Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I'm 99% sure it was 40% which was mentioned in a TCC townhall.  That is why I was shocked the Hartford settlement was so low.  It really cuts the legs out of any real major payment to claimants.  I wish BSA didn't have that initial Hartford settlement.  Without that, I think this deal would be much closer to finalizing.

To quote Cheech & Chong, “my head is like a sieve,” but I believe it was that percentage limited to a specific timeframe, not all claims. 

  • Upvote 1
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

25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

At one point, and I may be wrong here so bear with me, I believe I read that Hartford's insurance accounted/covered 40% of the claims.

Doing some math 40% of X = $787 million.

X = $1,967,500,000/82500 or around $24,000 per average claim.

No where near the tens or hundreds of billions being discussed. But let's assume that I mis-remembered and it Hartford wasn't 40% of claims but 4%

Doing some math 4% of X = $787 million.

X = $10,967,500,000/82500 or around $240,000 per average claim.

 

 

Since the plan would exclude SOL claimants, a different denominator is needed.  With the 40% equating to $1,967,500,000 but using the number of non-SOL claimants (I remember it being 59,000 SOL so non-SOL = 82,500 - 59,000 = 23,500) which would mean an average per non-SOL claimant of $1,967,500/23,500 = $83,723 per nonSOL claimants.  My memory on the number of SOL cases may be in error but the concept does not change.

Edited by vol_scouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I'm 99% sure it was 40% which was mentioned in a TCC townhall.  That is why I was shocked the Hartford settlement was so low.  It really cuts the legs out of any real major payment to claimants.  I wish BSA didn't have that initial Hartford settlement.  Without that, I think this deal would be much closer to finalizing.

Thanks, this is what I found.

1) August 16  https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 8-16-21.pdf

Stang: "Century has approximately 40 percent of the exposure on the abuse claims..."

2) May 13 https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 5-13-21.pdf

Stang: "Hartford is one of the two largest insurance carriers with the largest insurance risk in the case. And the BSA negotiated a settlement with Hartford, by which Hartford pays 650 million dollars on account of no less than 24,000 claims, and it, in effect, tears up the insurance policy, in exchange for 650 million dollars."

So, putting this together

1) Century is "approximately 40 percent of exposure"

2) Hartford is "no less than 24,000 claims...24,000 claims...And so, it’s at least 24,000" (24000/82500 claims = 29%)

So let's say Hartford is 30% to account for the "at least" and "no less than".

30% of X = $787 million.

X = $2,623,333,333

40% of $2,623,333,333 (Century's 40% per Stang in August 16) = $1,049,333,333.2

In other words, if Century and other insurers demand the deal that Hartford got (and why wouldn't they?) TOTAL to ALL victims from insurance on average is

$2,623,333,333/82500 = $31,798

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is TCC's position on time-barred claims?  Is it possible that 5.0 is rejected and the SOL "grey" scaling changes in a future proposal?  I filed my own proof, but did research a couple of the larger law firms.  They were actively recruiting clients in time-barred states, which is not logical if the awards are reduced to little or nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a follow-up, and a reminder of what the TCC plan may look like, this was what they filed in early April.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf

  1. They value the claims at over $103 billion. This is before any efforts at addressing statutes of limitations, which they do NOT do at all. BSA values the claims at $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion when adjusted for statutes of limitations and other things.
  2. While BSA came up with its valuation for each Local Council and its assets, so did the TCC. While the BSA's valuations were filed (and in Plan 5.0 remain: LCs $1,870,754,935 in unrestricted assets, $1,432,473,515 in restricted), we never saw the TCC's. Suffice to say that TCC's definition of "Restricted" differed greatly from BSAs. So too did the TCC's understanding of how many camps the LCs needed and money they needed to function. Right now the BSA's Plan 5.0 calls for $500 million from LCs. Expect the TCC to ask for double or triple that, if not more.
  3. The TCC had been prepared to move/make demands on Summit Bechtel and the other HA bases. Expect that to come back into a TCC plan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/868464_1.pdf
  4. The FCR, TCC, and Coalition had started a process to have the total value of all claims estimated by the U.S. District Court. That got paused due to the RSA but that may come back. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/883734_1.pdf

Etc.

 

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

As a follow-up, and a reminder of what the TCC plan may look like, this was what they filed in early April.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf

  1. They value the claims at over $103 billion. This is before any efforts at addressing statutes of limitations, which they do NOT do at all. BSA values the claims at $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion when adjusted for statutes of limitations and other things.
  2. While BSA came up with its valuation for each Local Council and its assets, so did the TCC. While the BSA's valuations were filed (and in Plan 5.0 remain: LCs $1,870,754,935 in unrestricted assets, $1,432,473,515 in restricted), we never saw the TCC's. Suffice to say that TCC's definition of "Restricted" differed greatly from BSAs. So too did the TCC's understanding of how many camps the LCs needed and money they needed to function. Right now the BSA's Plan 5.0 calls for $500 million from LCs. Expect the TCC to ask for double or triple that, if not more.
  3. The TCC had been prepared to move/make demands on Summit Bechtel and the other HA bases. Expect that to come back into a TCC plan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/868464_1.pdf
  4. The FCR, TCC, and Coalition had started a process to have the total value of all claims estimated by the U.S. District Court. That got paused due to the RSA but that may come back. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/883734_1.pdf

Etc.

 

This could be devastating to the local councils and to the BSA.  Should these predictions occur, I predict the collapse of Scouting in a few years.

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

This could be devastating to the local councils and to the BSA.  Should these predictions occur, I predict the collapse of Scouting in a few years.

TCC has consistently had the message that they want the BSA to survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

TCC has consistently had the message that they want the BSA to survive.

No, the TCC has said that officially it is "agnostic" regarding the future of the BSA.  What it wants is what's best for victims.  If that means the BSA survives because it has restructured its finances and operations appropriately, or not, is secondary to the goal of getting the maximum compensation for victims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

They were actively recruiting clients in time-barred states, which is not logical if the awards are reduced to little or nothing.

This one puzzling aspect of the bankruptcy:  time barred claims being given any consideration whatsoever.

I don't believe that the bankruptcy judge can make time-barred claims viable again.  If the SOL has expired, time-barred claims are barred, and that is it, that is, at least as a matter of judicial compulsion.

Having no legal interest in the bankruptcy proceeding, they do not have standing, and should have no vote. (Hence, my belief that claims should be vetted for viability prior to any vote.)

Insurance companies won't support any payment by them to time-barred claimants.  Insurance companies rely heavily on statues of limitation and whether the policy coverage type is claims-made or occurrence, and set premiums accordingly.  To change policy terms after losses have been incurred (AFTER the result is known-vision is 20/20 in hindsight) and thereby obligate the insurers to pay claims which could never have been in the the formula for setting premiums and policy levels in the first place, is an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, in my opinion .  Judge:  "You agreed to build a 300 foot chain link fence for $5,000, but now that your customer is in bankruptcy, I am ordering you to build a 1,400 foot fence for the same money.  Welcome to bankruptcy court."

 

On the other hand, from a marketing perspective from National's point of view, National wants to appear that it is working to "equitably compensate survivors" it includes time-barred claimants in its Plan.  "Hey, look- National is fighting for us-we are included in the Plan!"

Well, there are several aspects to this:

1.  National does not care how many claimants end up receiving an award.  National's interest is in how much does National have to pay.  Whether paid to one claimant, or 82,500 is of no concern to National.

2.  The cynical view is that time-barred claimants were included in National's Plan and given a vote in order to constitute a huge block of voters who, having already learned that their claims are worthless in state court because they are time-barred, and thereby having nothing to lose, would vote to approve National's very "National favorable Plan," and coincidently very favorable to the time-barred-claimants who could turn worthless claims into cash with their vote.   "We National, are really bothered by how long this is taking-let every claimant vote so we can get on with getting away from bankruptcy and let the Settlement folks sort it out later."

As I have posted before, the law works on two principles:  compulsion and agreement.  The "grease" between them is threat (that is, leverage-"pressures" to my way of thinking. There can be many pressures and counter-pressures present at any given time, and each party involved can have their own evaluation of the degree of threat or pressure and counter-pressure.).

 

So, there are two aspects to including time-barred claimants in the Plan.

 

1.  On a compulsion theory:  States that have not reopened their statutes of limitation, just might do so in the future-perhaps in response to the proceedings in National's bankruptcy.  Claimants in those states would suddenly have valid, non-time-barred claims.  I don't think that the insurers would be liable for those claims. I just don't see how a bankruptcy court can rewrite contractual obligations. That statutes of limitation were opened in any state amazes me.

2.  On an agreement theory:  Time-barred claimants are included in the Plan to receive a payment, on the hope that non-time barred claimants will approve (by agreement) the payment of some award to time-barred claimants.  This still assumes that time-barred claimants have no vote, for the voting claimants will be lowering their recovery by agreeing that time-barred claimants receive a settlement.

Letting someone who has no legal rights in a matter vote and control the outcome, particularly when they can vote a benefit to themselves with no legally enforceable right to compel payment of that benefit to themselves is legally absurd.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

That statutes of limitation were opened in any state amazes me.

That is the whole reason why we are here in bankruptcy.  If the SOL said you only have 2 years to file a civil claim like a slip and fall, BSA would never had to enter bankruptcy.   
 

Several states opened look back windows and expanded their SOLs which flooded BSA with lawsuits (or was about to) and BSA went into bankruptcy proactively.  
 

One could argue that if only National BSA was being covered then those with outside SOL claims should be considered under the Future Claimants then I could agree.  Where I see an issue is when COs and LCs are being covered.  At that point, everyone should get a vote as those groups are not bankrupt but looking to get out of current and future claims.   
 

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

That is the whole reason why we are here in bankruptcy.  If the SOL said you only have 2 years to file a civil claim like a slip and fall, BSA would never had to enter bankruptcy.

Right and the idea in the state legislatures was that victims should, retroactively, have their day in court. Opponents (BSA and Catholic dioceses) indicated that was unfair to them and jeopardized their missions.

The response in many states was “too bad” and the windows to file suit were reopened, often unanimous votes in the legislatures (who is going to vote to NOT let victims of sexual abuse have their day in court? What are you, a pro-sex molesting monster?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Where I see an issue is when COs and LCs are being covered.  At that point, everyone should get a vote as those groups are not bankrupt but looking to get out of current and future claims.  

This an important point, often ignored. My right to potentially pursue the three LCs implicated in my claim, all currently closed states, is being preempted. The proactive and peremptory nature of this case is one of the immoralities of it. 

Way back when, we argued here about whether this case would even register in the outside world, including broader implications with law enforcement and legislatures. I said it would. Many said not. We have seen what the MI AG is doing, which I think will be replicated. I have been contacted by three different people about working on SoL reform. I am involved in a conversation with one legislator later today. This game is afoot.

44 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right and the idea in the state legislatures was that victims should, retroactively, have their day in court. Opponents (BSA and Catholic dioceses) indicated that was unfair to them and jeopardized their missions.

I have been looking into whether these sexual abuse bankruptcies are a destructive force to organizations going through them or a winnowing, pruning. Many have reported internally that it has, in fact, been “healthy” and they have emerged better for it, though their pockets lighter. You’ll never read that in the WSJ, USA Today or LA Times, however.

44 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The response in many states was “too bad” and the windows to file suit were reopened, often unanimous votes in the legislatures (who is going to vote to NOT let victims of sexual abuse have their day in court? What are you, a pro-sex molesting monster?)

Again, this game is truly afoot. Watch for it to continue. If you attended, reviewed or read the transcript of the last TCC town hall, the chairman, John Humphries, said something powerful. Namely, his life has a new focus after serving on the TCC; advocating for victims, which includes SoL reform. He doesn’t seem like the sort of man who noodles around with things for fun. He is not alone among the cohort of BSA child sexual abuse survivors who will march out of here and to the state houses.

Oh, yeah. On this note, I would be remiss if I failed to mention MYCVA’s Funny Pink Hat Brigade. Recruiting season begins soon. Watch for the sign up table at your local mall, grocery store, coffee shop and, etc. He’ll be the one in the ill-fitting pink head covering of a yet undisclosed nature and form. Not sure why a guy who is a self-confessed “bad hat head” starts such a group, but I admire him even more for it. 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this will be the open door to see the mysterious BRG Dashboards. That’s all I want for Christmas. Strike that. Halloween. It would be the best sweet treat and it’s closer.

“The Tort Claimants’ Committee investigated the assets and liabilities of all 251 local councils. That analysis shows the local councils have the ability to fairly compensate survivors without jeopardizing the Scouting mission,” said John Humphrey, Chairman of the TCC. “As Chairman of the TCC, I cannot in good conscience support the release of 251 local councils who were on the front lines of decades of childhood sexual abuse. Local councils should not be allowed to keep billions of dollars of cash, investments, and real estate that is far in excess of what they need for Scouting while leaving survivors woefully undercompensated.”

https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/business-sexual-abuse-boy-scouts-of-america-446f83be78992b4b29ba38a30391a2e3

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...