Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

Has anyone been able to get a copy of what the Ad Hoc committee sent to the LC's as to what their "bill" is?  Probably keeping that very close to the vest but would be interesting to see what the Ad Hoc committee is proposing per Council.

No. I was told way back in January that a (earlier) version was out there but it was/is considered privileged legal information and not to be shared.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 993
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

(deleted)  Sorry, but I am simply tired of the BS of somehow thinking money can cure everything.  (deleted).  Just my opinion, and I understand you suffered considerable based on what you have shred. 

Hello All.  New here-first post. I read these forums for hours and hours, and signed up to post this. So, as I understand the upshot of it all: 1.  That National initially indicated tha

IMHO, has been passed over may be more accurate or maybe I missed the judge's ruling on which National properties were restricted and the whole J.P. Morgan shell game. Locally, the prospect of s

Posted Images

8 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Trust account as part of the settlement. Makes perfect and total sense.

That makes sense.  Then, it's not really BSA paying.  It's a settlement trust that has been set asside for this.  Is that in the current negotiated agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Once a settlement is reached, it strikes me that from a Scouting perspective there needs to be some energy spent on listening, understanding, and healing divisions and wounds.  During this time everyone of course wants to see what is best for kids and abuse victims - but there have also been a lot of hurt feelings.  It's important for the BSA to recognize that and work diligently to embrace those who were harmed through their involvement in Scouting.  

Do you truly think that’s at all likely, this side of the eventual dirt nap? From 95% of what I’ve heard here, other than from the good doctor, the national leadership might be, to quote Captain Barbosa, “disinclined to acquiesce to your request.” No? On the survivor side, I’m sure there is a sizable contingent similarly situated. From my rocking chair, if anything like that is to happen, BSA will have to contemplate, initiate, ingratiate and placate. Even for me, I don’t want to stick my hand (heart) out to someone and have them do a, “Thanks but no thanks. I’d rather not. It’s too complicated and I want to be done with this.” 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Is that in the current negotiated agreement?

No clue. That’s my, “King for a day decree.” Well, for today anyway. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MattR said:

I thought you said people have committed suicide related to this.

I did. Is there a question? If you mean could they be memorialized, only to the degree that they are known - certainly most are not - and only if their families would want it, which is unlikely. If someone has committed suicide in the depths of a grave depression or addiction, without ever having spoken about their abuse, they are wholly unknown and invisible on this radar screen. Most cases would fall in that category. Mine certainly would have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MattR said:

The Vietnam Memorial, Holocaust memorials and just local war memorials mean as much to those that survived as relatives to those that didn't. Again, I'm not trying to, as you've said, poke. I'm just explaining my thoughts.

100%. I think we just crossed wires. The string between our bean cans seems to have frayed or you forgot to empty the beans on your end.

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Does this section mean what I think it means. Did BSA buy the Coalition’s votes for 10 million dollars?

“Coalition restructuring expenses?? This appears very deceptive. The Coalition was supposedly paying Brown Rudnick. Looks like all the survivors are. What does the TCC have to say about this?

I’m not able to make it out, especially the footnotes. I see the line item, which I guess it the only point I need to get. Very curious...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Does this section mean what I think it means. Did BSA buy the Coalition’s votes for 10 million dollars?

In bankruptcy proceedings it is not uncommon for recognized mediation parties to "bargain in" certain fees as a part of a settlement.  The code actually allows for reimbursement of fees if substantial contribution to achieving a settlement by a party can be demonstrated in the eyes of the court.  If all parties agree then the court will usually allow it.  Ahhhh....the business of bankruptcy....   I think saying the BSA "bought" votes is over-reaching however and would require not only the TCC and  Federal Bankruptcy Trustee to look the other way but all other parties who would have to agree to not file an objection.  The BSA couldn't deliver that.  If you have a young son/daughter interested in law school have a conversation with them that starts like this..."You know, I've heard bankruptcy attorneys get paid pretty well at a certain level...."

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The code actually allows for reimbursement of fees if substantial contribution to achieving a settlement by a party can be demonstrated in the eyes of the court. 

All well and good, given the code and absence of any objection, but that just seems absurd to me. They’re going to make a great deal of money on this case, they are not the aggrieved and allowing for a portion of attorneys’ fees is usually for the prevailing party. I understand that it’s allowed and everyone seems to concur, but I still don’t get it. Is it more of a, “Thanks for not continuing to make this so difficult and comprising before BSA went bust” gift? Meesa cornfuzzled.

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

All well and good, given the code and absence of any objection, but that just seems absurd to me.

Well, here's more than you probably want to know below.  I'd guess that the attorneys representing a majority of claimants and have been involved with mediation would say that they are making a substantial contribution by getting to a settlement that the majority would vote for.  Please don't make me explain the thinking of attorneys beyond that!  It IS something that is objected to but the cost of the objection could add  the fees if the objection didn't prevail.  At any rate, here's the code in part from: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2012/06/construing-substantial-contribution-under-section-503b3d 

Administrative-Expense Priority for Making a "Substantial Contribution"

Section 503(b)(3)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code grants administrative-expense priority for the "actual, necessary expenses" incurred by a creditor, among other entities, in making a "substantial contribution" in a case under chapter 11. In addition, section 503(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code grants administrative-expense priority for "reasonable compensation for professional services rendered by an attorney . . . of an entity whose expense is allowable under" section 503(b)(3)(D) and "reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses incurred by such attorney." As explained by the AmFin court, these provisions are an "accommodation between the two objectives of encouraging meaningful creditor participation in the reorganization process and keeping administrative expenses and fees at a minimum to maximize the estate for creditors."

The Bankruptcy Code neither defines "substantial contribution" nor sets forth criteria to be used in determining whether a substantial contribution has been made in a chapter 11 case. The issue, therefore, of whether a creditor has made a "substantial contribution" is a question of fact, with the moving party bearing the burden of proof. Most courts narrowly construe what constitutes a "substantial contribution" in a chapter 11 case, and most have taken the position that substantial-contribution claims, like other section 503(b) claims, should be strictly limited. The principal test is that there must be actual and demonstrable benefit to the estate and creditors.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

The principal test is that there must be actual and demonstrable benefit to the estate and creditors.

Not more than I wanted and I’m sure others appreciate your wisdom, as I do. 

As to the section quoted, do we get to see their petition for fees and expenses? I assume it contains their winning argument for why their contribution met the standard in the code and rings the “actual and demonstrable benefit” bell. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, yknot said:

"The official victims committee, which is known as the tort claimants committee and is charged with acting as a fiduciary for all abuse victims, estimates the value of some 82,500 sexual abuse claims at about $103 billion."  

For some reason, this statement really annoys me.  "The Value?"

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

For some reason, this statement really annoys me.  "The Value?"

Yes. In the end, tort law is about who is liable for the damage and what is the value of that damage. In the context of property damage, it is easier to choke down (what is the value of damage to the car in the fender bender?). In the context of human lives, it is harder but the language remains the same. What is the value of an arm severed in an industrial accident? The value of mesothelioma in a person exposed to asbestos? And here, yes, the value of certain sexual actions committed against minors.

In the legal filings they are called the "Base Matrix Value" or "Maximum Matrix Value".

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, skeptic said:

For some reason, this statement really annoys me.  "The Value?"

In what way? We’re creditors and most have a defined amount on their invoices. We don’t, it must be gauged by comp’s and past BSA settlements/award and recent settlements/judgements on similar sexual abuse cases. BSA and the insurers refused a mutual estimation, so there you go. 

Or, do you mean that it’s wrong to say someone’s injury, pain, suffering and financial other impacts can be reduced to a “valuation”?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...