Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 8 - TCC Term Sheet & Plan Confirmation


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Not sure if this post suggests this article, which is spot on by the way from my perspective, is reason for censue.  If so, I too would say not right, but in stronger verbiage.  Almost from the beginning some, shall we say questionable legal persons, those for whom I was smacked for my descriptions, have played fast and  loose with this.  The real victims, or now survivors, have been summarily used as pawns to instigate a "big payday" for grifters and those certain oily legal gurus, while the real victims/survivors have been left in the mud.  Again, just my view.  

First one needs to look at the authors disclosure :

[Full disclosure: our son was an Eagle Scout. He went through Cub Scouts, then Boy Scouts, in Maryland before finishing his Eagle Scout project (planning and executing a central plaza with flagpole at a school for disabled children in Gaithersburg) and in the process encountered over a dozen scout leaders. All were exemplary human beings. I never heard of any Scout abused in any way. 

He is most certainly biased especially when he states:

But since the bankruptcy, these 1700-odd claims (which already seemed like a lot to me) 

Everyone needs to remember that Child Sexual Abuse (especially males) victims never tell anyone about what happened to them and if they do it is later in life.

Second it was the BSA who entered the Bankruptcy voluntarily it must have been known to their lawyers what the ramifications of doing so could be.  

Third I refuse to be left in the mud.  I believe that by the time this is all over (several years from now) we will find satisfaction.  The initial value of the settlement was 1.1 Billion I believe and when it gets shot down by the appeals court how big will the settlement grow to?  All thanks to those ":oily legal gurus".

Edited by johnsch322
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 388
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have been reading this blog for months and finally decided to express how I feel about this plan.  I have always and continue to believe there are thousands of fraudulent sexual abuse claims filed i

My bet? We’ll never know. They will quietly sneak off the trail via the $3500 spur and go their merry way. There will be valid survivor claimants that exit stage left, as well, not wanting to deal wit

Not really true. I never bought a ticket I was a victim I had no choice.

Posted Images

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

First one needs to look at the authors disclosure :

[Full disclosure: our son was an Eagle Scout. He went through Cub Scouts, then Boy Scouts, in Maryland before finishing his Eagle Scout project (planning and executing a central plaza with flagpole at a school for disabled children in Gaithersburg) and in the process encountered over a dozen scout leaders. All were exemplary human beings. I never heard of any Scout abused in any way. 

He is most certainly biased especially when he states:

But since the bankruptcy, these 1700-odd claims (which already seemed like a lot to me) 

Everyone needs to remember that Child Sexual Abuse (especially males) victims never tell anyone about what happened to them and if they do it is later in life.

Second it was the BSA who entered the Bankruptcy voluntarily it must have been known to their lawyers what the ramifications of doing so could be.  

Third I refuse to be left in the mud.  I believe that by the time this is all over (several years from now) we will find satisfaction.  The initial value of the settlement was 1.1 Billion I believe and when it gets shot down by the appeals court how big will the settlement grow to?  All thanks to those ":oily legal gurus".

What do you mean by 1700 odd claims.

Can you explain that please??

      Thanks

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

How can this continue to happen relatively unchecked without both full disclosure of aggregator funding and advertising methods, and frontend vetting and validation of e-signatures?

Hi @ThenNow, I think it's because bankruptcy court is an imperfect venue for tort claims but companies prefer it as they pay pennies on the dollar against their liabilities. The insurers pay lip service to potential fraud but are also getting rid of their liabilities for a defined amount. The entities with the assets don't really care if there's fraud, that's not what they are trying to manage. The entities that are aggregating/advertising and not vetting/validating are trying to maximize the number of claimants under their umbrella. 

Collectively, they attempt to manage it by giving a modest payment off-ramp (expedited distribution) that can be used for real abuse cases but also should capture most (all?) of the fraudulent claims. To have a distribution from the TDP or IR processes, there are mechanisms to mitigate fraud.

Quote

Any dilution of the claimant pool by nefarious means damages survivors all over again.

I'm working this through because I think this is a great point. Let's say 10% of all claims are fraudulent (no idea if this is the case but it doesn't seem unreasonable and maybe biased high) and they all take the expedited distribution, that would be 1% of the $2.7B amount. Totally gross and unfair but: for a survivor, what's 1% when you're paying 33.3-40% to counsel? and for the debtor, what's 1% when you're paying billions less than your liabilities?

So I'm not sure the unsavory parts will ever end with bankruptcy as the best (from the debtors' standpoint) option. The best that can be done is to manage it. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

1700 odd claims

The author the Forbes article writes "since the bankruptcy, these 1700-odd claims (which already seemed like a lot to me) exploded to over 100,000"

@johnsch322was highlighting the biases of the author. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

There's a lot of information in that pdf and the excel sheet here: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a3fa6777-ba03-42a0-a73b-5c9a90600938_2022-03-11_FINAL_REDACTED_Supplemental_LC_and_CO_Voting_Report.xlsx

Here is the breakdown by class of listed allegations for both the 56,536 counted votes and the 49,223 counted but did-not-elect-the-expedited-distribution: (fyi, I'm not writing out the types... if you can't figure them out, they are in the excel sheet).

522042293_ScreenShot2022-03-12at6_50_48AM.png.f5f82ccc68e6cf65de6560129eba0d20.png

Caveat: the data is a tiny bit messy... I think there is one more claim with a counted vote than was included in the 56,536 number and only briefly looking at the SOL column, about 4% of my open state council claims were shown as barred.

If there's any analysis someone would like done, I can try to figure it out. The columns I think are most interesting are: expedited distribution selection, abuse allegation, SOL (barred or not barred) and local council.

I'm going to try to assign open, grey, closed to the councils but that will take some time. I think it would inform the answer to the question of whether the open vs closed SOL condition affected voting choice. 

Edited by clbkbx
Removed information about expedited distribution until I can check it further.
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How underfunded is the TDP? That's a question I have had and with the provided excel sheet, I tried to make an educated guess. This includes: all non-rejected claims and all claims with a council listed (i.e., if no LC was listed, it's not included)... this is somewhere around 43,000 claims. 

The basis is $3,500 for all who selected the expedited distribution and the base matrix value with no scaling factors except the mid-point of the different SOL scaling factors for all others. 

As you can see below, the total amount (with the major assumptions above) is about $9.5B and, of course, we all know the Trust amount of $2.7B (current, assuming no additional money from the non-settling entities). So, it seems reasonable to me that we should assume in the neighborhood of 1/3 of any claim can be paid from the Trust (really, less if we think there will be more than 43,000 paid claims). Maybe that will go up meaningfully if other entities settle, but pretty sure there's not another $6B out there. 

569973381_ScreenShot2022-03-12at3_26_14PM.thumb.png.ddb866b85542e65e1cb42e4f764909bd.png

If anyone would like the excel sheet that I modified with states/SOL scaling factors, I can set up a dropbox link. Also, I'm open to feedback on the methodology. 

BTW, the SOL limitations closes off about $6B more in claims. 

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

As you can see below, the total amount (with the major assumptions above) is about $9.5B and, of course, we all know the Trust amount of $2.7B (current, assuming no additional money from the non-settling entities). So, it seems reasonable to me that we should assume in the neighborhood of 1/3 of any claim can be paid from the Trust (really, less if we think there will be more than 43,000 paid claims).

We can't be premature.   The settlement could look a lot different IF one is approved.  Regardless, yet to be determined is the expense related to operating the trust (more lawyers and claim review staff) AND the number of claimants that will be "non-responsive."  I know it's hard to believe but in every mass tort case there are those claimants who submit a claim and then just plain disappear.  Given the number who didn't vote in this case, and the fleet of attorneys trying to get them to, it's reasonable to assume that the number of Survivors receiving awards will be less than the number who submitted claims.   Keep your fingers crossed regardless.

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

The settlement could look a lot different IF one is approved.

For sure. I should have been more clear that it is a guess based on the current plan under consideration and using the voting tallies from the recent vote. Both of those major items can change.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An early tell could be her rulings on Objectors evidentiary objections to Whitman and Griggs testimony in their recently filed declarations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...