MYCVAStory

I see what you did there. 😉

Could easily be years plural. There are several "Non-Settling Insurers." They will be taken to court and if the Trust is successful, or an agreement is reached before-hand, they'll be forced to pay. For the insurers this is always a Time Value of Money exercise. The longer they hold onto their money the more they can make off of it. At some point that risk or expense from their own insurers becomes a money losing proposition. Ever file a claim for auto insurance that gets contested? The insurer knows that the longer they can delay things the greater the possibility you'll settle for far less than originally. That's why any time you hear someone who owes Survivors moneyt say "The most important thing is getting money into Survivors' hands" you should be wary of a lowball offer. For the Trust the same dynamic is at play. How long and how much money should it spend chasing X dollars? Regardless, bringing non-settling insurers AND Charter Organizations to settlement will be the ongoing business of the trust and will result in a series of payments to valid claims. BUT....and teh BIG ASTERISK...."Your award may not result in you receiving that actual amount of money." Survivors need to be cautioned that at some point they'll learn what their award is "valued" but the actual amount received will be a function of the total amount of money the Trust can generate....minus expenses. So yes....could be multiple disbursements over a lengthy timeline. I cringe thinking of the impact on some Survivors, and myself included, when a check for $37.86 hits my mailbox. Insult, meet injury.

Guam can disrupt this now, and later via appeal. For them it has to be ALL about leverage. The BSA wants a plan approved. Century wants the BSA bill over with. Tanc's appearance wasn't coincidental. The BSA needs to make those two parties happy. How does it do that? Gets Century to set aside an amount to be paid to Guam as its bankruptcy slogs along? Century offers to pay contribute less because it still has Guam exposure? Then what? Will the Survivor groups (TCC and Coalition) accept less money for all Survivors or more money for one group? What if they split on that. It's all about leverage and nothing increases leverage more than the 11th hour.

And the question on every Survivor's mind...."Judge, you had EVERYONE there. They flew in to town to get things done and get this finished. Why didn't you send them out into a meeting room, or tell them to hammer it out overnight, and finalize it?" Bonus question to the BSA... "How do you feel knowing that the issue EVERYONE knew about, Guam and Century, wasn't addressed before today and Guam stated NO ONE reached out to her? The result being travel expenses for your professionals and the TCC's as well as continued expenses to get this done in the next six days?" It will get done. It will cost the BSA more. It's headed to District Court review with appeals teed up by insurers and Guam. In the mean time, let's see if Century decides any sort of resolution isn't acceptable and pulls or lowers its offer because it will have continued exposure with Guam. Then what dominoes fall? Then who says "No DICE, NOT the deal we agreed to" The 800-pound Gorilla is still sitting by patiently waiting to be addressed. It wasn't today. Should be an interesting weekend for the BSA's attorneys as they scramble to make this work.

Apologies if someone already shared this, and excuse my home tongue. But, this is an important article to read in order to understand the next possible "spanner thrown in the works." https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-exposes-court-split-on-liability-releases Everyone cross their fingers that this isn't headed for the Supreme Court. You think the process to this point has taken time.... Sorry.

That's really inaccurate. You make it sound like the TCC, a group of nine Survivors acting as volunteers, is acting in its own financial interest. Or, their Counsel is manipulating them. That doesn't look like a group that would fall for that. The exculpatory agreement IS a normal part of bankruptcy proceedings for ALL professionals representing parties so that when it's over it's over for them. It became an issue in this case because of the email that was sent out in error. This was a mistake that resulted in PSZJ paying something like a million to the BSA's attorneys to reimburse the fees to address it and another million to the Trust and to aid youth protection; and remember that this is in addition to the 10% the firm is contributing to the Trust. That's something the BSA's own attorneys ARE NOT doing. Did PSZJ work to be included with other professionals to be a part of the exculpation? Of course. Did the nine on the TCC let this happen because of some sort of "financial interest?" That's an unfair accusation and if it were the case PSZJ wouldn't have paid the fine it did. I hate defending the people who have made money off of this bankruptcy when my "award" still seems like a pipe dream. I get the frustration out there. But so too will I defend the Survivors who have spent 2+ years trying to help.

I'm as frustrated as the next Survivor at the pace and lack of information but this seems unfair. What are they supposed to do, complain about how much time it took for the judge to issue her opinion, and just pi$$ her off? What purpose does that serve? Have a Town Hall to discuss issues they're trying to settle where they agree and disagree with the BSA? Uh, mediation confidentiality is still in play AND regardless, doing so would feed into the hands of the "certain insurers" and other objectors by allowing them to point out where disagreement is present even within the plan proponents. I'd expect more to be said after the 9/1 Confirmation hearing and Judge's published decision. Then, when there's something concrete, and her opinion was NOT, I'd expect them to be in a position to say "Okay, here's what happens next." Until then, this grinds on and I'd guess a lot of sausage is being made behind the scenes leading up to the confirmation hearing.

That's a link to shorten the notice period. Here's the link to the ammendments: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6907113e-9265-4b5f-9d7d-e9e61e182818_10188a.pdf

The link: Nothing anyone following this probably didn't already know or expect. Confirmation of complexity. Welcome to day 99.

This is a historic case. Historic in its amount if abuse and historic in the complexity of finances, third-parties, and insurance involvement. The wait is especially excruciating for Survivors, most of whom have been waiting for decades for some degree of resolution, who after 2+ years of a bankruptcy process, hope daily for good news. If her ruling is lengthy and complicated, well-considered and logical, we'll understand why it's taken so long. If it's short and head-scratching or widely panned by those experienced in bankruptcy law, and ripe for appeal, we'll all shake our heads at the length of this wait. I know a Survivor in tough shape physically. I think about him every day. I hope for his sake the wait is coming to an end. Another day has passed....but another day closer to a ruling I suppose. For some though those days are limited.

The pot would be MUCH smaller at this point. It's hard to see Century and The Hartford contributing much, if at all, if they still had exposure at the LC level. These two insurers NEVER want to hear about the BSA again. A comprehensive bankruptcy addressing all of their expositor is their goal too.

I have no connection to the Coalition. Coalition firms have not billed the BSA, nor have their legal professionals. They were allowed to be a mediation party but must get the Judges approval for any reimbursement of expenses because they made a "substantial contribution" to getting a plan confirmed. The BSA said that was okay with them and the TCC said it wasn't taking a stand because to do so would effectively be an endorsement of that and would not put itself in a position to endorse fees for professionals other than their own. Yes, the judge can confirm a plan and NOT approve payment to mediation parties or require separate proceedings for that. If she denies payment the Coalition firms would presumably be on the hook for paying the fees. This is an interesting issue since the Judge seemed skeptical at times of the whole Coalition organization and role of its hired professionals. Remember too that at least on one occasion a Coalition attorney tried to engage in debate and the Judge shut that down because he had representation. "Bribery"....well, it's part of the "Deal making" in Bankruptcy. A shame but "if you want your plan confirmed and the votes of our clients we'll support it if you support our fees for helping out" is the viewpoint basically. Welcome to Day 91 of waiting.

Reach..throw....row...go! We've reached the point where a ruling seems way overdue. Hey Judge, throw us a bone and make up your mind. However, there may not be the gentle stream to merrily row down for her as she writes her opinion. Looks like it's time for me to go cross another day off on the calendar. 🙂

Little. There are some issues that are anything but "cut and dry." Bankruptcy Judges know their decisions will be reviewed, and potentially appealed. This one has insurers with appeals ready to tee up. She's taking a long time to be thorough, wrestle with issues, and given the time it's taking possibly dealing with portions she will approve and portions she will reject.

I'll leave arguments over whether the rates charged are appropriate or not. I find that lots of arguments can be made. "Compared to X, Y is outrageous." "Well, we pay our professional athletes at the top of their game this so why shouldn't professionals at the top of theirs be paid a lot?" Lots of justifications are available and for me, and perhaps a product of abuse, is working hard to determine what I have some sort of control over before I ramp up my outrage to the white-hot level. Just offering this though: 1. There is a fee examiner in this bankruptcy. He is required to go through all bills and ask for clarification. 2. Some of the largest bills, potentially THE largest, are yet to come. These are the bills from all the depositions prior to the confirmation hearing AND then the weeks of confirmation. All those attorneys and every professional on Zoom watching confirmation were billing. 3. I remember reading once something to the effect of "Bankruptcy is expensive. It should be. Debtors need to know that it's going to cost a lot so that it's a deterrent to declaring bankruptcy." Twisted logic but logic nonetheless. I'd also like to offer a prediction, something I don't do often unless I'm pretty sure of it. In this case I just have a hunch. IF this bankruptcy plan is confirmed in some fashion there will be a lot of people seeing it as some sort of "resolution." That may or may not be the case and people who aren't Survivors will be on both sides; Survivors too I imagine. But still, the whole thing will be abstract because resolution is an abstract concept. But then, there will be an echo to the result of this stage. That echo will come back in the form of awards. Money is tangible. WHEN Survivors start seeing awards THEN they and especially the general public will truly understand the result and impact of the bankruptcy. We're making judgements about fees because they are tangible and we can weigh them against services performed. If checks start hitting mailboxes that will happen again and there is a real chance that Survivors AND ESPECIALLY others will look at all of this through a tangible lens that might cast a new light on ALL of it.

In case you haven't taken a look, while a bit dated and not reflective of recent property sales, here's a link to the extensive Local Council financial analyses the TCC had its financial professionals BRG Group complete: https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis They're educational.

Thank you to the Survivors who voted to reject the first plan and THANK YOU to those that voted to approve it and were then patient while the BSA was pulled back into mediation to strengthen YP as part of a second plan. While I might not be happy where we are, I know it's a better place for any child going into scouting in the future.

Bankruptcy is a lot of things. Simple isn't one of them. Proclaiming absolutes doesn't make it so. This case is historic in many ways. In the level of abuse and the complexity of the relationship between the debtor, LC's insurers and others. History, the worst sort on many fronts, is being made here. The past might be a small glimpse into what happens but it is in no way an absolute guide. Simple? None of this is. If it were, the judge would have rendered a decision already.

Well....no on a lot of counts. First, and most importantly, a non-profit CANNOT be "forced" into an involuntary Chapter 7 proceeding. Second, and again, any order is moot when agreements are made to expedite payment to some at lower amounts to include others. Regardless, the BSA isn't going to be "forced" into bankruptcy and will do everything to avoid it. As well, its creditors and local Councils will do the same. Getting "priority" doesn't help if that gets you a property like the Summit where $400 million has been poured into it and it has been appraised at $40 million. A LOT of this has been covered in the past and I too would encourage you to go back and check a lot of the threads over the past two years. LOTS of excellent analysis by many.

Not necessarily at all. In bankruptcy EVERYTHING is negotiable. There are a whole host of factors that impact relief. In some cases those "earlier" in line may agree to less quicker and avoid lengthy and expensive appeal. There are a number of websites that cover this.

ALL secured creditors, of which pension recipients are one, would get priority over unsecured creditors. Survivors are unsecured creditors. As well, remember that JP Morgan and any other lenders are secured. So, the mortgage that the BSA took out against the Philmont Property for example places JP Morgan in line ahead of Survivors. This is why the "Just liquidate the BSA" argument makes sense emotionally for some but certainly not financially. All of that said, any legal proceedings re Chapter 7 wouldn't fund secured creditors at 100% either. They'd just be battling over assets ahead of others.

For some context, her comment at the first hearing I believe (or close to it) was that the "....mission of the Boy Scouts is of paramount importance." While this was widely seen by Survivors as overly "pro-scouts" in discussion with experienced bankruptcy professionals it was viewed as reflective of being supportive of the debtor voluntarily entering bankruptcy. As well, the judge at that point had no idea of the enormity of this bankruptcy and number of claimants that would come forward. My observation is that over time she demonstrated the impartiality that Survivors expected. While her ruling will be the ultimate arbiter on that her decisions over two years in my mind have not been slanted one way in an egregious way.

Agreed and why the Trust administration and communication are so important. Survivors must have "trust" in a Trust to ensure a level playing field and an understanding of the administration of claims. It'll be interesting.

SORRY FOR THE LENGTH BUT..... Actually, the scaling factors are in the Trust Distribution Procedures. From: ARTICLE VIII CLAIMS MATRIX AND SCALING FACTORS the portion found below the abuse matrix is: B. Scaling Factors. After the Settlement Trustee has assigned an Allowed Abuse Claim to one of the six tiers in the Claims Matrix, the Settlement Trustee will utilize the Scaling Factors described below to determine the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for each Allowed Abuse Claim. The Scaling Factors are based on evidence regarding the BSA’s and other putative Protected Parties’ historical abuse settlements, litigation outcomes, and other evidence supporting the Scaling Factors. Each Allowed Abuse Claim will be evaluated for each factor by the Settlement Trustee through his or her review of the evidence obtained through the relevant Proof of Claim, Trust Claim Submission and any related or follow-up materials, interviews or examinations, as well as materials obtained by the Settlement Trust or the Direct Abuse Claimant through the Document Obligations. These scaling factors can increase or decrease the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for an Allowed Abuse Claim depending on the severity of the facts underlying the Claim. By default, the value of each scaling factor is one (1), meaning that in the absence of the application of the scaling factor, the Base Matrix Value assigned to a Claim is not affected by that factor. In contrast, if the Settlement Trustee determines that a particular scaling factor as applied to a given Allowed Abuse Claim is 1.5, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim will be increased by 50%, the result of multiplying the Base Matrix Value of the Allowed Abuse Claim by 1.5. The combined effect of all scaling factors is determined by multiplying the scaling factors together then multiplying the result by the Base Matrix Value of the Allowed Abuse Claim. See Article VIII.F for illustrative example. C. Aggravating Scaling Factors. The Settlement Trustee may assign upward Scaling Factors to each Allowed Abuse Claim based on the following categories: (i) Nature of Abuse and Circumstances. To account for particularly severe Abuse or aggravating circumstances, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 1.5 to each Allowed Abuse Claim. The hypothetical base case scenario for this scaling factor would involve a single incident of Abuse with a single perpetrator with such perpetrator having accessed the victim as an employee or volunteer within BSA-sponsored scouting. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Value in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. By way of example, aggravating factors that can give rise to a higher scaling factor include the following factors: a. Extended duration and/or frequency of the Abuse; b. Exploitation of the Abuse Claimant for child pornography; c. Coercion or threat or use of force or violence, stalking; and d. Multiple perpetrators involved in sexual misconduct. (ii) Abuser Profile. To account for the alleged abuser’s profile, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 2.0 to an Allowed Abuse Claim. This factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario involving a perpetrator as to whom there is no other known allegations of Abuse. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Value in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. An upward Scaling Factor may be applied for this category as follows (the Settlement Trustee may only apply the scaling factor of the single highest applicable category listed below): a. 1.25 if the abuser was accused by at least one (1) other alleged victim of Abuse; b. 1.5 if the abuser was accused by five (5) or more other alleged victims of Abuse; c. 2.0 if the abuser was accused by ten (10) or more other alleged victims of Abuse; and d. 1.25 to 2.0 if there is evidence that the Protected Party knew or should have known (i) the abuser had previously committed or may commit Abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the survivor from that danger, or (ii) of the prior Abuse or the foreseeability of the risk of Abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the survivor from that danger. (iii) Impact of the Abuse. To account for the impact of the alleged Abuse on the Abuse Claimant’s mental health, physical health, inter-personal relationships, vocational capacity or success, academic capacity or success, and whether the alleged Abuse at issue resulted in legal difficulties for the Abuse Claimant, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 1.5. This factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario of a victim of Abuse who suffered the typical level of Abuse-related distress within the tier to which the Allowed Abuse Claim was assigned. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Values in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. The Settlement Trustee will consider, along with any and all other relevant factors, whether the Abuse at issue manifested or otherwise led the Abuse Claimant to experience or engage in behaviors resulting from: a. Mental Health Issues: This includes anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, addiction, embarrassment, fear, flashbacks, nightmares, sleep issues, sleep disturbances, exaggerated startle response, boundary issues, self-destructive behaviors, guilt, grief, homophobia, hostility, humiliation, anger, isolation, hollowness, regret, shame, isolation, sexual addiction, sexual problems, sexual identity Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 170 of 459 18 confusion, low self-esteem or self-image, bitterness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and hospitalization or receipt of treatment for any of the foregoing. b. Physical Health Issues: This includes physical manifestations of emotional distress, gastrointestinal issues, headaches, high blood pressure, physical manifestations of anxiety, erectile dysfunction, heart palpitations, sexually-transmitted diseases, physical damage caused by acts of Abuse, reproductive damage, self-cutting, other self-injurious behavior, and hospitalization or receipt of treatment for any of the foregoing. c. Interpersonal Relationships: This includes problems with authority figures, hypervigilance, sexual problems, marital difficulties, problems with intimacy, lack of trust, isolation, betrayal, impaired relations, secrecy, social discreditation and isolation, damage to family relationships, and fear of children or parenting. d. Vocational Capacity: This includes under- and un-employment, difficulty with authority figures, difficulty changing and maintaining employment, feelings of unworthiness, or guilt related to financial success. e. Academic Capacity: This includes school behavior problems. f. Legal Difficulties: This includes criminal difficulties, bankruptcy, and fraud. E. Mitigating Scaling Factors. The Settlement Trustee may assign a mitigating Scaling Factor in the range of 0 to 1.0 except as specifically provided below to each Allowed Abuse Claim to eliminate or decrease the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for such Claim. Each mitigating factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario of a timely asserted Abuse Claim with supporting evidence that demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, Abuse by a perpetrator that accessed the victim as an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, as a registered Scout or as a participant in Scouting within BSA-sponsored Scouting. If statute of limitations revival legislation occurs in a particular jurisdiction, the Settlement Trustee may modify the applicable Scaling Factor (as described below) relevant thereto on a go-forward basis and determine Proposed Allowed Claim Amounts for Abuse Claims in such jurisdiction thereafter based on such modified Scaling Factor. Included in the hypothetical base case scenario is that the applicable period under a statute of limitations or repose for timely asserting such Abuse Claim against any potentially responsible party will not have passed. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Values in the Claims Matrix tiers and would not receive a decrease on account of these factors. Such factors may include the following: (i) Absence of Protected Party Relationship or Presence of a Responsible Party that Is Not a Protected Party. a. Familial Relationship. A Protected Party’s responsibility for a perpetrator may be factually or legally attenuated or mitigated where the perpetrator also had a familial relationship with the Abuse Claimant. Familial Abuse— Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 171 of 459 19 even if the perpetrator was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, and the Abuse occurred in connection with BSA-related Scouting—should result in a significant reduction of the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount. b. Other Non-Scouting Relationship. A Protected Party’s responsibility for a perpetrator may be factually or legally attenuated or mitigated where the perpetrator also maintained a non-familial relationship with the Abuse Claimant through a separate affiliation, such as a school, or a religious organization, even if the perpetrator was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, or the Abuse occurred in settings where a Protected Party did not have the ability or responsibility to exercise control. Factors to consider include how close the relationship was between the perpetrator and the victim outside of their Scouting-related relationship, whether Abuse occurred and the extent of such Abuse outside of their Scouting relationship, and applicable law related to apportionment of liability. In such event, the Settlement Trustee shall determine and apply a mitigating Scaling Factor that accounts for such other relationship and the related Abuse. By way of example, if the Settlement Trustee determines after evaluation of an Allowed Abuse Claim and application of all of the other Scaling Factors that the perpetrator, who was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party for BSA-related Scouting, also was the primary teacher (at a non-Protected Party entity or institution) of the Abuse Claimant outside of BSA-related Scouting, and if numerous incidents of Abuse occurred outside of Scouting before one incident of BSA-related Scouting Abuse occurred, the Settlement Trustee shall apply a mitigating Scaling Factor as a material reduction of the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount. c. Other Responsible Non-Protected Party. The Abuse Claimant may have a cause of action under applicable law for a portion of his or her Direct Abuse Claim against a responsible entity, such as a Chartered Organization, that is not a Protected Party. By way of example, if the Settlement Trustee determines after evaluation of a Submitted Abuse Claim that (i) a Chartered Organization that is not a Protected Party is responsible under applicable law for a portion of the liability and (ii) a Protected Party(ies) are not also liable for the same portion of the liability) (taking into account the relevant jurisdiction’s prevailing law on apportionment of damages), the Settlement Trustee shall apply a final Scaling Factor to account for such non-Protected Party’s portion of the liability. (ii) Other Settlements, Awards, Contributions, or Limitations. The Settlement Trustee may consider any further limitations on the Abuse Claimant’s recovery in the tort system. The Settlement Trustee also should consider the amounts of any settlements or awards already received by the Abuse Claimant from other, non-Protected Party sources as well as agreed and reasonably likely to be received contributions from other, non-Protected Party sources that are related to the Abuse. By way of example, the Settlement Trustee should assign an appropriate Scaling Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 172 of 459 20 Factor to Allowed Abuse Claims capped by charitable immunity under the laws of the jurisdiction where the Abuse occurred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where an Abuse Claimant has obtained a recovery based on the independent liability of a third party for separate instances of Abuse that occurred without connection to Scouting activities, or on the Non-Scouting portion of a Mixed Claim, no mitigating factor or reduction in value will be applied based on that recovery. (iii) Statute of Limitations or Repose. If the evidence provided by the Abuse Claimant or otherwise obtained by the Settlement Trustee results in the Settlement Trustee concluding that the subject Direct Abuse Claim could be dismissed or denied in the tort system as to all Protected Parties against whom the Direct Abuse Claim was timely submitted (as set forth in Articles IV.A) due to the passage of a statute of limitations or a statute of repose, the Settlement Trustee shall apply an appropriate Scaling Factor based on the ranges set forth in Schedule 1 hereof; provided, however, the Settlement Trustee will weigh the strength of any relevant evidence submitted by the Abuse Claimant to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled or deemed timely under applicable law, and may apply a higher Scaling Factor if such evidence demonstrates to the Settlement Trustee that tolling or a finding of timeliness would be appropriate under applicable state law. (iv) Absence of a Putative Defendant. If the Direct Abuse Claim could be diminished because such claim was not timely submitted against BSA or another Protected Party (as set forth in Articles IV.A) (a “Missing Party”), such that in a suit in the tort system, such Direct Abuse Claim would be burdened by an “empty chair” defense due to the absence of a Missing Party(ies), the Settlement Trustee shall apply a mitigating Scaling Factor to account for a Missing Party’s absence. By way of example, where a timely submitted Direct Abuse Claim was not timely submitted against BSA (i.e., the Abuse Claimant failed to timely file a Chapter 11 POC) but was only timely submitted against the Local Council and/or another Protected Party (as set forth in Articles IV.A(ii) and (iii)), such absence of the BSA due to BSA’s discharge would be the basis for such a substantial reduction. Any Direct Abuse Claim that is reduced due to the absence of the BSA under this mitigating Scaling Factor shall only be payable, as reduced, from Settlement Trust Assets contributed by the applicable Local Council or Chartered Organization, pro rata with all other Direct Abuse entitled to share in the Settlement Trust Assets contributed by such Local Council or Chartered Organization. F. Allowed Abuse Claim Calculus. After the Settlement Trustee assigns an Allowed Abuse Claim to a Claims Matrix tier and determines the appropriate Scaling Factors that apply to the Claim, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim is the product of the Base Matrix Value of the Claim and the Scaling Factors applied to the Claim. In no event can an Allowed Abuse Claim’s Proposed Allowed Claim Amount (or Allowed Claim Amount) exceed the Maximum Matrix Value for the Claim’s assigned Claims Matrix tier. By way of example, if an Allowed Abuse Claim is determined by the Settlement Trustee to be a tier 1 claim (Base Matrix Value of $600,000) with a Scaling Factor of 1.5 for the nature and circumstances of the abuse, and a mitigating Scaling Factor of 0.75, and no other Scaling Factors, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim would be $675,000, calculated as $600,000 x 1.5 x 0.75 = Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 173 of 459 21 $675,000. As a further example, if, in addition to the above Scaling Factors, the same Allowed Abuse Claim had an additional aggravating Scaling Factor of 2.0 on account of the abuser’s profile, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim would be $1,350,000 (calculated as $600,000 x 1.5 x .75 x 2.0).

Yes, it has. But with no parties in opposition objecting to that, and they haven't, the judge isn't going to become a financial analyst.