Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The psychiatrist was associated with my lawyer

Does s/he have a specialty/concentration in CSA and/or abuse-related trauma?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@CynicalScouter Thanks from me and frankly, surely everyone, for tracking on the status of National's bankruptcy pleadings, and the procedural steps, past and pending, in the Bankruptcy case. And your

Okay. Enough. If you aren't talking about court proceedings then drop it.  It would be a shame to lock this thread now.

A few random observations from watching this bankruptcy unfold over the past several months: The focus has clearly been on protecting the national organization first and then the local councils.

Posted Images

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Does s/he have a specialty/concentration in CSA and/or abuse-related trauma?

I cannot answer that with any certainty.  My lawyer definitely did and I would assume so based on that fact.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So my takeaways from the TCC zoom meeting…

BSA plans to file a RSA by midnight today

if so, TCC will have another zoom meeting tomorrow night.

Only 5000 claimants do not have a lawyer.

SOL victims are going to get the short end of the stick with insurance  settlements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RobertCalifornia said:

SOL victims are going to get the short end of the stick with insurance  settlements.

That's not that much of a shock. The insurance companies are not going to pay 1 penny more than they have to. That means if the abuse took place in a state in which the statute of limitations has long since lapsed and there is no lookback window, there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the insurance companies to pay out fully on the claim and absolutely no way that the Trustee was going to force them to pay.

The only hope for them to get fully compensated on their claim is if sometime down the road their state reopens the SOL window, and even then they'd have to convince the Settlement Trustee to reopen the claim.

1 hour ago, RobertCalifornia said:

BSA plans to file a RSA by midnight today

RSA = restructuring support agreement I believe?

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

My observations from the TCC meeting tonight were

(1) Focusing on body language, vocal tone and facial expressions - weariness among the TCC team was clear. This has been emotionally and physically draining.

(2) Resignation - "no one is happy right now"

(3) This may be the best deal we can get to avoid years of litigation.

(4) More news in the next 24 hours

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gpurlee said:

(3) This may be the best deal we can get to avoid years of litigation.

(4) More news in the next 24 hours

If that RSA hits the docket by midnight, we'll know.

And "best deal" may not be "deal that can get 2/3rds approval".

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

RSA = restructuring support agreement I believe?

Yes.  It basically means the parties are saying "We agree with this in principal and with the critical items.  Now we'll work on getting it ready for a vote."  It does NOT mean that it's a done deal however.  Parties  including insurers can still object.

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

The only hope for them to get fully compensated on their claim is if sometime down the road their state reopens the SOL window, and even then they'd have to convince the Settlement Trustee to reopen the claim.

That's for the BSA trust.   If states re-open elapsed SOLs, victims can still insurance companies for a claim outside any standing trust.  I'm just not sure how a "settlement" can block insurance company future liability.  If re-opened, would previously blocked victims now be open submitting a claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

That's for the BSA trust.   If states re-open elapsed SOLs, victims can still insurance companies for a claim outside any standing trust.  I'm just not sure how a "settlement" can block insurance company future liability.  If re-opened, would previously blocked victims now be open submitting a claim?

The current BSA plan calls for all claims to go to the Trustee. ALL. So no, the SOL victims can NOT simply go and sue the insurance companies. And if there are lookback windows that reopen later, the claimant has to go back to the trustee who has it in his/her "sole discretion" to allow the reopen.

Quote

Statute of Limitations or Repose. If the evidence presented by the Abuse Claimant results in the Settlement Trustee concluding that the subject Abuse Claim could be dismissed or denied in the tort system due to the passage of a statute of limitations or due to a statute of repose, the Settlement Trustee shall apply a Scaling Factor of .01; provided, however,the Settlement Trustee will weigh the strength of any relevant evidence submitted by the Abuse Claimant to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled under applicable law based on a Protected Party’s conduct, and may apply a higher Scaling Factor if such evidence demonstrates to the Settlement Trustee that tolling would be appropriate under applicable state law; provided, further, any Direct Abuse Claim that is substantially reduced pursuant to this mitigating Scaling Factor that becomes the subject of statute of limitations revival legislation may be re-determined in the sole discretion of the Settlement Trustee.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

SOL victims are going to get the short end of the stick with insurance  settlements.

If memory serves (big if), this means about 50,000 men are about to get b-slapped. This is not a proverbial poke, but a legitimate musing. How do open state guys feel about those in closed states being left with an Oliver Twist look on their faces? I’m sure a good many of the 50,000 have similar or more egregious abuse stories and will get precious little. Meanwhile, just over the boarder, someone with a “minor to moderately severe” claim will get a notable sum. Does that feel at all troubling? 

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

If memory serves (big if), this means about 50,000 men are about to get b-slapped. This is not a proverbial poke, but a legitimate musing. How do open state guys feel about those in closed states being left with an Oliver Twist look on their faces? I’m sure a good many of the 50,000 have similar or more egregious abuse stories and will get precious little. Meanwhile, just over the boarder, someone with a “minor to moderately severe” claim will get a notable sum. Does that feel at all troubling? 

To me, the test of this is if states change SOL windows in the future and then someone sues their LC which did not go bankrupt.  How can the National Bankruptcy shield litigation of an LC that did not go through a bankruptcy procedure when laws in that state change?  If I were a victim, I would probably not take a low settlement amount and reserve my right to sue the LC directly in the future (and their insurance company) pending any SOL change.  

I think this is where the US Bankruptcy Trustee is questioning the structure of the entire deal (that includes coverage for LCs).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think this is where the US Bankruptcy Trustee is questioning the structure of the entire deal (that includes coverage for LCs).

Yeah, there's a lot of this that is operating on a sorta "let's try this and hope no one legally challenges it"

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

TCC is having a Zoom Town Hall tonight (July 1).

I still don't see the BSA RSA document yet on Omni.

https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Notice 7-1-21.pdf

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Tort Claimants’ Committee will hold a virtual town hall meeting on July 1, 2021 at 8:00 p.m.(Eastern Time); Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82139795053 (no registration required) or Phone number: 888-788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 821 3979 5053. At this Town Hall, the TCC will discuss:

  • Status of Boy Scout’s Disclosure Statement
  • Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations, and Insurers
  • Other pending motions before the Court
  • The plan confirmation process
Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

TCC is having a Zoom Town Hall tonight (July 1).

I still don't see the BSA RSA document yet on Omni.

https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Notice 7-1-21.pdf

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Tort Claimants’ Committee will hold a virtual town hall meeting on July 1, 2021 at 8:00 p.m.(Eastern Time); Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82139795053 (no registration required) or Phone number: 888-788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 821 3979 5053. At this Town Hall, the TCC will discuss:

  • Status of Boy Scout’s Disclosure Statement
  • Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations, and Insurers
  • Other pending motions before the Court
  • The plan confirmation process

They must know it is being submitted today.  Does a RSA mean there is a "general" agreement on a plan that can be submitted for a vote (at least between BSA, Ad Hoc Council Committee, TCC and the Coalition))?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Does a RSA mean there is a "general" agreement on a plan that can be submitted for a vote (at least between BSA, Ad Hoc Council Committee, TCC and the Coalition))?

Yes, an RSA (used to be called a "lock up agreement") are "contractual agreements among creditors, and sometimes the debtor, to support restructuring plans that have certain agreed-upon characteristics."

In absurdly oversimplifed version:

  • Creditors (TCC/Coalition/FCR or some combination) agree to support the BSA coming out of bankruptcy IF AND ONLY IF the bankruptcy plan contains the following provisions generally [LIST OF PROVISIONS] and DOES NOT contain [LIST OF PROVISIONS]
  • Debtors and protected parties (BSA, LCs, COs, or some combo) agree to the creditors terms IF AND ONLY IF [LIST OF PROVISIONS] is included and DOES NOT contain [LIST OF PROVISIONS].
  • If any of the above IF AND ONLY IF conditions are changed, then the whole agreement is scrapped subject to possible re-negotiation.

This is an OK primer on the subject https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2021/02/using-support-agreements-to-streamline-chapter-11-reorganisations/

Quote

Restructuring support agreements provide clear direction and structure to a chapter 11 case and set forth negotiated terms of a chapter 11 reorganisation plan. They can be entered before or after a case is commenced. The core of a restructuring support agreement is the creditors’ pledge to support the plan. Generally, the agreement will be between the debtor and key creditor groups. The agreements invariably include affirmative and negative covenants obligating the creditors to support and vote in favour of the plan so long as it is consistent with the terms of the restructuring support agreement and precluding the creditors from taking any action to delay or undermine confirmation of the plan. Creditors generally receive concessions from the debtor such as more favourable payment terms, deadlines for the debtor to achieve various significant milestones in advancing the case, and greater certainty regarding the timeline and outcome of the restructuring.

Here's another good review/primer. RSAs used to be called "lock up agreements" however that term is disfavored as being too negative.

https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2013/05/delaware-bankruptcy-court-confirms-the-validity-of-plan-support-agreements

Quote

Lockup agreements are a common feature of out-of-court workouts. They ensure that signatories remain committed, at least contractually, to a negotiated proposal potentially involving many competing creditor or shareholder groups. Without that commitment, the time and resources of workout participants may be wasted if a creditor or a creditor group reneges on an agreement in principle necessary to the success of the workout.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...