Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[Eagle1993]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Which is an interesting grouping in that it left out the FCR and the insurance companies. Put aside the FCR for a second (they may have just not been worked up enough to either support or actively oppose a 1 week delay), the fact that the insurers are not "consenting" could be a BSA/TCC/Coalition/LC deal. That looks an awful lot like a global deal.

I saw that as well.   I'll also say Kosnoff is not screaming on Twitter about this ... more like they are apparently close to a deal.

I won't believe it until I see it ... but perhaps the BSA leadership is correct at the NAM, they are close to a deal.  BSA really doesn't have an alternate as they are burning through cash right now.  Mediation may be the only way to close this out quickly.  We will see....

[Muttsy]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Note the parties to the mediation today

1. the Debtors/BSA
2. the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils
3. the Tort Claimants’ Committee
4. the Future Claimants’ Representative
5. the Coalition
6. the Insurance Companies
7. and one of the Chartered Organizations.

ONE of the COs. There are only really two CO groupings that matter a hill of beans in this: LDS and the Methodists.

Here's the kicker: the Methodists are appearing as an Ad Hoc Committee, not as a "Chartered Organization" but as a grouping thereof.

Reading between the lines: the "Chartered Organization" was LDS.

And as for who "consented" to the delay

1. Debtors/BSA
2. Tort Claimants’ Committee
3. the Coalition
4. Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils

Which is an interesting grouping in that it left out the FCR and the insurance companies. Put aside the FCR for a second (they may have just not been worked up enough to either support or actively oppose a 1 week delay), the fact that the insurers are not "consenting" could be a BSA/TCC/Coalition/LC deal. That looks an awful lot like a global deal.

Or I am reading way too much into this.

Good observations. It would be a global deal in the sense that the unresolved assets like insurance, CO's  and LC's not participating all get thrown in to a post-confirmation trust. That is basically the TCC/Coalition/FCR Plan. BSA apparently signed on or is close. Century/Chubb will be dealt with down the road by the post confirmation Trust. BSA gets to emerge. 

Question I have is how much is BSA and participating LC's kicking in to the pot right now? None of the non-participating entities will get channelled and can take their chances in the tort system. 

 

That's my wild guess. 

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Remember, attorneys hate the courtroom because of the unpredictability.

Right. I mean, as I said the big issue tomorrow was whether or not the judge would agree to extending exclusivity.

Eventually exclusivity was going to end (20 months from February 2020 = October 2021) so the TCC was going to get its chance here along with the Coalition and FCR. But it was also clear the TCC already had a plan or the outlines of one and promised the judge they could have a plan in 2 weeks. I'm sure the BSA got a copy of either those broad outlines or perhaps even a draft plan with a note attached that read "This is coming in October. Deal now, or deal with this later."

Of course if the judge DID decided to drop exclusivity tomorrow because, let's face it, it is clear as day BSA's plan(s) had NO chance of getting 66.7%, that speeds up the timeline. BSA likely doesn't want what TCC/Coalition/FCR have in mind. Therefore, deal now vs. deal with that later.

[johnsch322]

37 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Question I have is how much is BSA and participating LC's kicking in to the pot right now

Still not sure how it could work without all of the LC's contributing from the get go.  

[johnsch322]

 

 

 

Kosnoff Law

 

@SexAbuseAttys

 

BSA and the Survivors Representatives apparently close to a deal. Agreed request for continuance of tomorrow's hearing. Stay tuned. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e97b2e05-5d1f-47ac-a4e2-541eb269322c_5219.pdf…

 

2:20 PM · Jun 3, 2021·Twitter Web App

[CynicalScouter]

36 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Still not sure how it could work without all of the LC's contributing from the get go.  

I'm trying to work it out, too. So, let's say the victim had a finger cut off and that was valued at $1 million of which, based on the financial matrix, BSA would be responsible for $12000 (again, there's only so much money BSA has here and $1 billion divided by 82500 claims = around $12000).

Scenario #1: Cooperating LC

BSA ponies up its $1 billion money into the Settlement fund and the LC $1 million to pay for all prior claims within its council boundaries (let's use the TCC plan: the LC puts in everything into the Settlement fund except 2 years expenses and 1 camp; it is forced to sell 1 camp and the council offices).

The BSA leaves bankruptcy and the claim against BSA is channeled into the settlement fund.

The LC has the claim against it channeled into the Settlement fund

The victim waits 1-3 years until the insurance company payout is decided to determine who pays what (e.g. the BSA contribution to that $1 million claim is $12000, that particular LC's contribution is $3000, and the remaining $985,000 comes out of insurance).

Scenario #2: Noncooperating LC, lookback window in place

BSA ponies up its money into the Settlement fund. The LC does not. The BSA leaves bankruptcy. The victim the immediately files suit against the LC for a $1 million judgement. The case then wanders through the courts, the insurance company for the LC is joined as a party to the lawsuit (victim vs. Local Council), and it takes years. Eventually the victim wins a judgement for $1 million MINUS what BSA already paid against the claim ($12000), leaving the LC and its insurer on the hook for $988,000.

I think this would work? It just means that the victim would have to go into the tort/state courts and spend the next several years in litigation.

Scenario #3: Noncooperating LC, no lookback window

BSA ponies up its money into the Settlement fund. The LC does not. The BSA leaves bankruptcy. The victim receives whatever BSA pays out ($12000). The insurance companies likely will NOT be forced to pay for a claim that isn't even actionable in that Local Council's state courts and neither does the LC.

Edited June 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'm trying to work it out, too. So, let's say the victim had a finger cut off and that was valued at $1 million of which, based on the financial matrix, BSA would be responsible for $12000 (again, there's only so much money BSA has here and $1 billion divided by 82500 claims = around $12000).

Scenario #1: Cooperating LC

BSA ponies up its $1 billion money into the Settlement fund and the LC $1 million to pay for all prior claims within its council boundaries (let's use the TCC plan: the LC puts in everything into the Settlement fund except 2 years expenses and 1 camp; it is forced to sell 1 camp and the council offices).

The BSA leaves bankruptcy and the claim against BSA is channeled into the settlement fund.

The LC has the claim against it channeled into the Settlement fund

The victim waits 1-3 years until the insurance company payout is decided to determine who pays what (e.g. the BSA contribution to that $1 million claim is $12000, that particular LC's contribution is $3000, and the remaining $985,000 comes out of insurance).

Scenario #2: Noncooperating LC, lookback window in place

BSA ponies up its money into the Settlement fund. The LC does not. The BSA leaves bankruptcy. The victim the immediately files suit against the LC for a $1 million judgement. The case then wanders through the courts, the insurance company for the LC is joined as a party to the lawsuit (victim vs. Local Council), and it takes years. Eventually the victim wins a judgement for $1 million MINUS what BSA already paid against the claim ($12000), leaving the LC and its insurer on the hook for $988,000.

I think this would work? It just means that the victim would have to go into the tort/state courts and spend the next several years in litigation.

Scenario #3: Noncooperating LC, no lookback window

BSA ponies up its money into the Settlement fund. The LC does not. The BSA leaves bankruptcy. The victim receives whatever BSA pays out ($12000). The insurance companies likely will NOT be forced to pay for a claim that isn't even actionable in that Local Council's state courts and neither does the LC.

So if your claim falls into scenario #3 would you vote yes? What about the 10's of thousands of claims that named no local council....how would you vote then?  Still needs to be enough votes.

[1980Scouter]

I find it hard to believe if a deal is close it can include LC's. I bet it is just national and deal with insurance and LC later.  There are so many variables in the LC matrix. 

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

So if your claim falls into scenario #3 would you vote yes? What about the 10's of thousands of claims that named no local council....how would you vote then?

Yeah, I absolutely agree. I am trying to figure this out. It's hard. All I can think is that

1) If I was a victim in a state with no lookback window TODAY, would I vote to let BSA and the LCs out TODAY on the chance that TOMORROW my state legislature approves a lookback window? Expected value: is $12,000 guaranteed TODAY more or less valuable than a possible $1 million payoff down the road that involves hoping the legislature creates a lookback window AND filing a lawsuit AND going through months if not years of civil litigation AND hoping I can convince a jury?

2) Those without a named council will eventually have to be attributed to a council.

Now, conversely, I can see councils refusing to pay into any settlement that serves to float/bankroll other councils.

What I was told by my Key-3 is that there was a formula, likely VERY close to the one that BSA/White Case used to create its abuse matrix, that looked at councils INDIVIDUALLY and, like TCC, balanced the need for the council to survive.

So, for example, the amount Michigan Crossroads has to pay into any settlement (1,550 claims of which only 58 are not time-barred, $48.3 million in net assets) is going to look at LOT different than what Three Rivers pays (153 claims of which only 1 is not time-barred, $4 million in net assets).

If I'm Michigan Crossroads Council I may decide to climb onto the plan. If I'm Three Rivers Council (again, only $4 million in assets) I may decide to roll the dice and take my chances.

Edited June 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

11 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I find it hard to believe if a deal is close it can include LC's. I bet it is just national and deal with insurance and LC later.  There are so many variables in the LC matrix. 

That is just the cram down plan and why would the the TCC approve it.  They would be way better off waiting for the exclusivity to end.  Also some councils have sold off assets and sent letters to their members stating the money is going to the settlement.

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I find it hard to believe if a deal is close it can include LC's.

It may or it may only include select LCs. Try to keep in mind that the LCs were already told by the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils, based on a formula they/BSA had come up with, how much each LC was going to have to pay for any settlement. They've had that number since January or February.

Several councils had already sold or announced the sale of camps to that end.

The TCC also sent its formula to each LC to tell it exactly what the TCC felt each council should pay for any settlement.

We don't know either number, we I will bet the BSA/Ad Hoc Committee number was really low and the TCC number really high.

In the last 2-3 weeks the LCs leadership/Key-3 have had those numbers.

1. If the Ad Hoc Committee's number was close to the TCCs number, then the council may have decided to take the TCC deal. Smaller councils with fewer assets may have been attracted to this.
2. If the numbers far apart, the LC may have just decided to suck it up and come close to the TCC number.
3. If the numbers are far apart, the LC may have just decided to tell TCC go to heck, opted out, and dared the individual claimants/victims to sue in state court.

So we come out of this with the BSA and some/many/most LCs voting to opt into a settlement trust, and the rest operating out there on their own.

[johnsch322]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yeah, I absolutely agree. I am trying to figure this out. It's hard. All I can think is that

1) If I was a victim in a state with no lookback window TODAY, would I vote to let BSA and the LCs out TODAY on the chance that TOMORROW my state legislature approves a lookback window? Expected value: is $12,000 guaranteed TODAY more or less valuable than a possible $1 million payoff down the road that involves hoping the legislature creates a lookback window AND filing a lawsuit AND going through months if not years of civil litigation AND hoping I can convince a jury?

2) Those without a named council will eventually have to be attributed to a council.

Now, conversely, I can see councils refusing to pay into any settlement that serves to float/bankroll other councils.

What I was told by my Key-3 is that there was a formula, likely VERY close to the one that BSA/White Case used to create its abuse matrix, that looked at councils INDIVIDUALLY and, like TCC, balanced the need for the council to survive.

So, for example, the amount Michigan Crossroads has to pay into any settlement (1,550 claims of which only 58 are not time-barred, $48.3 million in net assets) is going to look at LOT different than what Three Rivers pays (153 claims of which only 1 is not time-barred, $4 million in net assets).

If I'm Michigan Crossroads Council I may decide to climb onto the plan. If I'm Three Rivers Council (again, only $4 million in assets) I may decide to roll the dice and take my chances.

One reason I see every LC signing (especially those with look back windows) is the cost of litigation. If BSA has no skin in the game will they contribute to an LC's legal costs....I d not think so.  Of course I am sure that those LC's might have the ability to pay in later. Most likely before the approval of a plan.

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Also some councils have sold off assets and sent letters to their members stating the money is going to the settlement.

Yes, but as I noted elsewhere, the Ad Hoc Local Councils Committee was running around telling LCs this spring they only needed to pay in XX in order to participate in the settlement. Then TCC showed up and put out its number which I will bet all the money in the world was MUCH, MUCH higher than the number that the Ad Hoc Committee came up with.

If I just spent the last 3-4 months thinking I only need to sell 1 out of 3 camps to get out of this and now the TCC says I have to sell 2 out of 3 camps PLUS the council offices, I might decide that's not a plan I'm willing to accept.

Edited June 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Official amended agenda for June 11; just repeats the June 4 agenda and adds last minute filed documents to the list of relevant docs.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/36b5aeaa-b5f3-4756-8e1f-e4344d476e67_5221.pdf

[CynicalScouter]

Random internet claim "Bsa released details on its payment restructuring....parties asked time to review and counter"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/411673765684707/permalink/1782215741963829?comment_id=1782241981961205