Chapter 11 announced - Part 13 - Post District Court Affirmation

[Eagle1970 210]

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'd take odds in Vegas against that, but then again ... What does "wrap up" mean ?  All legal challenges closed ?  First checks sent out ?   Checks outside the $3500 quick settlement sent ?  Complete wrap-up feels like it is years and years out.  I'm thinking 10 years plus before the trust is fully distributed.  Maybe next year for some checks.

While I understand it will take years to deal with non-settling insurers and other contributors, if they get out the initial payments that would be amazing.

[mrjohns2 577]

At what milestone does the org “leave bankruptcy”? To me that is when this wrapped up. 

[clbkbx 74]

13 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Sure, but time will tell what percentage claims will be paid in the end.  As well, it's important not to cherry-pick statements as the objectors did.  The TCC didn't provide any expert testimony/evidence related to valuation at the plan confirmation hearing for one simple reason, the BSA, which the TCC and Coalition joined as plan supporters, provided it.   The Judge also cited the expert opinion of Bates as convincing so that move was the right one.

That's a good point about the TCC supporting this version plan. I also wanted to note that, at this point, I'd like it to go into effect.

You're also right about history fans: my recollection is that the TCC wailed that the settlements were "historically low" and then started to support the plan after the YPT sections were changed. That's always been a disconnect in my mind. [You've also heard me wail that youth protection had to be negotiated doesn't sit well.]

I don't think what I posted is cherry picking. Both judges leaned on the Bates testimony. It's referenced repeatedly, presented as "payment in full" and then typically qualified, like so: 

"Payment in full... uncontroverted evidence" to "no clear error" that it will "likely provide for payment in full" in three sentences.

I've posted this analysis before but... if you take the at least reasonable claims (no invalid votes, has to show a council) from the last vote (approx 43,000 claims), arrange them by claimed class, multiply by the matrix base (no scaling up or down) and weight by the SOL... the amount is $9.4B. Happy to share this or hear any feedback on the method. 

The Plan says that the "Trust Distribution Procedures’ Claims Matrix, Base Matrix Values, Maximum Matrix Values, and Scaling Factors.., are appropriate and provide for a fair and equitable settlement of Abuse Claims based on the evidentiary record offered to the Bankruptcy Court as required..."

So the Trustee is going to have to find 75+% fraudulent claims, scale down every claim or (as I think most likely) not pay any where near the full value of the claims. I hope I'm wrong!

[Eagle1993 2160]

2 hours ago, clbkbx said:

That's a good point about the TCC supporting this version plan. I also wanted to note that, at this point, I'd like it to go into effect.

You're also right about history fans: my recollection is that the TCC wailed that the settlements were "historically low" and then started to support the plan after the YPT sections were changed. That's always been a disconnect in my mind. [You've also heard me wail that youth protection had to be negotiated doesn't sit well.]

I don't think what I posted is cherry picking. Both judges leaned on the Bates testimony. It's referenced repeatedly, presented as "payment in full" and then typically qualified, like so: 

"Payment in full... uncontroverted evidence" to "no clear error" that it will "likely provide for payment in full" in three sentences.

I've posted this analysis before but... if you take the at least reasonable claims (no invalid votes, has to show a council) from the last vote (approx 43,000 claims), arrange them by claimed class, multiply by the matrix base (no scaling up or down) and weight by the SOL... the amount is $9.4B. Happy to share this or hear any feedback on the method. 

The Plan says that the "Trust Distribution Procedures’ Claims Matrix, Base Matrix Values, Maximum Matrix Values, and Scaling Factors.., are appropriate and provide for a fair and equitable settlement of Abuse Claims based on the evidentiary record offered to the Bankruptcy Court as required..."

So the Trustee is going to have to find 75+% fraudulent claims, scale down every claim or (as I think most likely) not pay any where near the full value of the claims. I hope I'm wrong!

There was no expert who testified to any value above Bates.  Note that the insurers have no motivation to claim a higher value.  That leaves a few claimants who could likely not afford the experts and analysis to prove Bates wrong.  

I believe in addition to YPT the TCC also got the agreement for the alternative path.  That path technically allows full payment of any claim removing the limits of the matrix. 

I think it is too early to know if it is fully funded.  However, I'd recommend getting in early as possible.

[MYCVAStory 687]

6 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Not to pin you down or anything.... But are you indicating there is a possibility this could wrap up this year??

As another said, it depends on "wrap-up."  The immediate concern for Survivors and the BSA is getting the plan to the point where it "goes effective."  Then, the BSA  follows the plan monetary and non-monetary agreements, Trust moves ahead, entities start paying the money they owe, and legal action against non-settling insurers may commence.  So the plan becoming effective can happen in a couple months, maybe less, but a LOT has to do with what the objectors do to prevent that.  Full wrap-up, as in when the money is all gone and Trust dissolved.....well, remember that there will still be a "future Claims representative" for a very long time, and lawsuits against non-settling insurers complete with all that legal machination....it'll be years and years.

[MYCVAStory 687]

5 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

While I understand it will take years to deal with non-settling insurers and other contributors, if they get out the initial payments that would be amazing.

There will be significant work on a questionnaire to allow for claim processing and award designation.  This will include input from the STAC and experts in mass tort claims as well as experts in assessing sexual abuse.  The claim form was a first step.  The next step will be to "get in line."  Even the $3500 payment will require some degree of review to make sure there's enough credibility.  There's a whole group of people out there who try to jump on every class action process just to see if no one's checking too closely.  The $3500 requirement won't be extensive but it'll also require/remind claimants that it's a crime to lie about this.  I know....potentially asking liars to say they aren't lying.  Bottom line is that Survivors should be getting prepared to at some point make their best case and provide as much support as possible on the questionnaire.  This is their "day in court."

[MYCVAStory 687]

3 hours ago, clbkbx said:

"Payment in full... uncontroverted evidence" to "no clear error" that it will "likely provide for payment in full" in three sentences.

I've posted this analysis before but... if you take the at least reasonable claims (no invalid votes, has to show a council) from the last vote (approx 43,000 claims), arrange them by claimed class, multiply by the matrix base (no scaling up or down) and weight by the SOL... the amount is $9.4B. Happy to share this or hear any feedback on the method. 

The Plan says that the "Trust Distribution Procedures’ Claims Matrix, Base Matrix Values, Maximum Matrix Values, and Scaling Factors.., are appropriate and provide for a fair and equitable settlement of Abuse Claims based on the evidentiary record offered to the Bankruptcy Court as required..."

So the Trustee is going to have to find 75+% fraudulent claims, scale down every claim or (as I think most likely) not pay any where near the full value of the claims. I hope I'm wrong!

It's going to be fascinating to see how this shakes out.  A lot of focus, and rightfully so, is on the numerator; how much money is needed NOW.  Well, the other side of this is the denominator; the number of Survivors that complete the questionnaire to get an award and the number that are credible.  Some number less than 82,500 will be the denominator.  How many have given up or won't go to the hassle of completing the questionnaire?  How many will provide a convincing argument to support their claim?  What will appropriate support be in the eyes of the Trust?  Surely this will be more than listing a Council.  How many more States will reform their SOLs before the process is over?  That too impacts distributions.  All of that is why the Trust will hire an economist to work on the forecasting and financial advisors to make the money stretch the furthest.

[MYCVAStory 687]

28 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think it is too early to know if it is fully funded.  However, I'd recommend getting in early as possible.

The plan calls for a "first in, first out" FIFO process.  BUT, that won't impact the amount of your award or how much you get.  The Trust will start processing claims and making some portion of award with an eye to making sure enough is available over time.  At the same time they'll be negotiating/suing non-settling insurers for additional monies.  Survivors can expect multiple distributions of checks as monies are available.  Take a look at the Madoff Bankruptcy.  While extreme, that Trust is up to its 14th distribution to some creditors: https://www.madofftrustee.com/distributions-16.html

Let's hope the Trust has the right transparency and communication so Survivors have the right expectations as time passes.

[MYCVAStory 687]

Just saw this Town Hall notice on the TCC website.  Interesting, the TCC and Coalition doing it together.  Some day this is going to make for a really boring book or a drama-filled miniseries.

TOWN HALL: The Official Committee of Tort Claimants’ and the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice will hold a Town Hall Meeting on April 4, 2023 at 8:00 p.m. (ET). 

Zoom: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/85281284960  (no registration required)

One-Tap Mobile: +16694449171,,85281284960#

Dial-In by Telephone: 1-888-788-009 (toll-free), Webinar ID:  852 8128 4960. 
If asked for a “Participant ID,” just press #

 

[clbkbx 74]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

That leaves a few claimants who could likely not afford the experts and analysis to prove Bates wrong.  

I believe in addition to YPT the TCC also got the agreement for the alternative path.  That path technically allows full payment of any claim removing the limits of the matrix. 

I think it is too early to know if it is fully funded. 

Thank you for the clarification on the alternative path, I thought that was earlier in the process. 

The snippet above reads to me as: it's fully funded but... uhhh.... there is also potential additional funding.

The Matrix amounts wrt known claims, the various expert estimates, the funding amounts, etc. just don't square with each other. 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by clbkbx
Fixed a typo.

[RobertCalifornia 24]

At one time, there was a calculator to help determine a payout based on state and degree of abuse. Not sure where it was....but I’m still waiting on how much and when!

[PaleRider 53]

Robert California

www.bsarestructering.org

[MYCVAStory 687]

14 hours ago, PaleRider said:

www.bsarestructering.org

I think this is the specific link: https://www.bsarestructuring.org/estimated-potential-payment-calculator/

BUT.....BUT.....this does NOT take into account any scaling factors that would increase or decrease awards and assumes that all claims can be funded at 100%.  It's merely a simplified way to look at the matrix and apply it to open and closed States.  I fear that this calculator and others that law firms have posted are setting expectations that are best guesses or worse, at best.  The only way to truly get an idea of a claim "value" is to do a deep dive into Article VII (I believe), the TDP portion,  in the plan.  There's also a 50-minute video on the TCC site discussing this.

[PaleRider 53]

They both go to the same site.

[MYCVAStory 687]

40 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

They both go to the same site.

Interesting.  www.bsarestructering.org goes to a "site not found" message for me.  Regardless, neither are very accurate! 🙂