Eagle1993

Well ... everything is relative. If you take a look at some bankruptcies, you are talking 5+ years of litigation depending on how much fight you want to put up (on both sides). We are only approaching year 2. This is a very complex case.

I believe this was discussed during a townhall or even on one of our threads here. The strategy the TCC would recommend following based on prior cases (for insurance companies that don’t settle) would be: 1) The settlement trust would take a few of the best legal cases they would have and sue the insurance companies in state court. 2) Insurance companies would likely lose and could lose big (based on their experience in other CSA cases). 3) Negotiations would be ongoing as more cases would be brought. 4) Eventually there would be a much higher negotiated settlement. The number floating around for Hartford is $8B in liabilities. I doubt they give that with strong language and table pounding. However, if they see the trust is willing to sue them in state court they may be willing to significantly increase their offer. Right now, there isn’t much incentive to maximize their offer as the Coalition and BSA are looking for a speedy deal.

This is very tough to predict. As you say, those claimants who watch this closely will likely reject the plan. I have a hard time believing there will be even 66% approval let alone the 75 - 90% needed. The recent Talc bankruptcy had nearly everyone on board (TCC, FCR, debtors, bunch of lawfirms, etc.) and even then they barely got past the 75% mark. From what I can tell... BSA is claiming the Coalition represents 80% of the claimants (or about 65,600). However, 15,000 of those are AIS. Those claimants will be getting a letter from Tim Kosnoff that says vote no. I have a hard time including them in the Coalition. So, really, the Coalition is closer to 50,600 claimants. Lets say best case for the BSA/Coalition ... 90% of the 50,600 vote yes (and everyone votes). That would be 45,540 yes votes. Now, the rest will be getting letters from the TCC & their lawyer(s) saying vote No. Lets say only 10% of those vote yes. That would yield another 3,190 votes. Assuming everyone votes and the motivation to vote is the same (I don't buy that as I expect no votes are more motivated) the result is 48,730 yes votes and 33,770 no votes or or 59% approval. My guess ... that is likely the ceiling for the yes votes at this time. I think that there is likely a range of 45 - 60% approval that wouldn't shock me. I would be surprised if it <45% ... if that is the case, the Coalition should be removed as a mediation partner and trustee as they have no clue what their claimants want. If >60% I would also be surprised, not shocked. However, I expect the current plan won't go forward unless the vote approaches 85 - 90%. At that point, I think the TCC is the one to probably reassess and determine what remaining issues they would need to see to support the plan. Regardless of the results of the vote, it will help the BSA, TCC and other parties narrow in on who needs to move more ... so every vote counts.

Note that I moved a few posts to the other thread to keep this one a bit leaner.

Boy Scout abuse survivor recounts horror for first time, says settlement is ‘massive step forward’ https://nypost.com/2021/10/19/boy-scout-abuse-survivor-recounts-horror-for-first-time/ Boy Scouts' settlement plan unjust, Arkansas victims say https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/oct/20/boy-scouts-settlement-plan-unjust-victims-say/

My father was an industrial arts teacher for decades. Back in the 1980s, instead of sending kids who were interested in trades to his class, they sent the kids who couldn't behave. Over time, unfortunately, most kids who could behave were shuffled into college prep classes. As those changes occurred, schools began to stop investing in that equipment. Long story short ... many schools may not actually have that equipment. Perhaps the labor shortage in the trades/truck drivers/etc. is an indication of our failures over the last 20-30 years to encourage the trades as much as we encourage generic college degrees.

Interesting that the Coalition is leading with a claimant whose primary focus is BSA survival. Is the Coalition’s primary goal BSA’s survival or compensation for victims?

Kosnoff is reporting his letter to clients (I believe that would be all AIS ... about 15,000) has gone out. He is advocating to vote down the plan.

Actually, if I remember correctly, there was a time before the RSA where the case was headed back to a hearing. BSA asked for a delay to work on mediation, the TCC objected but the Coalition concurred. I think that was the first sign of a break between the TCC/Coalition. I expect if it was the TCC alone, they wouldn't have signed onto the RSA. Again, these are just guesses watching the info I have. I think the Hartford deal was a mistake. It came in April of this year, I believe. Around the same time the council contribution was increased to $425M. Before that date, councils I think were going to contribute $300M. I doubt the TCC will support the RSA with Hartford removed any longer. I would expect they will reject the TCJC as well plus look for more from LCs (and do the LC by LC release just like COs). So, when the BSA knew they had to pump up the offer, they got $125M more from LCs and a headline number of $650M from Hartford. Yes, a bad deal, but just like increasing the immediate payout from $1,500 to $3,500, it was about getting enough attorneys onboard to get a vote to hopefully get the plan approved.

That is true. BSA went all in with Hartford to get this latest deal.

At first I was baffled, but I think it is clearer now. I think there was 0% chance any plan would go to a vote with an LC payment of just 20% of their assets without more, immediate, money coming in. So, where to go for more money? Hartford. Harford probably realizes they owe billions but are willing to settle quickly for much less if given the chance. That allowed BSA to offer a bigger immediate number, allowing enough law firms to get their quick profit and move the plan to a vote. If the BSA didn't get the Hartford deal, I really think they faced two options. Greatly increase the LC contribution (probably by $600M+) or go with a BSA only exit. Now BSA messed up the first deal with Hartford by allowing it to be tied to other insurance settlements. That was a mistake that was corrected.

This is not true. The Coalition is asking for $15 - $18M directly from the BSA. It is in the plan. The judge is questioning this and will decide at the hearing. This is on top of the 40% most will charge. Kosnoff is not in the Coalition and will not get that $15M to $18M even if the judge approved it. In the plan document, there is a chart that shows the Coalition payment. As it increases per month, it takes money away from the claimant settlement. When I have more time I’ll post that. Edit: The chart can be found here. Per the plan, the BSA direct payment to the trust in terms of cash is really a calculation based on: BSA's Unrestricted cash/investments minus BSA's withheld cash (you can see they plan to retain more the longer this takes) Professional Fees ... these are the fees paid to their lawyers, TCC, FCR, Omni, etc. Coalition Fees ... if the judge approves (this is Kosnoff's point) Other Fees... JPM exit fee and several other taxes/fees You can see the Coalition Fees would directly take money from the trust. This is on top of their 40% commission from each of their represented claimants. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

Yes; however, they are only covered Jan 1, 1976 and later (per current plan). Pre 1976 they are not covered. Depending on state, they could be sued directly unless they offer payment that all parties accept. LDS offered $250M for coverage of about 3,000 or so claims (not sure fully which of those are pre 1976). The Coalition and BSA said this is now a framework for other COs; however, I have a hard time seeing the Methodist Church coming up with >$200M. Perhaps they will.

Kosnoff's letter to AIS claimants: Kosnoff Letter to 15,0000 Abused in Scouting Clients Advising them To Vote NO to the BSA Plan (yumpu.com)

If a TCC plan is released today, we will create a Part 7 on this topic. Will it be named the Force Awakens? Probably not, but who knows.

I would recommend saving all corespondents with ER. He may be building up a nice malpractice case if he is putting stuff out through AIS (as I thought AIS was a shell of 3 combined firms. You might get more from his law firm and their insurance than BSA.

Those are different classes. Each class must approve by 2/3. The sex abuse claimants are their own class and must approve by 2/3 for BSA and likely 75 to 90%+ if LCs and COs are included. One addition wrinkle. There is a debate if those that select $3500 immediate payout are the same class as the other CSA claimants. There are others that are arguing those outside SOL are a different class. Those decisions will be made later.

What was your reply?

Has anyone seen an article with actual sex abuse survivors saying to vote for this plan? Between twitter, Facebook, this forum and news articles .... every single claimant I can find wants to reject this plan. Note I still expect a large number of yes votes. I think a lot of people will just listen to their attorneys and the coalition is telling them to vote yes. Plus, all who signed over power of attorney to coalition lawyers will be yes votes (unless they take back that power of attorney). However, the public facing claimants seem to be consistently rejecting the deal. So, if it passes, would the judge consider that as part of her ruling on the plan?

We have the hearing agenda (at least the current version). Basically, from what I can tell, primary battles over discovery requests. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/963b908b-4745-4ddd-8dce-09e0789f8fbd_6635.pdf Moving Insurers vs Eric Green - Discovery BSA vs TCC and many others - Discovery Paul Mones request to no longer be counsel for client Insurance companies vs aggregators vs Coalition (Discovery of aggregators & Coalition fee request) Law firm fighting against insurance companies over subpoena of aggregators

The two Pennsylvania councils are Washington Crossings & Minsi Trails (note that Minsi is one of the members of the Ad Hoc committee). Total Assets Washington Crossings - $6.45M ($5.8M net) ... $3.9M Net Unrestricted Assets Minsi Trails - $16.7M ($15.0M net) .... $6.7M net unrestricted Current Contributions Washington Crossings - $1.39M Minsi Trails - $2.58M Total CSA Liabilities per TCC: Washington Crossings - $11M - $64M Minsi Trails - $16.4M - $93.4M The TCC statement indicates the PA councils should pay about $14M (based on $58M total & $44 from NJ). That would be about 75% of their total net assets or 132% of their total net unrestricted assets ... so my guess is that TCC is calling into question some of their "restrictions".

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 want to know what national thinks of scouter.com just read this article .. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/boy-scouts-confusion-about-girls-in-boy-scouts#.pfl5BBjVE We do our best to allow topics to be discussed without editing/censorship. You will find that this forum is much more open than reddit/bsa or reddit/boyscouts or any BSA facebook group. However, there are times we have to step in to ensure all forum members feel welcome to participate. Since this has been discussed already. CS was given a warning for his excessive downvoting of a member who ended up quitting the site. This member left since CS's downvoting essentially broke his ability to use the forum. This was abusive behavior. After that, CS continued to hound a few other members on our site. So, he earned a second warning and moderated content for 1 week. He can still post, but it does limit his ability a bit. After a week, that will be removed. He is a great forum member, we will welcome him back, but we still need to step in when we feel it is necessary. We ask everyone to follow the scout oath/law. ... friendly, courteous & kind. We understand that is tough with these conversations and we do let them go for a while. However, we also will step in when we feel we have to in order to ensure all feel welcome. If anyone has a concern about any specific post ... click on the 3 dots and select report. We get those, review and can take action if appropriate. I hope this provides some background.

I only caught a small portion but I believe that they said they are going into the mail this week. So I would expect you see this next week.

Going to lock this topic a bit to so some cleaning. Looks like we went way off of the Michael Johnson discussion. I'll move some of the comments and others may just hide (no offense intended). Ok, I moved a couple of posts. Others that were not on topic I hid. I was a bit heavy handed as the forum feeds are filled with this one single topic and many points were just quick back and forth messages that were not necessarily on topic. This isn't bad, it just makes it difficult for those who are attempting to keep updated. If you want, you can spin off new topics in our forums. If you had any posts that disappeared that you think should reappear, just let me know. I can spin them into new topics if you like. Thanks!

Pretty major development in a different Judge Silverstein case. She just tossed out 16,000 votes out of the talc injury bankruptcy as the law firm failed to do any diligence to determine if claimants who they submitted ballots for had been exposed to talc products produced by Imerys. https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1430779/judge-tosses-16k-talc-claimant-votes-in-imerys-ch-11 This is where we may run into issues with the claim aggregators. If discovery shows that claims are coming into question into certain lawfirms and those lawfirms do not confirm the claims are valid ... it could impact voting. "In order for master ballots to work, great trust is placed in the plaintiffs bar," Judge Silverstein said. "With respect to Bevan & Associates, the evidence shows that such trust was not well-placed." Edit: When I think of similarities to BSA ... it really goes to the validity of the mass tort claims. Did those law firms do any sort of confirmation of the claim? Are they simply racking up thousands of claims to put on an excel spreadsheet so they can collect large fees? Silverstein has shown in one case she does not ignore evidence of law firms lack of due diligence, I would expect the same here.