Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is Doug Kennedy, a member of the TCC.  First, I want to thank all of you for your comments over the past 18 months.  Your comments and those in other forums, whether I disagree with them or not,

Scouter.com is not well liked by National and believe me, while we are all scouters, we have various opinions of BSA.  I think if BSA fails, we will help build up a new scouting organization. If you w

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, Cyni

Posted Images

 

https://www.scouter.com/topic/31928-chapter-11-announced/page/24/

6/9/2020 a post by Eagle1993

Mediator team now set.

Kevin J. Carey … Timothy Gallagher and Paul Finn on the mediation panel, with Judge Silverstein ruling out one of the Boy Scouts' choices to serve on the panel as a group of insurers raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving his selection.

"What we are looking for is true neutrality," Judge Silverstein said.

...

The Boy Scouts have 275 sex abuse claims pending against the parent organization as well as more than 1,000 additional claims against nondebtor local scouting councils and individual charter organizations that are in various stages of review, according to the Boy Scouts' first-day declaration

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1280789/ex-del-bankruptcy-judge-to-join-boy-scouts-mediation-panel?copied=1

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Century does NOT want this language in the disclosure or wants it modified or with a statement Century disagrees with this.

Quote

The trend of retroactive revisions to limitations periods for Abuse Claims accelerated in  2019,  when  more  than  a  dozen  states  (including  Arizona,  California,  District  of  Columbia,  Montana, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina) revised their limitations periods to allow  survivors of Abuse to bring Claims that would otherwise have been time-barred.  Shortly before  the Petition Date, a group of plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of  Columbia alleging that the District’s recent revival-window legislation permits plaintiffs to bring  previously time-barred Claims, regardless of where the Abuse occurred or where the plaintiff  resides.64  In addition, prior to the Petition Date, plaintiffs began pursuing a theory that the recently  opened New Jersey statute of limitations allowed the filing of any Claim that arose prior to 1979,  regardless of where the Abuse occurred, since the BSA was headquartered in New Jersey prior to  that date, before its Headquarters moved to Irving, Texas.    

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attorney provides this data point on the Hartford plan.

In 1972, Hartford had for BSA plan for $500,000 per occurrence and no aggregate limits.

That means JUST 1972 was $1.467 billion.

Nowhere does it lay out exactly how much Hartford is cutting its deal for.

Hartford objects of course: that $1+ billion number assumes all claims valid, provable, etc.

EDIT: the other question is what is "occurrence". Every act of abuse = occurrence?

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stang wants Hartford to disclose of the 2.4-7 billion how much Hartford is?

Also Stang wants the average of Hartford Settlement per person.

Judge "I don't think that average means anything and we don't know how many valid claims" and you can get a calculator and do it in three seconds.

So, here's the 3 seconds.

787,000,000/24000 claims = $32791.66

787,000,000/2.4 billion = 32.7%

787,000,000/7 billion = 11.2%

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

Also Stang wants the average of Hartford Settlement per person.

His comments were wrapped around the issue, and he challenged the debtor attorney on this, exactly what can survivors expect in the way of settlements?  The judge seems unwilling to have a disclosure statement that lays this out?!

Of note....the judge commenting earlier that she is "new to mass tort bankruptcy."  Wow.  That should really make victims feel comfortable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Attorney for Methodists/Catholics: the COs want to know this information. AND BSA is going through the LCs are telling COs "Don't worry about pre-1976" it is improper that these extra-judicial communications are taking place.

The COs have a right to know what the pre-1976 claims are and how much.

BSA's response is that the COs do not have a right to know because pre-1976 the COs weren't covered by BSA anyway.

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

Of note....the judge commenting earlier that she is "new to mass tort bankruptcy."  Wow.  That should really make victims feel comfortable.

This is probably not the case to get your feet wet...  WOW.  If she is not careful, this case will end up in appeals hell.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MYCVAStory said:

The judge seems unwilling to have a disclosure statement that lays this out?!

Not only the victims, the COs are utterly unaware of what they are or are not on the hook for after BSA leaves them in the dust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zalkin indicated that in Catholic abuse cases, there was a chart listing insurance coverage, by year, by occurrence, aggregate caps, and number of claims.

This at least gives victims a chance to figure out what they are or are not giving up.

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This is probably not the case to get your feet wet...  WOW.  If she is not careful, this case will end up in appeals hell.  

Yep. Again, as others have said, she's said it a few times, she isn't use to this. The bankruptcy system is NOT designed for this.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

This is probably not the case to get your feet wet...  WOW.  If she is not careful, this case will end up in appeals hell.  

It also points to the fact that she isn't going to break any new ground and will stay extremely close to precedent while seeking to minimize conflict-of-interest and other issues that I agree will see this appealed.  A lot of what is happening today are attorneys having their say so that they can lay that groundwork for later.  It's also why a LOT of bankruptcy gets hammered home well after a vote....when the real deal-making happens.

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

A lot of what is happening today are attorneys having their say so that they can lay that groundwork for later. 

Yeah, I don't even want to think that far ahead, but this plan gets approved (vote approved, cram down, whatever), and is insta-appealed.

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

Yeah, I don't even want to think that far ahead, but this plan gets approved (vote approved, cram down, whatever), and is insta-appealed.

I think it's important for everyone to understand that it isn't a case where a class of claimants approves a plan, or even a judge crams down a plan, and everyone heads home since it's a done deal.  The reality is that a lot of deal-making can still occur in anticipation of the judge saying "here are the flaws" and parties serving notice what they will object to.  Yes, it's completely illogical that a flawed plan would go out to vote but bankruptcy works that way and sees the plan not as a final agreement but a framework for hammering out a deal pre-confirmation.   It's why she keeps saying "This isn't a disclosure issue, it's a confirmation issue."

Another coming attraction:  Multiply the number of professionals on this call times the number of hours times the average hourly rate....  This month's request for compensation from the parties should be jaw-dropping.

 

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...