Eagle1970

Thanks for the input. As with everyone else, I check daily to see if there is anything new on the 3rd Circuit. Hopefully it will be very soon. Survivors are aging out by the day.

I had read that if the Third Circuit tosses the Trust, most of us get nothing. I can't find any detail online regarding Kosnoff's plan if it is rejected. Can you elaborate?

I also voted no. As soon as I learned that my claim would be mostly wiped out by the Matrix SoL, there was no point in supporting it. Then, to make matters worse, although I submitted a lot of case law the administrator reduced the claim as much as possible. The matrix had made the state where my abuse occurred a 10-25% factor. You guessed it...she used the 10 and wouldn't begin to adjust it in "reconsideration". The whole thing is a sham.

My claim was reduced by 90%, so I'm not getting much anyway. But all this talk about claims being paid at 100% look like intentionally false statements. 50% funding would have been bad, but at least something. But this may end up at 15%. How could they possibly get it so wrong?

The appeal is pending and ruling due soon. If it is overturned, they will demand back any payments.

I would agree with your premise that the higher value claims pushed their way to the front of the line. Certainly in the Open state cases with attorney representation. The average will very likely drop. It looks like your over/under on eventual percentage to be funded is around 30%. That is more/less the number I had in mind for some time now. It would be great if the trust would be a little more transparent on this issue. Hopefully, once the appeal is cleared, that will happen. I do believe the trust had a better handle on this, all along. To indicate to victims that their cases were worth triple what they will actually receive is another gut punch. They had to have a basic idea of claim value and potential recovery. At this point, I hope they put some real money into the hands of victims, as many are aging to the point it won't much matter.

My favorite part of the oral argument was the statement referring to requiring survivors to pay back what they have received. Last I heard, only a few thousand had received anything. And my total "award" to date is far less than a single Social Security payment.

So for you super educated legal eagles: If the case at hand is dismissed, relative to the 3rd party releases and whatever else may be, can another Chapter 11 be filed? Or does it force a liquidation? Or any other possible paths?

After having my award reduced by 90% I don't have much to lose if it does fail. The administrator could have used a 75% reduction, as the state of my abuse is in the 10-25% SOL factor. But she chose 10% (90% reduction) and was inflexible upon reconsideration. But I am curious. What occurs with survivors if the plan is killed? Liquidation?

Tried to PM you with relevant info that may be of help, but you are set to not receive messages.

I listened to the town hall, last night. Or at least the first half. That was about all I could take. There is no money for release to victims beyond the 1.5% of the allowed amount, which is already paid. The Purdue case has thrown a wrench into the Appeal to the 3rd Circuit of the Bankruptcy Plan. The next step is briefs from both sides of the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on Purdue to the BSA plan. That has clearly slowed down the 3rd circuit. No estimate of when the 3rd circuit will decide on the SC ruling applicability and further no indication on when the 3rd circuit will resolve the BSA case. Then there is no indication on whether THAT will be appealed to the SC. The trustee congratulated the trust on getting so much done in under 1.5 years. However, WE have been waiting nearly 5 years. Just wondering how many will not outlive distribution or if the plan will even be permitted a path forward.

No, you are a realist. Years ago, I was involved in a case in which a similar claim caused a hold in the release of funds. The larger law firms actually had to pay a 7-figure settlement to the objecting firm in order to get the process completed. Guess what? If you are not willing to pay a contingent fee, either represent yourself (good luck) or pay the hourly rate.

I suspect that the claimants in open states will be much more pleased with their 60% than the pro se claimants in closed states, something I can personally speak to.

I represented myself. It was a substantial undertaking. Years of filing forms, meeting deadlines, keeping educated and, oh yeah, filing an appeal. The attorneys will spend far more than $150 to get a case through the process. I've seen objectors clog up settlements before, causing long delays. Claimants knew about the 40%. In an open state, I would have been represented. However, in my pitiful state, there was not enough to pay an attorney 40% and come out with more than chump change. I'm sure that most represented claimants will be glad to have their 60%. I'm not a fan of this action and would not participate in it.

The Trust is aware of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma. The impact of that decision, if any, on the Boy Scouts’ plan of reorganization will be decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the pending appeal from confirmation of that plan in due course. In the meantime, it is business as usual for the Scouting Settlement Trust. My team continues its work evaluating and determining the claims that have been submitted to it. Respectfully, Hon. Barbara J. Houser (Ret.) Trustee Source Link: https://www.scoutingsettlementtrust.com/s/