Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

BSA Modified Plan 5.0 (hereafter Plan 5.5) released

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2331075e-79d2-41e9-b7ea-86cf476bf03a_6377.pdf

Looks like the changes are all in Article X. Effect of Plan Confirmation

Channeling Injunction
Insurance Entity Injunction
Injunction against Interference with Plan
Releases
Exculpation
Injunctions Related to Releases and Exculpation

It will take some time to read over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

FCR/Coalition proposed letter for the solicitation package

I’m sorry, but this is tipping the toe and splashing around in the mystical pool of fabrication, fantasy and manipulation. Seriously? On second thought, they may already be up to their belly button in this magical elixir, ready to wade yet deeper as shortened time and expedience necessitate. Did Reciprocity write this? Inquiring minds...

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Century has now issued a subpoena for documents to another aggregator: CaseWorks
What specifically are they asking for? This gets back to the forged-signature issue. The want all original proofs of claim and the metadata (to get at I suspect the claim that aggregators changed details of claims). They also specifically want anything to do with Kosnoff because he had claimed someone missued his e-signature or name.
 
I get what they are trying to do, but as the judge I think at one point noted: the fact that attorneys may have forged names onto claims does NOT make the claims automatically false or invalid. The fact that the attorney for the claimant was forging documents should NOT be held against the claimant.
 
Quote
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10
All Documents and Communications Concerning the Claim Forms that were submitted to
Omni in these Chapter 11 Cases on behalf of Attorney Timothy Kosnoff of Kosnoff Law,
including but not limited to any and all digital signatures, audit trails, and IP addresses that were
associated with any and all Claim Forms that You submitted on Mr. Kosnoff’s behalf, including
those Claim Forms that were submitted on Mr. Kosnoff’s behalf to Omni on November 10,
November 11, November 15, and November 16, 2020 without limitation.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
All Documents and Communications Concerning any Claim Forms that were submitted
to Omni in these Chapter 11 Cases that included suspicious, photocopied, or otherwise forged
signatures, including but not limited to claimant signatures on Claim Forms submitted by
Attorney Timothy Kosnoff of Kosnoff Law that did not match those in public records.

 

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

It will take some time to read over.

Ok, I'll admit to being lost. There's a LOT of hay here, and I cannot find the particular needle that got changed (this is why I love redlined versions).

I'll wait for the TCC to indicate what got shifted.

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

The Colorado constitution prohibits laws allowing for the reopening of civil statute of limitation windows retroactively, but can do prospectively. Meaning any abuse that took place PRIOR to the law's enactment operates with the OLD statute of limitations. Any abuse that took place AFTER the law's enactment operates with the NEW statute of limitations.

 

So that sounds like NOT reviving closed SOL periods.  Am I wrong?  I'm trying to marry that with the writing that it's a three year window of reopened liability.

"3-year window will open on January 1, 2022 for claims against perpetrators, private organizations, and government for abuse from 1960-2021. The law is not * Description only indicates that a law revives against the government if the statute explicitly mentions public entities or case law clearly supports that conclusion. This list also does not include revival via delayed discovery rule. www.childusa.org | 3508 Market Street, Suite 202 | Philadelphia, PA 19104 | info@childusa.org | 215.539.1906 4 a revival law—it is a new cause of action—but it is included because it opens a window to justice for many survivors whose common law claims have expired. (2022-2024 window opening soon)."

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

1) FCR/Coalition proposed letter for the solicitation package

Well....here's the bait and switch from the Coalition and FCR below.  Note thatthey use the "CLAIM VALUE" of the plan to show a figure to 2.7 million.  This is an arbitrary plan number that is the best estimate of attorneys for valuation.  They "will be valued" but that does NOT, I repeat NOT, mean that any survivor can expect to see that amount.  That little tidbit of information is conveniently left out.  Survivors should hope that the judge allows for both sides to make their cases in letters to go in the voting packet and doesn't restrict the TCC from calling BS on this suggestion that people are a yes vote away from the claim valuation.  Oh, and yes, the last line says basically "your mileage may vary" but what do you think people will focus upon?  regardless, I'd anticipate a TCC Town Hall VERY VERY soon.

I. What You Will Receive Under the Plan
If the Plan is confirmed, a newly formed Settlement Trust will be established. Your claim against BSA, as well as any Local Council, and certain other “Protected Parties,” will be transferred to and paid from the Settlement Trust. The Settlement Trust will assess your claim in accordance with its Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP) and value the claim based on the type and extent of abuse suffered and other factors. Based on these factors, most claims will be valued between $3,500 and $2,700,000. If you do not wish to undergo the full claims evaluation process, you will be able to elect to receive a one-time payment of $3,500, prior to the start of that process.  The Settlement Trust will collect funds from the BSA, its Local Councils, their insurers, and chartered organizations, and distribute available funds to survivors. As noted above, to date, there are settlements that will provide over $1.8 billion in initial funding to the Settlement Trust. The actual amount of your recovery, unless you select the one-time $3,500 payment, will depend on both the specifics of your claim and the amounts contributed to the Settlement Trust by, among others, insurance companies and
chartered organizations in the future.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest from last night

1) The Plan 5.5 redline is out showing what did and did not change from 5.0.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fa044761-2541-4ebe-9214-2a59347347af_6385.pdf

2) The TCC has filed its proposed solicitation plan and it includes separating out those who want the $3500 payment from those who want to go the settlement trustee route.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/32699b05-5103-4435-b6bc-042bf4ce2fa3_6381.pdf

3) Century, which was given permission by the court to depose aggregators but NOT lawyers, went ahead and tried to depose their paralegals instead. Neat trick, but the lawyers are now demanding the court quash the subpoena.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7351aa13-5e91-426f-bc39-8a11feb57867_6380.pdf

4) The FCR and Coalition have submitted a proposed "Plan English" document for Plan 5.0 or 5.5

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/45a09064-51b5-4645-8593-7c9899e9abbc_6379.pdf

5) The new BSA disclosure statement

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fa044761-2541-4ebe-9214-2a59347347af_6385.pdf

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

1) The Plan 5.5 redline is out showing what did and did not change from 5.0.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fa044761-2541-4ebe-9214-2a59347347af_6385.pdf

As expected, the BSA has now changed the way it wants to handle the $3500.

Plan 5.0

"In addition, each holder of a properly completed non-duplicative proof of claim asserting a Direct Abuse Claim who filed such Claim by the Bar Date or was permitted by a Final Order of the Bankruptcy Court to file a late claim may elect on his or her Ballot to receive an Expedited Distribution, subject to criteria set forth in the Trust Distribution Procedures, in exchange for providing a full and final release in favor of the Settlement Trust, the Protected Parties and the Chartered Organizations."

"In addition, each holder of a properly completed non-duplicative proof of claim asserting a Direct Abuse Claim who filed such Claim by the Bar Date or was permitted by a Final Order of the Bankruptcy Court to file a late claim may elect on his or her Ballot to receive an Expedited Distribution, following the Effective Date, subject to criteria set forth in the Trust Distribution Procedures, elect to receive an Expedited Distribution in exchange for providing a full and final release in favor of the Settlement Trust, the Protected Parties and the Chartered Organizations."

So there will be NO $3500 option on the ballot. All victims will be lumped together for voting purposes.

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

2) The TCC has filed its proposed solicitation plan and it includes separating out those who want the $3500 payment from those who want to go the settlement trustee route.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/32699b05-5103-4435-b6bc-042bf4ce2fa3_6381.pdf

This is what BSA wants the ballot to look like.

image.png.5f0863e2b7755f48787442b6dda07465.png

The TCC wants each ballot to have the same Accept/Reject box.

Immediately below will be a accept-the-$3500 option. This is what it will look like (ignore the blue lines, they'd be black in the real thing)

image.thumb.png.b866044f0789be0abdd609390c10b0bd.png

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

So there will be NO $3500 option on the ballot. All victims will be lumped together for voting purposes.

I would be shocked if the judge allows this.  She seemed interested in collecting the data with the ballot given the concerns the TCC/others raised.  The only reason she removed other proposals from the ballot (i.e. council) was that you could do the analysis later during plan confirmation.  Without the $3500 selection, you wouldn't be able to do that.  BSA was OK with this during the hearing but changed their minds later.  I wonder why.

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

here's the bait and switch from the Coalition and FCR below.  Note thatthey use the "CLAIM VALUE" of the plan to show a figure to 2.7 million.  This is an arbitrary plan number that is the best estimate of attorneys for valuation.  They "will be valued" but that does NOT, I repeat NOT, mean that any survivor can expect to see that amount. 

Amen, brother. It’s right on par with Coalition client recruitment and I think it’s reprehensible. It’s not factual. The ‘sin of omission’ is clearly meant to manipulate thinking/voting toward their conclusion. Manipulating is not informing. There is stating an opinion based on analysis and there is stating half truths to lure one into the ‘trap’. I caught a bunch of rabbits in my handmade traps. “Fresh garden vegetables! Come and get it! See? It’s just a wee box and you can obviously get out because you can clearly get in. Oops. The box closes when you snatch the snack? Oh, that’s right. Guess I failed to mention that...” 

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2021 at 1:30 PM, CynicalScouter said:

The first issue came up in the hearing last week and has been discussed here, namely, that "book value" or real estate appraised value of these properties is absurdly low and that what needs to happen is appraisals.

Only, as Stang was somewhat forced to admit, the vast majority of properties HAVE been appraised.

There were two main entities that did the appraisals

  1. CBRE, hired by the TCC
  2. JLL, hired by BSA
  3. Keen, hired by ???

There are 728 properties held by 250 or so councils (a few councils have no property such as Colonial Virginia, Far East, etc.)

Of these 728

CBRE did appraisals on over 500. JLL on around 350. In some cases, both CBRE and JLL both did appraisals.

I don't really see the argument here that was previously made that somehow the LCs have grossly undervalued the properties. By my count, per the latest filing, only around 10 properties are council-valued.

I just don't see where the TCC is going to be able to prove that the LCs have tons of property valued at another billion dollars is coming from.

 

Eh.. I have to wonder what kind of an "appraisal" was really done on that kind of scale.  A true appraisal for a specialty property like a summer camp would run $5,000-$7500 minimum here in Michigan and I'm sure it would be higher on the coasts. (not to mention taking 6-8 weeks)  Did some attorney or the TCC actually front 5 or 6 million dollars for 850 appraisals to be run?

On 9/26/2021 at 3:40 PM, fred8033 said:

This seems like the sausage analogy where things can be really ugly to get a result.  Many LCs will walk away from the agreement if required to surrender the majority of their assets.  Many LCs can use SOL protection.  Many LCs might have already settled on individual claims.  Many might do better with their own bankruptcy in their own state.  In any case, LCs might do better simply because they continued to control the funds now.  

If suspect if you ask LCs to give up 50% or 75% or more of their assets, most LCs that can will walk.

Or more importantly: Is 15% of all LCs a greater amount than 30%-50% of just the LCs that are in open window states?

 

18 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I assumed that, but he used the plural. What else you got, Sir Volunteer? If the asset assumptions are incorrect, bring on the comparative analyses and let’s get ready to rummmble. 

I think the other assumption is that LC finances look the same as a for-profit business where cash and cash equivalents are essentially a "rainy day fund" that can be spent down with impunity for operating needs.  But in many of the LCs those investments, even if they aren't restricted, represent the source of the LC's operating funds (interest).  Losing even a 25%-30% slice of that pot of money would be crippling if it meant the loss of 10%-20% of their annual operating income.  More than that could easily put the LC into a death spiral since a regular source of funds to replace that revenue isn't likely to pop up quickly.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Well....here's the bait and switch from the Coalition and FCR below.  Note thatthey use the "CLAIM VALUE" of the plan to show a figure to 2.7 million.  This is an arbitrary plan number that is the best estimate of attorneys for valuation.  They "will be valued" but that does NOT, I repeat NOT, mean that any survivor can expect to see that amount. 

I have been involved in a few larger lawsuits.  In all cases, I was given information on what my specific settlement would be if the deal was agreed to. Some cases they were mass tort and my payout was a small coupon. In one case, it was a complex pension case where each individual had a specific unique settlement number (the final actually came in a bit higher than what we voted on).  This was in the range of $40K and while I wasn't physically abused, it was a serious case where I wanted to ensure the settlement was fair.

I do not understand how claimants could be asked to vote on a deal when given a range of $3,500 to $2,700,000.  While there will always be a range, you need to give a more reasonable range.  I would expect my lawyer to tell me a much more narrow range (at minimum, keep it to an order of magnitude).  $0 - $10K ... $10 - $99K ... $100 - $999K ... $1 - 9M.  The fact that the coalition is ok with giving a $3.5K to $2.7M range shows they don't care about their claimants.  They remind me of the lawyers that sue credit card companies, Facebook, etc. and get their claimants $5 and rake in $100Ms of fees.  Typically I'm just annoyed by them as most "claimants" in the other lawsuits have limited damages.  This is different.  Gathering a bunch of men who were raped as kids so you can collect $100Ms+ and give them $3,500 - $10K is horrible.  It is sickening.  The fact that BSA lawyers are colluding with them vs working with the TCC makes me question the honor in the BSA.

I hope the judge ensures there is some methods for claimants to determine their likely payout.  Otherwise, I don't understand why we are even seeking a vote.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The fact that the coalition is ok with giving a $3.5K to $2.7M range shows they don't care about their claimants.  They remind me of the lawyers that sue credit card companies, Facebook, etc. and get their claimants $5 and rake in $100Ms of fees.

 

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Gathering a bunch of men who were raped as kids so you can collect $100Ms+ and give them $3,500 - $10K is horrible.  It is sickening.  The fact that BSA lawyers are colluding with them vs working with the TCC makes me question the honor in the BSA.

How do I up vote this 100x?

  • Upvote 1
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...