Jump to content

Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Because of my hectic work week I only just now watched the TCC's Town Hall from last week.  I would recommend you take 20 minutes and watch it.  I also recommend it for all those who are not survivors as it will gives good information about where the Bankruptcy is sitting, why, and what the next steps are.

Can you post the link?  I've not watched one yet as I'm not a member and wanted to stay a little separate from that channel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We're going to split the ch11.x thread in 2. The original will be kept as it was intended, for the legal aspects of the case and everything else will go here. In a nutshell, if the judge is dealing wi

@Gilwell_1919 I want to respond to this, but in the proper thread, which is this one. Let's be clear what Kosnoff has said. 1) He had stated that scouting should continue. He's repeated th

No one here, except members who are claimants, have any part of deciding anything in this bankruptcy. Let's drop the personal criticism of others who express in a scoutlike way their differing op

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Can you post the link?  I've not watched one yet as I'm not a member and wanted to stay a little separate from that channel.

 

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Can you post the link?  I've not watched one yet as I'm not a member and wanted to stay a little separate from that channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow6hTpV_y4g

This was the latest one.

Edited by johnsch322
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

This could well be the first ELP lyric I have seen quoted here!😁

I believe you're correct. Also a lyric from the song of the same title by the famous puppet, "Lamb Chop." I don't know if it's a cover, but I dare not listen to check. Okay. I shall not continue, but you started it. "This is the end. My only friend, the end" of this post. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Thank you.  Just watched it.  Very professional.   Very informative.  Very professional.

#1  Seemingly confusing contradiction.  TCC argues not legal for bankruptcy to protect non-bankrupt party, but TK predicts chapter 7 where LC assets are pulled in.  Not sure if it is, but these seem like contradicting views.  

#2  Statement - TCC stated non-profits can't be forced into bankruptcy.  Only can do voluntarily.  That's news to me.  Makes me wonder on TK statements predicting chapter 7 final result.

#3  Criteria that victims must do better in chap 11 than chap 7.   I thought that would be easy for BSA to prove given chap 7 means employee retirement programs are funded before legal settlements.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

#1  Seemingly confusing contradiction.  TCC argues not legal for bankruptcy to protect non-bankrupt party, but TK predicts chapter 7 where LC assets are pulled in.  Not sure if it is, but these seem like contradicting views.  

#2  Statement - TCC stated non-profits can't be forced into bankruptcy.  Only can do voluntarily.  That's news to me.  Makes me wonder on TK statements predicting chapter 7 final result.

TK has his opinions and his reasons for stating them but is not retained by the TCC or part of the TCC's legal team.

 

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

#3  Criteria that victims must do better in chap 11 than chap 7.   I thought that would be easy for BSA to prove given chap 7 means employee retirement programs are funded before legal settlements. 

If the LC's, CO's and insurance company's are to be part of the bankruptcy I believe they are also part of victims must do as well in Chapter 11 as they would in Chapter 7.  hence that is where the wording substantial contribution comes into play.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Thank you.  Just watched it.  Very professional.   Very informative.  Very professional.

#1  Seemingly confusing contradiction.  TCC argues not legal for bankruptcy to protect non-bankrupt party, but TK predicts chapter 7 where LC assets are pulled in.  Not sure if it is, but these seem like contradicting views.  

#2  Statement - TCC stated non-profits can't be forced into bankruptcy.  Only can do voluntarily.  That's news to me.  Makes me wonder on TK statements predicting chapter 7 final result.

#3  Criteria that victims must do better in chap 11 than chap 7.   I thought that would be easy for BSA to prove given chap 7 means employee retirement programs are funded before legal settlements.  

#1 - You have to watch their wording carefully.  They said the plan, as written, does not comply with bankruptcy law.  However, they do not say you cannot have non debtors included.  While they didn't come out and say it, I believe this came up previously.

  • They may look for a LC by LC, CO by CO release.  So each individually must buy into the settlement.  It is not clear, but some have argued that you then need the funds from the LC or CO go to claimants from that LC and CO and voting is confirmed by LC/CO.  Again, this combines objections from various law firms so may not be the final plan. 

#2 - That is true and Kosnoff even admits that.  However, if Kosnoff and others who want to see a CH7, are able to get enough claimants to reject every plan, one could imagine that BSA abandons CH11 efforts and files CH7.  This is not TCC's strategy.

#3 - YES!  BSA does claim that however TCC hired a pension board expert that says BSA's analysis is flawed.  You will see pension insurance come in with a request and be given much less than their ask.  Pension board is an unsecured creditor and will battle with claimants.  This is not a black and white issue and is something that is debated.  I have no idea who is correct but can see based on various court documents that TCC has hired pension experts.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy Scouts Says Abuse Claims Likely to Be Paid in Full, With Lowered Liability Estimates - WSJ

Prof. Jacoby says there are two issues with BSA's statement:

1) Valuation ... is BSA correct in their valuation?  

2) Trust administration ... even with a $3B trust (if it hits that number) there are trust admin fees and costs that means that $3B will not all go to claimants.

 

Edited by Eagle1993
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

1) Valuation ... is BSA correct in their valuation?  

I fail to understand how all thru this settlement procedure claims were worth $XXXX according to the BSA and now they say claims are worth only $XXX.  Can someone please explain this to me. 

And miraculously it fits right into how much is in the settlement offer.

Edited by johnsch322
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I fail to understand how all thru this settlement procedure claims were worth $XXXX according to the BSA and now they say claims are worth only $XXX.  Can someone please explain this to me. 

 

Very long document, but I'll try to simplify.

1) Most of the claimants are older.  Older people don't get big settlements in sex abuse cases. 

2) Most of the accused are only accused once.  Bigger settlements come in when there are accused with multiple victims.  Why?  Because BSA liability would be less and more liability would be on the victim's parents, others, etc.

So ... when adjusting for these factors, the analysis shows the average value of each claim times number of claims leave them at the settlement amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Very long document, but I'll try to simplify.

1) Most of the claimants are older.  Older people don't get big settlements in sex abuse cases. 

2) Most of the accused are only accused once.  Bigger settlements come in when there are accused with multiple victims.  Why?  Because BSA liability would be less and more liability would be on the victim's parents, others, etc.

So ... when adjusting for these factors, the analysis shows the average value of each claim times number of claims leave them at the settlement amount.

Those are good points but they are factors that have been known all along when this so called expert gave his first analysis. So what changed?  

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...