Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

 

Net Cash Flow Before Endowment Contributions

Funding Sources (Endowment Contributions)

Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA

Unrestricted Endowment Balance

Unrestricted RBT Balance

Total Estimated Ending Unrestricted Liquidity - BSA

2/7/2020

$14,114,000

$0

$114,868,000

$53,804,000

$65,283,000

$233,955,000

7/31/2021

-$12,300,000

$19,322,000

$87,820,000

$9

$66,417,000

$154,245,000

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • 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

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

To be fair ... I think you could see the Coalition Plan as simply a different strategy.  It could  help individuals who are permanently outside SOL ... assuming insurance, BSA and/or LCs wouldn't have caved under pressure of the TCC and offered more (which was always a possibility).  However, I think it really negatively impacts claimants inside the SOLs.

 I think the coalition decided to go with the quicker guaranteed payout.  The TCC plan would have definitely increased the payout for those inside the SOL but put at risk the payout for those outside SOL.

In terms of voting ... If my #1 goal was cash and I was outside SOL I would likely vote in favor of the BSA plan.  If my #1 goal was cash and I was inside the SOL, I would reject the plan.  If my #1 goal was for BSA to feel the pain of my abuse, I would reject the plan. 

#1  I don't understand this fundamental.  Voting to accept a settlement of BSA liability where those outside any legal SOL claim can heavily influence the vote.  This is a court of law; not general advocacy or marketing.  If the majority of states are closed states (and it is closed vs open ... not grey #1, grey #2, grey #??), then the votes and retrieved funds should go to those that have legal right.  ... I don't understand how funds are distributed to those without legal standing.  I don't understand how the court hears arguments for clients without standing.  

#2  I'm not sure rejecting the plan gets more.  Ch7 could result in less as other claims get higher priority.  Even without Ch7, there is no guarantee a different settlement would be better.  ... if anything, a rejection could let BSA out faster by having the judge find a strict amount BSA can afford and then let BSA out. 

I'm not sure any path toward a larger, more complex settlement is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

#1  I don't understand this fundamental.  Voting to accept a settlement of BSA liability where those outside any legal SOL claim can heavily influence the vote.  This is a court of law; not general advocacy or marketing.  If the majority of states are closed states (and it is closed vs open ... not grey #1, grey #2, grey #??), then the votes and retrieved funds should go to those that have legal right.  ... I don't understand how funds are distributed to those without legal standing.  I don't understand how the court hears arguments for clients without standing.  

#2  I'm not sure rejecting the plan gets more.  Ch7 could result in less as other claims get higher priority.  Even without Ch7, there is no guarantee a different settlement would be better.  ... if anything, a rejection could let BSA out faster by having the judge find a strict amount BSA can afford and then let BSA out. 

I'm not sure any path toward a larger, more complex settlement is possible.

#1)This will be argued during plan confirmation.  So, lets say the judge agrees with insurance companies (and some law firms) that claimants outside SOL should not get payment.  She can remove them from the plan.  Then ... the question will be the vote.  They can then look at the vote of the remaining claimants.  If they voted against the plan, then a new plan would likely have to be generated.  This is one of many risks that could cause the current plan to fail.  However, if the judge was really concerned, I don't think she would have allowed the current plan to go out for a vote.

#2) If you are in the SOL, you are currently getting pennies on the dollar.  You are likely better off suing LCs (and their insurance) and COs (and their insurance) in state court.  Even if both go bankrupt, you will be splitting with a lot less other claimants.  As others have stated, there are many fewer individuals suing in state court than the mass tort BSA case ... 

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

Voting to accept a settlement of BSA liability where those outside any legal SOL claim can heavily influence the vote

It all depends on if their votes are influential or not.

If the plan fails 40% yes - 60% no, then even removing them doesn't get you to 2/3rds yes. It is a harmless error to keep them in.

If the plan is accepted 90-10%, then odds are their votes don't matter, so keep them in.

If however it is anything in the middle, then it will be a fight at confirmation.

There's no need to have that fight NOW.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Century files a "Motion for Clarification" these are rare but not unheard of from where I am at.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8e85eddf-112e-40bd-aaae-110a882a7974_6435.pdf

Century is trying to get at the question of are Coalition fees REALLY TRULY out of the Plan and Solicitation or not?

BSA says the fees are still in the Plan.

Quote

Yesterday, September 29, 2021, the Court indicated that it would not approve or consider
the Coalition’s demand for payment by the estate as part of confirmation. Discussion followed
as to whether the provision associated with this payment should be struck from the Plan or
waived. Counsel for Century contacted the Debtors after the hearing and asked whether the final
Plan to be issued for solicitation would strike or waive the provision associated with the payment
of the Coalition’s fees so that the issue was resolved before solicitation. We respectfully write to
seek clarification of the Court’s intent, as the Debtors wrote us last night that they feel that no
action is required on their part and the modified Plan that they filed late last evening still
contains the provision providing for the payment of the Coalition’s fees

and Century wants a definitive statement, once and for all.

Quote

Century has argued that this issue should be addressed prior to solicitation because
deferring the issue until after solicitation threatens to taint any vote with respect to the Plan. We
point this out not to reargue the point but only to seek clarification as to whether the Court’s
intent is that this provision be struck or waived now prior to solicitation

 

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

Confirmation moves a LOT faster if the LCs, COs, LDS, and everyone else are tossed out of the boat and BSA fends for itself due to a vote to reject (or a vote not to accept/failure to get 67%). The insurers will still squawk about some things, but you eliminate several lines of challenges (the entire third-party-non-debtor-releases) if you make this BSA only.

Thank you for all the useful info.  Very appreciated.

I just don't see how this resolves without becoming BSA only and maybe also being forced.  Too many people with too many conflicting interests to get a clean vote.  And definitely no chance at a timely conclusion.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Century files a "Motion for Clarification" these are rare but not unheard of from where I am at.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8e85eddf-112e-40bd-aaae-110a882a7974_6435.pdf

Century is trying to get at the question of are Coalition fees REALLY TRULY out of the Plan and Solicitation or not?

BSA says the fees are still in the Plan.

and Century wants a definitive statement, once and for all.

 

Moreover, pursuant to the Plan, and subject to the extent approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the granting a motion filed pursuant to sections 363(b), 1129(b)(4) and 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 9019, or otherwise applicable bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy law, the Debtors w

I think the above is how the BSA handled the change.  Basically, was this enough to show the Coalition will not be paid unless the court agrees that the fees align with the code?  And if so, is this enough for the judge?

It sounded like the judge wanted this pulled out completely.  Century's question seems fair.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I just don't see how this resolves without becoming BSA only and maybe also being forced. 

I'm on record saying as much as well. This becomes a BSA plan with, perhaps even shortly thereafter but most decidedly SEPARATELY, deals for the LCs. But if isn't VERY shortly thereafter, as I noted, at least 20 councils go into bankruptcy (NY, CA, Aloha Council for Hawaii/Guam, etc.)

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

ORDER (I) APPROVING THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
AND THE FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, (II) APPROVING
PLAN SOLICITATION AND VOTING PROCEDURES, (III) APPROVING
FORMS OF BALLOTS, (IV) APPROVING FORM, MANNER, AND SCOPE OF
CONFIRMATION NOTICES, (V) ESTABLISHING CERTAIN DEADLINES IN
CONNECTION WITH APPROVAL OF THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND
CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN, AND (VI) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/beb124f7-e931-4b0c-97cb-006a315622e8_6438.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

In accordance with the Hartford Settlement, Hartford will contribute $787 million to the Settlement Trust, $137 million to be available immediately to the Settlement Trust on the Effective Date of the Plan and $650 million to be held in escrow until the order confirming the Plan is final and non-appealable.

So Hartford will only initially pay in $137M until there are no further appeals?  Also, Hartford does pay into the general fund, it doesn't look like their payment is allocated to Harford claimants only.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

All Local Councils have signed letters of intent that are, among other things, contingent
on acceptable resolution of the Plan’s treatment of Chartered Organizations
. As of now, the
Local Councils have not confirmed whether they are satisfied with the Plan’s current treatment
of Chartered Organizations. Accordingly, whether any individual Local Council will make the
contribution on Exhibit C is currently uncertain. If, for any reason, Local Councils do not
collectively contribute $500 million in money and property, then no Local Council will be a
Protected Party, and all may still be sued by survivors.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

@TheRealDK on behalf of the moderators, welcome to scouter.com

As one of the tens of thousands you and the other 8 men represent so vigorously and tirelessly, let me say “THANK YOU!”, I got your back and have tried to do that on this forum. I am most grateful to be able to say this publicly. When I witnessed Jim Stang with his hair on fire and his tongue sharpened to a fine point during the last hearing, I had little doubt there was a bonfire blazing behind him in the form of a cohort of 9! I’m glad to hear you confirm it and look forward to tonight’s town hall and the increased frequency you mentioned. 

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The FCR/Coalition has proposed a new revised letter to claimants.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9e6bec25-c79e-44c4-9305-119362586c17_6441.pdf

The FCR/Coalition was forced to change the language about "billions" to "over a billion".

  • Before: It will result in meaningful distributions of billions of dollars in value to survivors following confirmation, without lengthy, expensive and harmful litigation of individual abuse claims.
  • After: It will result in meaningful distributions of over a billion dollars in value (likely more) to survivors following confirmation, without lengthy, expensive and harmful litigation of individual abuse claims.

They have now dropped a reference to victims getting "full" recovery

Quote

In fact, if the Bankruptcy Court does not find that the Plan will provide you a fair and reasonable (i.e., full) recovery, the Plan cannot be confirmed.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Thanks 1
  • 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...