Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I tend to agree. Hard to imagine the Coalition lawyers settling out without the official committee. That would create a firestorm. It would be opposed by the US Trustee and it’s protnot possible under the bankruptcy code. Similarly situated claimants have to be similarly treated under any plan. 
 

KOSNOFF controls 17,000 clients. He’d go berserk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors.  However, there a

The mental fallout from my abuse was mostly dormant prior to the current lawsuit. It would still torment me in idle moments. Or at night sometimes when I lay in bed trying not to blame myself after so

I would like to not lock the thread but we seem to be in a rut that we need to get out of before any progress can be made. Here are some observations that might help. First, human dignity is the

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

I tend to agree. Hard to imagine the Coalition lawyers settling out without the official committee. That would create a firestorm. It would be opposed by the US Trustee and it’s protnot possible under the bankruptcy code. Similarly situated claimants have to be similarly treated under any plan. 
 

KOSNOFF controls 17,000 clients. He’d go berserk. 

I wouldn’t say he controls them.  I think he just has a big persuasion initiative.  It’s similar to how the US President on paper doesn’t have a lot of power but his word can make the stock markets move.

 

They don’t always do, but in Kosnoff’s case it’s a symbiotic relationship.  Kosnoff takes the heat from Century while being the political figure behind liquidating BSA.  Clients call to complain to him about BSA’s so far awful attempts at a sufficient plan of reorganization.  Lawyers on the back end file more state court lawsuits as more windows open up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Hard to imagine the Coalition lawyers settling out without the official committee.

There's an old saying, "Friends are people who hate the same people."  How ironic it would be if one of the best things the BSA has done for survivors to this point is try to stonewall both groups representing those survivors and in so doing bring those groups closer and their demands higher due to the new-found unity.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Fraudulent Concealment tolling opened the door in Idaho for example. It is a federal court ruling. It is likely to be followed in many states. 

the Idaho case is the Judge Winmill decision. https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-boy-scouts-of-am-6

I strongly encourage all closed state survivor claimants to read and review this case and the others previously mentioned. If you're represented by counsel, ask your attorney(s) if they considered them. It may be worth the time and effort, as my dad used to say.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing and heard in the NAM presentation the words "adequate compensation" yet what gets put on the table seems to me to be far less than adequate.  So I pose this to the forum...What does "adequate compensation" equate to you? I am very curious what those who were not abused have to say and how that would be compared to a survivors perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, a question came up in another thread that I think is better answered here:

Since the start (February 2020) BSA has used the phrase "adequate compensation" or "adequately compensated" numerous times. In the recent National Annual Meeting (NAM) the phrase was "equitably compensate."

That's the text but also recognize that was only PART of the BSA's commitment. The other part was "and continue the mission of scouting."

So what is "adequate"? Of the $1.4 billion in total assets, BSA is putting forth the idea that $500 million (or so) is adequate when balanced against the need to keep BSA alive ("continue the mission of scouting".)

Put it this way: even BSA 100% liquidated and simply went away, and all $1.4 billion were transferred to a settlement trust (pretend for a second there are no liabilities, liens, or debts) divided that against 82,500 claims (the most recent updated number) and you get just shy of $17,000.

Clearly, when BSA is talking about "adequate compensation" they are NOT talking ONLY about BSA's contribution. Clearly $17,000 is under no one's definition "adequate".

So, then here come the LCs.

And the COs.

And the insurance for all the above.

That I think is the point, and I've made it before and why there will be a matrix regarding severity and number of instances of abuse. CLEARLY "adequate compensation" for losing an eye is different than "adequate compensation" for losing the tip of a finger. The same will apply in the sexual abuse claims.

The BSA, however, cannot be expected to pay out everything for a victim to be "adequately compensated". There's just not enough BSA assets to make that work.

Now, we can argue, and TCC has argued, that BSA can do a lot better than $500 million. But that's not with respect to "adequate compensation." That is a question of "who PAYS that adequate compensation."

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Adequate" is an impossible word to apply to the human carnage BSA caused. And it is especially arrogant coming from BSA to imply or suggest that it has the slightest idea of what it means. 

The word should be "acceptable" not adequate. What is acceptable is probably the going rate nationally which is in the neighborhood of $1-1.5M average case value. 

Does BSA or Chubb/Century have the ability to pay that amount even if they were all liquidated? No. 

So BSA should just shut up about compensation. They won't be deciding the question, the voting survivors will.

And that amount should be every penny that can be gotten. Even if getting the last penny takes 20 years of litigation by the Trustee. It's called justice. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Since the start (February 2020) BSA has used the phrase "adequate compensation" or "adequately compensated" numerous times. In the recent National Annual Meeting (NAM) the phrase was "equitably compensate."

So all of the phrasing is basically the same.  BSA and the TCC has put forward a Matrix.  BSA says as of now there there is not enough assets to meet the matrix payouts.  But there might be in the future.  My question is and I am putting it to the forum do you think that the matrix is fair and adequate?  Do you think 50% is or is it low when you add in say 50 years of suffering?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One final note on "adequately compensated". The TCC has put out its "marker" for what adequate compensation looks like: $103 billion for 84,000 claims.

And the BSA has put out its marker for what adequate compensation looks like: $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion (page 24).

How did BSA come up with that? Pages 76-78 lays it out. Here's the summary

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.50 To establish this value range, Bates White analyzed BSA’s historically resolved Abuse Claims, with a focus on four factors that have affected the Claims’ settlement value: (i) the possible monetary damages the Abuse Survivor could obtain in the tort system, (ii) the connection to Scouting during the alleged acts, (iii) certain legal considerations regarding the viability of the Claim, and (iv) the credibility of the Claim. Bates White anticipates being able to refine its valuation range as it continues to gather further facts and information regarding the Abuse Claims.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

SA says as of now there there is not enough assets to meet the matrix payouts.  But there might be in the future.

Not exactly. What BSA is saying is

1) They disagree with the TCC matrix and believe that the number is closer to $7 billion vs. $103 billion.

2) They argue that of the $7 billion, BSA should NOT be the sole entity to pay and

3a) BSA should put what money it can into a settlement trust ($500 million) TODAY plus the LCs ($450 million) TODAY and let the Insurance companies fight out for the next decade who pays the rest (global plan) OR

3b) BSA should put what money it can into a settlement trust ($500 million) TODAY and walk out of the bankruptcy with the LCs, the COs, and the insurance companies fight out for the next decade who pays the rest (toggle plan).

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

One final note on "adequately compensated". The TCC has put out its "marker" for what adequate compensation looks like: $103 billion for 84,000 claims.

And the BSA has put out its marker for what adequate compensation looks like: $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion (page 24).

How did BSA come up with that? Pages 76-78 lays it out. Here's the summary

 

Yes that is what the BSA says and the TCC has a much larger figure.  Not so interested in the legal stances I wonder more about what individuals feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

So BSA should just shut up about compensation. They won't be deciding the question, the voting survivors will.

And if the voting survivors decide no amount of money that BSA puts up (forget about the LCs, the COs, and the insurance companies for a second) is enough, then BSA should die?

That's the key problem the judge is facing: it may be that NO amount the BSA offers will EVER get 2/3rds vote (again, $1.4 billion/82,500 claims = $17,000).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Which one? The TCC or the BSA?

Either.  What do you as an individual feel?  Is 2.3 or 2.7 million for the upper end meet what you would call adequate/equitable or do you think it is high or low?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I keep hearing and heard in the NAM presentation the words "adequate compensation" yet what gets put on the table seems to me to be far less than adequate.  So I pose this to the forum...What does "adequate compensation" equate to you? I am very curious what those who were not abused have to say and how that would be compared to a survivors perspective.

Well, more slight of hand at play. It started out with the mantra of "equitable compensation," which was repeated multiple times. It has since degraded. Equitable means fair and just, in the law. "Adequate" means, like my dad would say, "That oughta do. It's the best we're gonna get it, I think." Me thinks the two-pronged goal of the bankruptcy has whittled down to 1.25-pronged. You pick which which is which.

February 18, 2020

"The BSA cares deeply about all victims of abuse and sincerely apologizes to anyone who was harmed during their time in Scouting. We are outraged that there have been times when individuals took advantage of our programs to harm innocent children,” said Roger Mosby, President and Chief Executive Officer. “While we know nothing can undo the tragic abuse that victims suffered, we believe the Chapter 11 process – with the proposed Trust structure – will provide equitable compensation to all victims while maintaining the BSA’s important mission.”

https://www.bsarestructuring.org/press_release/boy-scouts-america-files-chapter-11-bankruptcy/

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...