clamant Representative response .. the court redacted their estimates of Harford's liability.  So clearly there are estimates, but the court doesn't want that public.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

the court redacted their estimates of Harford's liability

My experience is that it usually is NOT the court (read: clerk of court) that redacts. The attorneys will a) PACER file the redacted version and b) PACER file an unredacted version that only the judge and court staff have access to, with unredacted copies emailed or mailed to the other parties.

[Eagle1993 2160]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

My experience is that it usually is NOT the court (read: clerk of court) that redacts. The attorneys will a) PACER file the redacted version and b) PACER file an unredacted version that only the judge and court staff have access to, with unredacted copies emailed or mailed to the other parties.

Kosnoff is on twitter complaining about Judge Silverstein improperly sealing and over redacting victim letters to the court.  I was curious has the redacting is working in this case and why they wouldn't allow release of a groups estimate of Harford's liability.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Kosnoff is on twitter complaining about Judge Silverstein improperly sealing and over redacting victim letters to the court.  I was curious has the redacting is working in this case and why they wouldn't allow release of a groups estimate of Harford's liability.

The clerk's office will redact if there is some sort of personally identifiable information on a pro se filing. So, for example, if an SSN or something that isn't suppose to be for public consumption is filed. The clerk will do that for pro se people, but the burden is on lawyers (or their paralegals, let's get real here) to redact as appropriate in their own filings.

Kosnoff can complain all he wants, that is standard practice for all federal courts and every state court I've ever dealt with.

It's called Rule 5.2 at the federal level. States have their own multitude of versions. Silverstein, given that this involves sexual abuse victims, may have added an even stronger order beyond 5.2 because of the pro se filings to ensure victims didn't accidentally reveal information that they intended for the court to the whole wide world.

Why they won't let Hartford's number out, I just don't know. Perhaps it is part of the ongoing mediation? I just don't know.

Edited April 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[elitts 464]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Ok, so back to the subject at hand: math.

$2.4 billion / 82,500 = $29,090

$7.1 billion / 82,500 = $86,060

There's no way I know of about how they came up with that when so many of these abuse cases have had $1+ million payouts. But that's ok, we'll take their numbers for now.

Show of hands: how many people here really, really thing that the abuse victims, or 67% of the abuse victims, are going to take on average $86,060 and say "thanks" and let BSA National exit bankruptcy

As with almost anything in the world, the cost of 100 things in a package is never the same as 1 thing times 100.  So if you independently litigate a case, you might get a multi-million dollar settlement, but when you are part of a class-action, you take a hit, particularly if your situation is on the "worse" end of the scale.  The advantage of course is that you aren't stuck litigating on your own.

And frankly I do think most of the victims would take an $86k payout and go on their way. (though I doubt you'd hear "thanks")  That's enough money to have a significant impact on someone's life in most parts of the country.  I don't think it would make them happy, but if it meant they could actually collect in a reasonable period of time?  Yeah, I think most of them would take it unless they thought there was something fishy going on with the insurance company contributions.

I truly don't think most of the claimants have Kosnoff's dedication to burning down the BSA.  So when you start looking at the relatively small increase in the payout pool from a complete liquidation of BSA National vs a Reorganization, I don't think it's going to have the kind of attractiveness that some folks believe it will.

[Eagle1993 2160]

9 minutes ago, elitts said:

I truly don't think most of the claimants have Kosnoff's dedication to burning down the BSA.  So when you start looking at the relatively small increase in the payout pool from a complete liquidation of BSA National vs a Reorganization, I don't think it's going to have the kind of attractiveness that some folks believe it will.

I agree that the end goal of the TCC and many claimants is not the destruction of the BSA; however, most will want the money their lawyers are telling them they could expect if they reject the current offer.

The TCC (and the various lawyers) has a number in mind on what the BSA can afford to pay (as they have said on this site, they have already had a company perform an assessment of more than 500 BSA properties including a review if they are restricted or not).  They likely have a number in mind in terms of liability of insurance companies.  I doubt it is the full $102B; however, it is likely well north of $1-$2B.  Until BSA's offer comes close to number they have in mind, they will continue to reject any offer.   The judge is unlikely to approve a deal until the claimants approve an offer.  In the latest response, the prediction is that 95% of claimants will vote against BSA's current offer.  BSA needs 66% to approve.

Now, does this then end with Chapter 7 of BSA ... I think that is too early to tell.  

[CynicalScouter 1434]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now, does this then end with Chapter 7 of BSA ... I think that is too early to tell.  

I don't think BSA will willingly go into Chapter 7, and it cannot be forced to (not for profit and all).

What I can see is that

a) the judge will NOT order a cramdown over the objections of sexual abuse victims. The ramifications of that would be cataclysmic. Like "Congressional hearings and newspaper headlines" seismic of a bankruptcy judge ordering victims to take pennies on the dollar.

b) the sexual abuse victims will never come to 67% approval FOR A BSA-CREATED PLAN.

c) if this has any chance at all at this point, the exclusivity time frame has to end and TCC (and others) have to be able to produce their own reorg plan for review and vote. No more games by BSA about what is/is not restricted assets. Sometimes you just have to litigate this thing out. You cannot mediate yourself out of everything.

d) There is still a better than even chance IMHO this ends with either a failed bankruptcy (BSA National emerges with no reorg plan) or a plan that leaves BSA so crippled that it is right back in bankruptcy court in 2-3 years (a "Chapter 22" double-dip bankruptcy).

 

[Eagle1993 2160]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

$7.1 billion / 82,500 = $86,060

One problem here ... that is $86,060 in the Settlement Trust per victim.  This does not mean victims walk away with $86,060.

1) The Settlement Trust will have to pay fees to lawyers, administration, etc. that manages the trust.  In some cases, they will have property they have to sell (oil rights, paintings, etc.)

2) Many claimants, as mentioned, have legal representation who will take 40% of the recovery.

So, $7.1B * 10% (trust management) + $7.1B  * 40% (legal fees) = $3.55B in "fees" leaving $3.55B for victims.

That means the victims walk away with $43K each with a $7.1B payout.

[ThenNow 1373]

1 hour ago, elitts said:

And frankly I do think most of the victims would take an $86k payout and go on their way. (though I doubt you'd hear "thanks")  That's enough money to have a significant impact on someone's life in most parts of the country.  I don't think it would make them happy, but if it meant they could actually collect in a reasonable period of time?  Yeah, I think most of them would take it unless they thought there was something fishy going on with the insurance company contributions.

Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps. Not so sure about that. “Most” and “would” are squishy, but perhaps “many” and “might” are more apt. Regardless, all who have good counsel and/or good sense, which is most (to use your word) will not do anything like that before seeing the real cards on the table. Fortunately for survivor claimants, the TCC, FCR and Coalition may have been galvanized by the ill-advised and very badly timed deal with Hartford, creating an impenetrable wall sealing off the path for the BSA’s Plan. Stay tuned. Same Bat time. Same Bat channel. (Old guys, I gotchu.)

PS - They/we already think something fishy is going on with the insurance company contributions, so that “unless” trigger has already flipped.

Edited April 23, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Just now, ThenNow said:

Fortunately for survivor claimants, the TCC, FCR and Coalition may have been galvanized by the ill-advised and very badly timed deal with Hartford, creating an impenetrable wall sealing off the path for the BSA’s Plan.

That's what shocked me, too. The TCC seemed to be saying in its recent filings and at the last court hearing that they were concerned that they were being cut out and that BSA was trying to cut a deal directly with the Coalition.

Well, any plans to work direct with the Coalition just went up in smoke. Forget global plans and toggle plans.

[elitts 464]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I agree that the end goal of the TCC and many claimants is not the destruction of the BSA; however, most will want the money their lawyers are telling them they could expect if they reject the current offer.

The TCC (and the various lawyers) has a number in mind on what the BSA can afford to pay (as they have said on this site, they have already had a company perform an assessment of more than 500 BSA properties including a review if they are restricted or not).  They likely have a number in mind in terms of liability of insurance companies.  I doubt it is the full $102B; however, it is likely well north of $1-$2B.  Until BSA's offer comes close to number they have in mind, they will continue to reject any offer.   The judge is unlikely to approve a deal until the claimants approve an offer.  In the latest response, the prediction is that 95% of claimants will vote against BSA's current offer.  BSA needs 66% to approve.

Now, does this then end with Chapter 7 of BSA ... I think that is too early to tell.  

This is one reason I really wish they could just adjudicate now regarding whether or not the LCs are independent.  As long as there are people arguing that their assets should be included "in the bankruptcy", this isn't going to be resolved.  If there was a decision that they ARE independent, then at least we could move forward with the understanding that their contributions are voluntary and can't be compelled.  (obviously if they were ruled to be extensions of national instead, then the whole argument over the assets becomes moot)

I realize people still have the option to go forward on the state level, and that's fine. But at least we won't have people holding out on the national bankruptcy because they are still dreaming that the LC assets can be liquidated by court order.

Edited April 23, 2021 by elitts