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

[CynicalScouter 1434]

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I hope the judge ensures there is some methods for claimants to determine their likely payout. 

The judge's point was that she wanted "illustrative" examples (victim X, with abuse type Y, in state Z = $A) but that with so many variables offering something more formulaic (which I think TCC was pushing for) to the tune of 82,5000 claims would be impossible or misleading.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993 2161]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

The judge's point was that she wanted "illustrative" examples (victim X, with abuse type Y, in state Z = $A) but that with so many variables offering something more formulaic (which I think TCC was pushing for) to the tune of 82,5000 claims would be impossible or misleading.

I understand you will not have 82,500 unique calculations; however, you know where many claims are occurring, if they are LDS or not (or unknown), what state, SOL impacts, type of abuse, etc.  You should be able to make a range for many of these claims. 

Again, when I voted on the pension deal, it was a very specific value $XX,XXX but even then, it included statements that this was the best estimate at this time ... blah, blah, blah.  While I don't think you can do this in the BSA case, you should be able to give a range with caveats.  The range of $3.5K to $2.7M is just meaningless.  

[fred8033 1593]

33 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

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.

Well written ... I'm not sure on the term colluding for BSA's lawyers as their absolute job is to do the best for their client as their client was pulled into court (rightfully or wrongly).  Court is an oppositional process ... BSA's lawyers are trying to find the best way out for BSA.  I can't really complain about colluding.  Other factors yes.  Colluding no.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

39 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I hope the judge ensures there is some methods for claimants to determine their likely payout.

Let me show why this is impossible to do for 82,500 claims.

• Variable 1: Value of claim. For a Tier 1 claim, the BASE claim is ranged from $600,000 (minimum) to $2,700,000 (max). The other tiers are similar.
• Variable 2: Mitigating Scaling Factors: there are at least 4:  Absence of Protected Party Relationship or Presence of a Responsible Party that Is Not a Protected Party; Other Settlements, Awards, Contributions, or Limitations; Statute of Limitations or Repose and BSA’s Discharge; Absence of a Putative Defendant
• Variable 3: Aggravating Scaling Factors: Impact of the Abuse (Mental Health Issues, Physical Health Issues, Interpersonal Relationships, Vocational Capacity, Academic Capacity, Legal Difficulties); Abuser Profile (the more victims, the more money); Nature of Abuse and Circumstances

So just based on this, it is possible to take a single Tier 1 claim and come up with something. Just the statute of limitations issues (Gray 1/2/3 system) ALONE had ranges within ranges (10-25% in Gray 1 states, etc.)

So telling a particular victim "you will receive $10-$100k" would be impossible or misleading.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MYCVAStory 687]

44 minutes ago, elitts said:

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?

The TCC contracted with three real estate appraisal firms who do this on a national scale.  The appraisals ran from fairly simple to deep-dives into trust and restriction issues.  It took a long time.  Who paid?  The BSA because it was a professional fee charged to the BSA as the debtor in this case because the debtor hadn't done it themselves.  

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Insurers first up: they are offering a "road map" and asking the judge to specifically say what she will/won't do at confirmation especially as to.

1. Coalition fees
2. Third party releases and especially because the abuse occurred not at hands of debtors, but non-debtors overseen by non-debtors LCs and COs
3. Alters contractual rights of insurers and attempting to bind insurance coverage and claims now.

This is, in effect, "rule against us your honor and we are going to appeal based on these three items."

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Just now, MYCVAStory said:

The TCC contracted with three real estate appraisal firms who do this on a national scale. 

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought it was

1) TCC hired CEBR

2) BSA hired JLL

3) Someone hired Keen

Not that all three were contracted by TCC. I could be wrong and happy to stand corrected.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Insurance company objects to $3500 as that would be binding on the insurance companies AND that they were either time barred and/or fraudulent in at least SOME cases.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Judge: What do the insurers want for them to NOT object to the plan? Or are you just going to come back and object no matter what I rule?

Lawyer: Cannot commit to saying that if you address all our issues TODAY we won't still object.

Also, insurers are really, really pushing that the 59,000 claims are timed barred, and therefore should be zeroed out. Those claims should be stricken. Ohio State abuse case, another federal judge ruled that the statute of limitations had expired, therefore must strike the BSA claims that are time barred. This ruling was from LAST WEEK.

Therefore, those 59,000 claims need to be removed.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

This is that Ohio federal case

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2021/09/22/strauss-abuse-federal-judge-dismisses-strauss-abuse-victims-cases-against-osu-citing-statue-limitati/5819599001/
 

Quote

Schyck, a former Ohio State wrestler who had been fighting the university for four years, said he heard the news unexpectedly after making a phone call to an attorney representing some of the other plaintiffs just to catch up and the attorney sounded down.

That's when he learned that Judge Michael H. Watson issued the opinion in U.S. District Court in Columbus, granting Ohio State's motion to close the case. Watson said the hundreds of plaintiffs in multiple civil lawsuits could not move forward because of expired statute of limitations related to sexual abuse claims, which for most criminal rape charges in Ohio is up to 20 years.

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

For those claiming Kosnoff's Magic Formula that if only the bankruptcy judge lets these claims go back to state court the insurance companies will roll over and play dead.

The insurance company lawyer today is, if you read between the lines, BEGGING for this to go back to state court because they know 59,000 claims go away. And because they think they've got a better chance to settle for less for far fewer cases/claims.

[Eagle1993 2161]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurance company lawyer today is, if you read between the lines, BEGGING for this to go back to state court because they know 59,000 claims go away. And because they think they've got a better chance to settle for less for far fewer cases/claims.

Insurance just wants delays.  Lets say 59,000 are removed (I'm not 100% convinced as many could all file in NY/NJ using their SOL as BSA was HQ there for a while).  Then lets say 20% of the remaining are false.  That leaves 20,000 claims.  Lets assume all still end up in bankruptcy court.  Per  BishopAccountability.org the average settlement is $268K.  $5.3B .  Rough math ... BSA's current offer is $2B and I don't expect much more coming from them ... most would come from insurance.  So, insurance companies already include $750M and they would have to make up the $3.3B incremental ... so about $4B.  That assumes the insurance companies are correct.  My guess, if the other side is patient, that $4B would be much, much greater.

So, why would they delay if the end result is likely a higher payment then the current deal they could strike.  My guess is that they think by delaying, the other side will negotiate a lower settlement offer so insurance stops objecting.  If the other side was willing to wait it out, insurance would likely have to pay >>>>$ than the current settlement.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Insurers make what I think is a good point: the FCR and Coalition want to make this look, talk, walk, and function as if the settlement trustee's decisions are the decision of the bankruptcy court and therefore binding on state courts. The insurance companies want a very clear statement that is NOT the case, that the insurers have their own rights to defend and due process in a court, etc.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Tanc: They aren't asking for a Trust Distribution Procedure, they are looking for a Trust Adjudication Procedure where the trustee (hand picked by the BSA and Coalition) will, in effect, rule against the insurance companies.

Moreover, the plan violates the insurance company's rights under the insurance policies: they have the right to go to state court and have due process in a case by case basis.

[MYCVAStory 687]

57 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought it was

1) TCC hired CEBR

2) BSA hired JLL

3) Someone hired Keen

Not that all three were contracted by TCC. I could be wrong and happy to stand corrected.

CBRE, JLL and Keen Summit are the three valuation firms. The TCC engaged CBRE and Keen, while BSA engaged JLL. TCC analyses used valuation data provided by all three firms. BSA’s valuation analysis also uses information from all three.  Let's hope the BSA does the right thing and allows this data and all the TCC dashboard data to be available to the public.  Breath not being held.  Transparency isn't a skill the BSA seems to have learned thus far.